Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[knotkranky]

Some of the scathing criticism of The God Delusion is that:

a) It's Christian-centric
b) Dawkins is a brilliant scientist but a lousy theologian


As such, I was curious to see what he had to say about Jews. On page 262, he discusses Orthodox Jews and their tendency to promote "homogeneous marriages". And goes on to say:

"Even if religion did no other harm in itself, it's wanton and carefully nurtured divisiveness-its deliberate and cultivated pandering to humanity's natural tendency to favor in-groups and shun out-groups - would be enough to make it a significant force for evil in the world."

Y'all seem bright, so I'm assuming you'll derive the shallowness of his observation, and absurdity of his conclusion (So if my kid loves Honda's, and refuses to offer a 2nd to date to anyone who drives Toyota's, their decision is a "signifcant force for evil in the world?":lol: . Anyhoo, I purchased the book to read his science-oriented proofs for atheism. They're more astute than the above...right?

Yes, I agree that Dawkin's points are christian-centric. Mine are too.
And yes, a lousy theologian. Let me add that I am much worse.

I wish this discussion to be much less about religion and more on the nature of humans and spirituality. They transcend religion anyway. No denomination has less human foibles than another. So I find the religion banter a bore. Labels is labels.

As for his quote, it is not shallow, and your simplistic metaphor makes no sense.
He is merely pointing out the pseudo inclusive nature of many denominations, even within their own groups and how it can be hypocritical of its own message of brotherhood and acceptance. I've experienced this myself in christian, jewish and arab families. And I don't exclude any other denomination. His quote is not exclusive to Jews. Boring point.

Again, people are people long before religion steps in.

[NorthernMonkey]

It should be called "The Dawkin Delusion".

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Delusio ... 0281059276

[NorthernMonkey]

To deny that parent's hope/wish that their children raise families with values/beliefs similar to their own, particularly those that they find helpful, healing, true, is to willingly take part in some serious denial.

shtreimel, it's statements like that that make the non-religious cringe - why not just let people make their own minds up instead of forcing your beliefs on them? You're basically saying 'if we keep it in the family, we can happily programme the kids to continue to preach our beliefs' - there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

(And answering 'because they might turn out to be drug-taking murderers if i don't teach them about religion' is not an answer)

[pilcrow]

To deny that parent's hope/wish that their children raise families with values/beliefs similar to their own, particularly those that they find helpful, healing, true, is to willingly take part in some serious denial.

shtreimel, it's statements like that that make the non-religious cringe - why not just let people make their own minds up instead of forcing your beliefs on them? You're basically saying 'if we keep it in the family, we can happily programme the kids to continue to preach our beliefs' - there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

What a statement. What do you mean? --that non-religious people don't (or shouldn't) teach their kids to behave? "If my kid wants to believe that taking advantage of the disabled or stealing from the elderly is the best way to get along in life, well then, that's just their choice. Mustn't force my belief in justice and fairness on the precious dears." Nonsense.

[NorthernMonkey]

To deny that parent's hope/wish that their children raise families with values/beliefs similar to their own, particularly those that they find helpful, healing, true, is to willingly take part in some serious denial.

shtreimel, it's statements like that that make the non-religious cringe - why not just let people make their own minds up instead of forcing your beliefs on them? You're basically saying 'if we keep it in the family, we can happily programme the kids to continue to preach our beliefs' - there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

What a statement. What do you mean? --that non-religious people don't (or shouldn't) teach their kids to behave? "If my kid wants to believe that taking advantage of the disabled or stealing from the elderly is the best way to get along in life, well then, that's just their choice. Mustn't force my belief in justice and fairness on the precious dears." Nonsense.

I think you've missed the point (by a fuckin' mile). I meant the need to force RELIGIOUS views on kids to keep them on the straight and narrow, which is what shtreimel constantly suggests - you don't need religion to teach kids the difference between right and wrong, yet some see no other way. It's a weak justification for religion. Shtreimel's usual answer is 'because they might turn out to be drug-taking murderers if i don't teach them about religion'. I think shtreimel's a decent bloke, and he's continued to have an involvement in the thread even though sometimes he's clearly outnumbered, and for that I have respect for him. However, whichever way he sees religion, the fact is that (unless he's recently discovered his religion, which I don't think he has) he's been taught it from a young age by his parents and will continue to do so with his children - he hasn't formed the views for himself, they've been forced on him, and he's gonna force them on his kids whether they like it or not. I think there's a word for that...

[Angstrom]

The 'rationalist' approach to religion which you are using there doesn't work so well when applied to real people - who are irrational as, well, a bunch of fuckwits basically.

There's an oldish book called "myths to live by" (Joseph Campell) - which, far from being some sort of beardie new age hogwash is an investigation into the sociolgical group need for myth.

