Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

I disagree also. And from the outside it looks like the book is very relevant for US today since it seems that religion in the sense that Dawkin argues against influence US politics in a bad way.

That's the problem, isn't it? "Personal faith" (or the lack of it) is not really the issue; it's when "organised" religion starts interfering in politics and science that we have a problem - eg in dictating to scientists which areas of research they can and cannot pursue. Stem cell research is the obvious example, where Mr. Bush's government banned federal funding for all such work, despite its huge potential for treatment of all sorts of medical conditions.

[Gideon]

I wouldn't argue that such expressions of religion aren't vulgar - they are.

The thing is... it's not just religion. There's this illusion that people are rational and sane and if religion wasn't there deluding them they'd see the error of their ways.

But that's not how it works. Authoritarian psychologies do authoritarian things. And if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else. People find excuses for those things they believe or are brought up to believe, theology or politics is just the most common way those ideas get couched. Keep in mind, religion has less to do with believing in God than it is a filter we see the world with - just like politics. Even if you look at something as fierce as the abortion debate it could exist just as easily without religion being involved in it (and there are religious people on both sides of that argument, for religious reasons). Religion becomes a way of articulating a point of view as often, if not more often, than it has to do with the supernatural.

The type of thinking that Dawkins seems to really have a problem with is the same thing your average thinking religious person has a problem with - and it isn't the belief in a big man in the sky - it's reflective life, it's the unthinking pursuit and acceptance of things. The problem is these new atheists go "that's religion" and leave it at that. But that's not all religion. But if you treat it as it is you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The religious impulse isn't going anywhere (whether it's biological or a psycho-cultural construct or real) so creating common cause that places the progressives and the fundamentalists on the same side is a destructive act. They should be addressing those concerns we all have in common - feeding the poor, healing the sick, clothing the homeless, social justice, a lack of economic and political oppression, etc.

Maybe Dawkins does a bit better than that, I've only skimmed the book - I saw enough nonsense that I wasn't going to spend more time on it than that. I have heard it's a bit better than Hitchens or Harris (which I have both authors books and have read and wrote my thesis on) but it's still full of these straw man arguments.

Ultimately, crappy people do crappy things. And sometimes those crappy people are religious, sometimes they're not. I mean, hell.. if I could make a wish and turn everyone into a good secular humanist I'd do it, but that's just not how the world works.

There is PLENTY of criticism that can be leveled at religion, and as I said, Dawkins does some of that well, but reductionism is reductionism and ultimately it is always disingenuous. I've no interest in polemics, from either side.. and I'd not spend any time on a book trying to "prove" religion, either. I don't personally care if someone is an atheist, a buddhist, a wiccan or anything else. I don't think anyone has "the truth" or is even capable of such a thing. But the dialogue and conversation do not go forward by attacking those you may have common cause with and there is no progress to be made tilting at windmills.

But.. each to their own. I live hip deep in this stuff and while I think Dawkins has good motives it's just another person distorting reality. We've enough people distorting reality. He's making a good bit of cash verbalizing a very real, honest anger at all the stupidity that happens in the name of religion. But while that rage is justified and understandable, it doesn't clear up the issue any better.

[ShellShock]

Gideon--there is another leg to Dawkins' thesis, and that is, whether or not God exists, and as a scientist he says the probability is very small. This leads on to the question of why we should worship something that probably does not exist? That is, why have religions?

Now, you point out that "crappy people do crappy things. And sometimes those crappy people are religious, sometimes they're not". I would like to add that good people do good things. And sometimes these good people are religious, sometimes they're not. So, assuming I am good...I can be good, and worship something that probably does not exist, or I can be good... Thus, I don't think an argument from morality is particularly useful when discussing religion.

[astra]

Originally Posted by dhbailey

The first thing I did with both of my new readers was to delete the sample content unread -- I hate reading just a chapter or two of some book and then feeling like I have to buy the rest. And I have very strong tastes in what I want to read and everything that was on as demo material was of stuff I don't usually read, so I wasn't even aware of any such book sample on the Reader.

Ditto

[CCDMan]

Now, you point out that "crappy people do crappy things. And sometimes those crappy people are religious, sometimes they're not".

Yes. I always get back to that when religious folks start talking about how some of the evil folks in history were atheists (Hitler and Stalin are often cited). This is usually in response to my statement that much evil has been done in the name of religion.

They are missing the point, however. If indeed these types of historical figures were atheists (and in Hitler's case, it is uncertain), the fact is that they did not kill in the NAME of atheism. They persecuted religions as well as other groups because these groups were serious threats to what these leaders were really after and that is power and control. They persecuted anyone who got in the way of that.

