Dawkins and Determinism

[Mister Agenda]

There is a lot of eye for an eye shit going around between theists and atheists alike and it really makes one question the objectivity of atheism. There is clearly a part of the brain that people access a feeling of god with and some need to feel it more than others.

Neither atheism nor theism are doctrines that tell you how to act or think, they are merely differing conclusions about the reality of the existence of a God or gods. It makes no more sense to talk about how 'atheists' should act than it does to talk about how 'theists' should act. How a theist should act depends on their religion, if any. How an atheist should act depends on their moral philosophy, if any. How an atheist or theist actually DOES act is based almost entirely on their personality, no matter what they espouse. There's research indicating a big difference in personality type distributions between atheists and theists, which probably has a lot to do with willingness to hold an unpopular position. Most atheists (in the USA) are introverts for example--more focused on their internal processing-while most theists are extroverts-more focused on their interactions with others.

Dawkins is outspoken because he is an outspoken man. It's not really very mysterious at all.

[naimless]

If he was motivated by truth he would focus on his work as a scientist, not as an atheist. He explained the theory of evolution led to his conclusion of atheism, so why try and spread atheism at all? Just spread the theory of evolution.

Because it doesn't matter if non-scientists are never exposed to the truth? Because you're basically criticizing him for writing books about what he thinks is true, and for some reason you think he should keep that to himself. Why do you think he should not share whatever truths he thinks he has discovered? He's primarily an educator, not a field scientist.

Many scientists are agnostic or theistic in some manner. I haven't once criticised his books. I am referring to Dawkins as a public speaker on atheism whilst within an environment of theists. Not on him as an educator as an author, which is what I believe he should stick to in order to provide the right context for his views each time.

That being said, a scientist could also write a book on agnosticism without atheism which I think a theist audience may be more receptive to in order to release them from organised religion.

Spreading the theory of evolution as Dawkins wants people to appreciate it would be much the same thing as spreading atheism as what you have there is an explanation for life minus a creator or intelligent designing God. There would still be some room of a deist God who created the universe then left but would be about it. People like tomock of the 40-50% of Americans who reject evolution but they at least appreciate that the theory of evolution as it is wouldn't allow for a God, Christians elsewhere tend to miss this. Though what you can't do if you have any education is claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, you may as well claim the Earth to be flat.

Yep, but I feel his public fight with theism actually makes some people less accepting or open-minded about approaching evolution.

You seem to be claiming that ridicule of slavery led to the civil war. Presumably your contention is that the proximate cause of the war (South Carolina's secession) was caused by ridicule of slavery. Can you support that contention with facts? The USA was the only country that had a war over slavery, but it was also the only country that was divided into slave and non-slave regions that had additional conflicting interests.

No, justin raised slavery and my point was that you didn't need the war to end slavery. And you don't need ridicule to end organised religion.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas K. Gandhi.

We can ignore and laugh at the notion of theism all we want, but the opposing party can just walk away with a stronger conviction until empathy with whatever determines the brain to need a god of some form is properly understood.

People discover things in their own time if you enable them to. When providing learning resources we could try and approach them with empathy and positive reinforcement. Young children know this and the big adults miss it.

I've seen Dawkins a few times say he wants to see the churches emptied and that people who follow religions are idiotic, and to treat them as misguided is being patronising.

Whilst that could all be true, I still feel it is dangerous.

If him voicing these opinions is dangerous, then I think there might be some bias against him from that perspective. Having an opinion, and having the authority to make something like that happen are two different things.

The Pope said he'd like to see contraception no longer used. Him saying that as a person is innocuous. Him saying that as a decree is dangerous.

I think, when in a position of power and representing any label, saying that as a person is still dangerous.

Muslims can have an opinion about Sharia Law. Supremacists can have an opinion on racism.

If this is an atheistic opinion about theism then it can be re-used to make the opponent of atheism seem wiser and more in touch with the popular morality of humanity.

There is a lot of eye for an eye shit going around between theists and atheists alike and it really makes one question the objectivity of atheism. There is clearly a part of the brain that people access a feeling of god with and some need to feel it more than others.

Neither atheism nor theism are doctrines that tell you how to act or think, they are merely differing conclusions about the reality of the existence of a God or gods. It makes no more sense to talk about how 'atheists' should act than it does to talk about how 'theists' should act. How a theist should act depends on their religion, if any. How an atheist should act depends on their moral philosophy, if any. How an atheist or theist actually DOES act is based almost entirely on their personality, no matter what they espouse. There's research indicating a big difference in personality type distributions between atheists and theists, which probably has a lot to do with willingness to hold an unpopular position. Most atheists (in the USA) are introverts for example--more focused on their internal processing-while most theists are extroverts-more focused on their interactions with others.

Dawkins is outspoken because he is an outspoken man. It's not really very mysterious at all.

Fine, then I think Dawkins' moral philosophy and his personality effects the conclusions of many people, and it ought to be considered the negative effects this can have.

It is a bit strange to have an outspoken introvert. It can give extroverts an incredibly flawed perception.

[Question Mark]

I'm sorry, but did you just liken the anti-theistic position to racism and Sharia Law? That just patently absurd. I don't even know how you'd even begin to compare them. That's dangerously close to Godwin's Law.

[naimless]

I'm sorry, but did you just liken the anti-theistic position to racism and Sharia Law? That just patently absurd. I don't even know how you'd even begin to compare them. That's dangerously close to Godwin's Law.

No, people should have the right to voice their opinions with freedom of speech. This includes people that have racist opinions and opinions that Sharia Law should be implemented.

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.

Now normally I'd accept that, but for someone who understands evolution, cause and effect, the history of humanity, and the deterministic nature of the universe, it is a serious area worth considering in more detail.

[Question Mark]

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?

[JDS]

For starters, I believe that there is probably no god and that the universe is deterministic. Dawkins appears to believe similarly.

Now, why would a man who has discovered this allow himself to be emotionally attached to spreading atheism?

There is something so trivial about it all.

I believe he is motivated by a love and respect for science, specifically evolution, and it concerns him that science is under attack by religion in the form of creationism.

[naimless]

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.

[Question Mark]

Well, banking systems have been overthrown or fundamentally altered before now, but I think that you're expecting rather much of Dawkins to be able as one man to alter all of human civilisation. The Vatican isn't, and I would argue has not been a necessary organisation for centuries. Religion has been an integral part of humanity for too long for you to expect that Dawkins can somehow come up with some rhetoric that can convince everyone, especially when there are an overwhelming number of religious people who simply will not listen to reason. Point out their flaws, they'll make excuses. Indicate the truth, they'll cover it with scripture. Ask them for evidence, they'll ask you to have faith. I've met these people, and they will go to any length to shut their eyes, and will ash out when you try to open them.
As far as I can tell, Dawkins cannot do anything more than he is doing, short of actually creating an armed movement.

[naimless]

I do not expect that Dawkins can somehow come up with some rhetoric that can convince everyone. That is the point.