It investigates some interesting areas - one of them being that as a race we are attempting for the first time to eradicate our myth structure, as myths are empirically deemed 'false'.
He draws some interesting conclusions, that the nature of the social human is not suited to life without delusion and myth.
He draws a parallel between our need to individually dream at night nonsensical flights of fancy and our group need to hold nonsensical fantasies as self evident and true.

Last night I dreamed I had a really nice rehearsal room in a building which doesn't 'really' exist, meanwhile ... last night America had a myth it is "God's chosen country"

Perhaps both weird beliefs are actually useful to a fallible meat matrix trying to make sense of itself, perhaps the 'truth' isn't allways the best option for a rock full of insane anthropoids. Bear in mind that more than 75% of the human population are not rational , but creatures of 'habit' and 'belief', 'morals', etc ... entrenched behaviours. Most humans are sociologically not of the rationalist strain. Additionally Rationalism is only held to be the peak of civilisation by rationalists!

Science is not a replacement for 'myth', science is something different. myth may well be a requirement for partially evolved societies to pass potentially useful memes.

[pilcrow]

shtreimel, it's statements like that that make the non-religious cringe - why not just let people make their own minds up instead of forcing your beliefs on them? You're basically saying 'if we keep it in the family, we can happily programme the kids to continue to preach our beliefs' - there's something fundamentally wrong with that.

What a statement. What do you mean? --that non-religious people don't (or shouldn't) teach their kids to behave? "If my kid wants to believe that taking advantage of the disabled or stealing from the elderly is the best way to get along in life, well then, that's just their choice. Mustn't force my belief in justice and fairness on the precious dears." Nonsense.

I think you've missed the point (by a fuckin' mile). I meant the need to force RELIGIOUS views on kids to keep them on the straight and narrow, which is what shtreimel constantly suggests - you don't need religion to teach kids the difference between right and wrong, yet some see no other way. It's a weak justification for religion. Shtreimel's usual answer is 'because they might turn out to be drug-taking murderers if i don't teach them about religion'. I think shtreimel's a decent bloke, and he's continued to have an involvement in the thread even though sometimes he's clearly outnumbered, and for that I have respect for him. However, whichever way he sees religion, the fact is that (unless he's recently discovered his religion, which I don't think he has) he's been taught it from a young age by his parents and will continue to do so with his children - he hasn't formed the views for himself, they've been forced on him, and he's gonna force them on his kids whether they like it or not. I think there's a word for that...

A whole mile, eh? Fact is, we all teach our kids the things we believe to be right, if we're doing our jobs as parents. No doubt you do the same--or you will if you don't have kids yet--no matter how harebrained your ideas may or may not be.

As for shtreimel being taught his views as opposed to arriving at them on his own, who's to say he hasn't done a whale of a lot of study on the question, and it all looks good to him? He seems a fairly thoughtful fella. And if you think you came into this world and grew to intellectual maturity on nothing but the reasoning powers of your own mind, you're mistaken.

[NorthernMonkey]

The 'rationalist' approach to religion which you are using there doesn't work so well when applied to real people - who are irrational as, well, a bunch of fuckwits basically.

There's an oldish book called "myths to live by" (Joseph Campell) - which, far from being some sort of beardie new age hogwash is an investigation into the sociolgical group need for myth, and the popular attempts to eradicate myth.

It investigates some interesting areas - one of them being that as a race we are attempting for the first time to eradicate our myth structure, as myths are empirically demmed 'false'.
He draws some interesting conclusions, that the nature of the social human is not suited to life without delusion and myth.
He draws a parallel between our need to individually dream at night nonsensical flights of fancy and our group need to hold nonsensical fantasies as self evident and true.
Last night I dreamed I had a really nice rehearsal room in a building which doesn't 'really' exist , last nigh America was God's chosen country.
Perhaps both beliefs are actually useful to a fallible meat matrix, perhaps the 'truth' isn't allways the best option for a rock full of insane anthropoids.

Science is not a replacement for 'myth', science is something different. myth may well be a requirement for partially evolved societies to pass potentially useful memes.

I totally agree with, and I also think there is a place for religion in our society to satisfy certain needs within us, it's just the forcing it on kids that I'm not particularly keen on; teach them the difference between right and wrong sure, just leave religion out until they can make their owns minds up about it. And your dream analogy highlights a fundamental point - you are clearly aware that it was a dream and can rationalise it as such in your own thoughts; kids rationalise with what little knowledge and experience they have, hardly the appropriate time to be filling their heads with religion.

