RE: Dawkins and Determinism
February 18, 2013 at 11:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2013 at 11:23 pm by naimless.)
(February 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm)Question Mark Wrote:(February 18, 2013 at 10:35 pm)naimless Wrote: I defend Dawkins' right to be anti-theist but I don't think it effectively helps end organised religion as it just creates a blowback situation.
What do you think he should do instead of voice his opinion?
Research facts regarding how his opinion effects people. How to communicate more efficiently and effectively with people of different experiences. How different experiences lead people to different opinions. How to appeal to the morality of the majority of religious people who don't agree with harm.
I'm British and I don't agree with the Iraq war and the corrupt banking system. The same way a theist may not agree with the Vatican being full of gold and paedophiles. But I could also be British and not understand the Iraq war or the banking systems in the same detail or experience and therefore, more rationally, support them. Spreading the idea that we need to get rid of the U.K. isn't going to appeal to me, especially without an idea of anything to replace what I get from the U.K.
People who I know that are religious are, for the most part, very charitable and compassionate people. Understanding of human empathy. You can call this manipulation if you want, but I believe the majority of people I meet do want to help each-other from suffering. There is just a cognitive dissonance about how to do this.
I don't see a replacement for this kind of spirituality and empathy in human society. If you get rid of churches you get rid of a lot of corrupt shit. I know, I was brought up in bomb scares from it every day. But you also get rid of soup kitchens, AA meetings, and a lot of empathy and compassion.
You can say, well an atheist can create a soup kitchen, an AA meeting, whatever... how do you communicate to a theist the motivation behind that? How do you achieve the positive reinforcement required? Agreeing that there is a lot out there that we do not understand fundamentally unites us forwards.
Atheism, in its strongest 7/7 sense - which is the perception many people get - is a superficial division. When people like Ricky Gervais mindlessly ridicule agnosticism, Dawkins sits there and accepts it. Would it not be better to educate in the agnosticism of science and the fact that a lot of atheists also hold an agnostic view?
I don't know, but then that is the point. From my experience, though, probably.
