MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

Gideon · 01-27-2009, 01:09 AM

Actually, I'm just as against that sort of thing as Dawkins. The big problem with his book was his reductionism and his incessant straw-man arguments. The same problem that exists with most the new atheists.

I'm religious, but despise the sort of religion he talks about probably more than he does. But that's the whole point - plenty of people don't treat their religion like that, and most of his arguments were more or less nonsense in the end.

If you're going to call religion those things he talks about and pretend like that is the bulk of it you're making a mistake. It's stupid to do and Dawkins is smarter than that. The problem is he is a biologist, not someone who actually studies religion and social science.

There are plenty of arguments against religion, and it isn't that he doesn't use some of them, it's just he reduces all religion to that thing.

Religion is like politics - it exists almost universally, right or wrong, and talking about how bad one or the other is doesn't stop the problems. Religion is something people do, and when you take religion away, something else fills its shoes (look at communist Russia or China, for instance) and it can be just as bloody and terrible (and just as often, worse.)

There are plenty of good discussions about the problems with Dawkins books, and not from a religious perspective. It's bad philosophy. It's bad history. And it's bad social theory. It's the Ayn Rand of discussions of religion - no one in the fields he discusses (many atheists, I assure you) want anything to do with it. These guys are good at rhetoric throwing things around, but they are not saying anything all that rational (despite their beloved scientism).

He acts just as badly, just as reductionistic as those theists he decries.

Personally, I find these arguments tiresome... It's not provable one way or another and as long as people are decent I couldn't care less what they believe or don't believe. Of course religion is often dangerous and evil. So is everything people do, taken to extremes. But pretending the extremes is most of it while paying scant attention to what happens in the middle is just the same thing, dressed up in reason.

I, and certainly most the religous people I associate with, would agree with most the criticisms these guys offer against religion and religious people. I'm in Oklahoma, for God's sakes.... you have any idea what kind of religious monsters I live around? But I know it's not all religious people. The people that run the center for children and families are religious, the people who run the organizations that rehabilitate drug addicts and prisoners are religious, the organizations (like the one I work for) that promote interfaith (and lack of faith) dialogue and social justice are ran by largely religious people... None of whom are trying to convert anyone.

But ultimately... reductionism and straw man arguments. That's the crux of it. It's bad work for an academic and has more to do with a Jack Chick track than any sensible literature on the subject. I'd suggest Bertrand Russell for a good atheist read. Or Nietzsche (though he gets reductionist at times as well.) He's still offering more.

01-27-2009, 01:09 AM	#248
Gideon Wearer of Pants Posts: 1,050 Karma: 7634 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Norman, OK Device: Amazon Kindle DX / iPhone	Actually, I'm just as against that sort of thing as Dawkins. The big problem with his book was his reductionism and his incessant straw-man arguments. The same problem that exists with most the new atheists. I'm religious, but despise the sort of religion he talks about probably more than he does. But that's the whole point - plenty of people don't treat their religion like that, and most of his arguments were more or less nonsense in the end. If you're going to call religion those things he talks about and pretend like that is the bulk of it you're making a mistake. It's stupid to do and Dawkins is smarter than that. The problem is he is a biologist, not someone who actually studies religion and social science. There are plenty of arguments against religion, and it isn't that he doesn't use some of them, it's just he reduces all religion to that thing. Religion is like politics - it exists almost universally, right or wrong, and talking about how bad one or the other is doesn't stop the problems. Religion is something people do, and when you take religion away, something else fills its shoes (look at communist Russia or China, for instance) and it can be just as bloody and terrible (and just as often, worse.) There are plenty of good discussions about the problems with Dawkins books, and not from a religious perspective. It's bad philosophy. It's bad history. And it's bad social theory. It's the Ayn Rand of discussions of religion - no one in the fields he discusses (many atheists, I assure you) want anything to do with it. These guys are good at rhetoric throwing things around, but they are not saying anything all that rational (despite their beloved scientism). He acts just as badly, just as reductionistic as those theists he decries. Personally, I find these arguments tiresome... It's not provable one way or another and as long as people are decent I couldn't care less what they believe or don't believe. Of course religion is often dangerous and evil. So is everything people do, taken to extremes. But pretending the extremes is most of it while paying scant attention to what happens in the middle is just the same thing, dressed up in reason. I, and certainly most the religous people I associate with, would agree with most the criticisms these guys offer against religion and religious people. I'm in Oklahoma, for God's sakes.... you have any idea what kind of religious monsters I live around? But I know it's not all religious people. The people that run the center for children and families are religious, the people who run the organizations that rehabilitate drug addicts and prisoners are religious, the organizations (like the one I work for) that promote interfaith (and lack of faith) dialogue and social justice are ran by largely religious people... None of whom are trying to convert anyone. But ultimately... reductionism and straw man arguments. That's the crux of it. It's bad work for an academic and has more to do with a Jack Chick track than any sensible literature on the subject. I'd suggest Bertrand Russell for a good atheist read. Or Nietzsche (though he gets reductionist at times as well.) He's still offering more.