[shtreimel]

"So if my kid loves Honda's, and refuses to offer a 2nd to date to anyone who drives Toyota's, their decision is a "signifcant force for evil in the world?"Laughing"

only if it leads to murder and genocide, but that doesn't happen with Japanese car manufacturers much.

Ah yes, the choice of marriage partner has led to some of the cruelest events known to mankind...marriage perhaps Oy, my fiance would NOT be happy if she read that.

[shtreimel]

He is merely pointing out the pseudo inclusive nature of many denominations, even within their own groups and how it can be hypocritical of its own message of brotherhood and acceptance.

Uh no. His observation is silly and trite. If you grow up rich, your folks, more often than not, encouraged you to marry rich (or at least make a ton of dough yourself). This isn't exclusive to religion.

And the whole "brotherly love thang"...this seems to be a Christian concept. The rabbis are very clear that there's "kosher" thinking, behavior, food, marriage, etc. The "brotherly love thang" is limited indeed. Still, no need to go to war over shell fish.

And I don't exclude any other denomination. His quote is not exclusive to Jews. Boring point.

He used Orthodox Jews as his 1-2 punch. He thought he discovered a real zinger. It wasn't. And I'm assuming throughout the rest of the book, I'll discover further examples (as theist I'll be looking for them) of why critics have indicated that his examples are old, trite and bring little to the "god vs. atheism" debate. However the climate was right (9-11, terrorism, ID), and he'll cash-in nicely.

[shtreimel]

What a statement. What do you mean? --that non-religious people don't (or shouldn't) teach their kids to behave? "If my kid wants to believe that taking advantage of the disabled or stealing from the elderly is the best way to get along in life, well then, that's just their choice. Mustn't force my belief in justice and fairness on the precious dears." Nonsense.

Pilcrow...I've stopped debating these points i.e. let your children make up their own minds. The suggestions are so off the chart...I'm not sure where to begin. I'd recommend basic Psych 101 lit, but I'm under the impression these folks don't believe what they type. They can't. It's just too crazy.

[Machinesworking]

I wish this discussion to be much less about religion and more on the nature of humans and spirituality. They transcend religion anyway. No denomination has less human foibles than another. So I find the religion banter a bore. Labels is labels.

As for his quote, it is not shallow, and your simplistic metaphor makes no sense.
He is merely pointing out the pseudo inclusive nature of many denominations, even within their own groups and how it can be hypocritical of its own message of brotherhood and acceptance. I've experienced this myself in christian, jewish and arab families. And I don't exclude any other denomination. His quote is not exclusive to Jews. Boring point.

Again, people are people long before religion steps in.

Just saw Pan's Labyrinth last night. Really good movie! Very much a metaphor, and in some ways fits into this discussion. Rightly so, Franco's Spain is portrayed as murderous, authoritarian, unfeeling and conformist. The rebels are portrayed as dreamers, not in touch with reality, but because reality is ugly, somehow better than the fascists.
Th catholic church supported that dictatorship, and maybe the only good to come out of that is they tend to feel so guilty about it now that they come out against modern dictatorships.
But you've got the fascists with their traditional religion and total submission to authority, the rebels with a lack of religion and dreams, and the little girl heroin who has created her own world. In many ways the least sane one is the little girl, and in many more ways the most sane one is the little girl.

One writer's take one religion, dreams, and fairy tales. Not a kids story BTW, as in I wouldn't recommend it for anybody under 13, unless the kid is really smart, and desensitized to violence.

[shtreimel]

As for shtreimel being taught his views as opposed to arriving at them on his own, who's to say he hasn't done a whale of a lot of study on the question, and it all looks good to him? He seems a fairly thoughtful fella. And if you think you came into this world and grew to intellectual maturity on nothing but the reasoning powers of your own mind, you're mistaken.

No no Pilcrow...my parent's locked me in a small room in Jerusalem with beared rabbis, schmaltz herring and matzah. They reared me on the breast of of ol' haggard chassidic women, with no natural light, no clock or calendar.

[shtreimel]

Just saw Pan's Labyrinth last night. Really good movie!

Not to be too contrary, but I didn't...at all. Though all my friends loved it.

[NorthernMonkey]

What a statement. What do you mean? --that non-religious people don't (or shouldn't) teach their kids to behave? "If my kid wants to believe that taking advantage of the disabled or stealing from the elderly is the best way to get along in life, well then, that's just their choice. Mustn't force my belief in justice and fairness on the precious dears." Nonsense.

Pilcrow...I've stopped debating these points i.e. let your children make up their own minds. The suggestions are so off the chart...I'm not sure where to begin. I'd recommend basic Psych 101 lit, but I'm under the impression these folks don't believe what they type. They can't. It's just too crazy.

So you don't have an answer. Excellent, I knew we'd get you there eventually