So what it boils down to, as always, is that some folks are evil. Those that are do evil, only the excuses change.

I would have to say that atheism is not one of the more common excuses for doing evil, however.

[Gaurnim]

Disclaimer, just so you know where I stand :
I'm profoundly atheist, but I try to respect other people's views.

Originally Posted by ShellShock

Gideon--there is another leg to Dawkins' thesis, and that is, whether or not God exists, and as a scientist he says the probability is very small. This leads on to the question of why we should worship something that probably does not exist? That is, why have religions?

For an interesting take on this question, based on game theory, you can have a look at Pascal's wager :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

I will not make that wager, but I find this opinion very interesting.


EDIT :
Yeah, I said I would resist posting on topic here, but I couldn't.

[ShellShock]

I have never liked Pascal's wager because I think there is a lot to lose by believing in a God that probably does not exist--rationality for a start. Also I don't agree with the basic premise of the wager that God's existence is not provable by human reason. In modern terms--is the existence of God a scientific question? I think it is.

Which god would Pascal have us believe in, just in case? There are multiple religions and multiple gods. Do we have to believe in all of them, just in case? What about the gods who don't like you supporting the other side?

[popnfresh]

I believe that people need to believe in something larger than themselves. This has always been true. For millennia that "something" was usually a belief in supernatural forces, i.e., god or gods. But superstition, even superstition that billions of people hold to be true, doesn't make it true. Reason and science have long since debunked the traditional tales of the creation of the cosmos and the origin of life. Archaeological research and textual analysis have cast reasonable doubt on the provenance of every major holy book. This methodical dismantling of religion by rational people asking basic questions about the reality of our beliefs for the last 400+ years has elicited a shrill defensiveness and sometimes violent reactions from the defenders of these traditional beliefs. It's not easy for people to give up the cherished superstitions that form the core of their lives.

Today, we enjoy the fruits of centuries of open inquiry by unencumbered minds and most human beings are lucky enough to live in a relatively secular society where science and reason inform culture and public policy to a much greater degree than religious dogma. Science has finally replaced religion and I, for one, thank the forces of natural selection for it.

[Daithi]

Welcome to the forums msmith. You must be thrilled with the reaction this topic has generated. :-)

I'm an athiest that is sympathetic to Dawkin's arguement, but I'm going to surprise you and say that I'm a bit surprised that Sony would include this title as an excerpt (although I'm glad they did).

Most businesses try not to offend their customers, and it shouldn't be a shock that religious believers might be offended by Dawkin's book. When selling a Sony reader in Dubai, I doubt Sony would preload it with an excerpt from Salman Rushdie's new book.

It is one thing to sell a book and quite another to actively promote a book. I personnally don't find the book offensive, but I can also put myself in your shoes and understand why you would find it objectionable.

However, ultimately, I am glad that Sony included the excerpt even if it did offend you. The reason for this is that "I" am the type of person who would purchase this kind of book, and I like to see that Sony is carrying books that appeal to "me" (selfish, I know). I don't want to silence viewpoints that differ from my own, and I don't want to prevent you from reading books that argue in favor of a religious viewpoint. Yet, I don't want you to prevent me from reading books, or having them advertised to me, which argue "religion is not only wrong but it is a harm to society." Tolerance cuts both ways.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ShellShock

Which god would Pascal have us believe in, just in case? There are multiple religions and multiple gods. Do we have to believe in all of them, just in case? What about the gods who don't like you supporting the other side?

Pascal's wager is a monotheist's game. It assumes two possible states: GOD and NO-GOD. It doesn't allow for a "safe" bet if the truth is MULTIPLE GODS, in which case "believing in" is probably a null state, but "worshiping and offering reverence to" definitely comes with a pack of risks if you choose the wrong one(s).

(Sidenote: it's annoying that many people use the phrase "believe in" to mean "follow the spiritual teachings of." As if acknowledging something's existence meant agreeing with its promoters' preferences.)

[slayda]

Originally Posted by popnfresh

I believe that people need to believe in something larger than themselves. ...

I assume here you mean something "metaphysically" larger than themselves. Believing in elephants, planets, stars, etc. probably doesn't satisfy what you meant to say.

IMO, a requirement to believe in something (metaphysically) larger than oneself is nothing more than wanting something, other than oneself, to blame things on - whether good things or bad things.

My mother used to say things like, "Thank God for the rain that ended the drought!" One day I asked her, "Who do you think caused the drought in the first place?" Of course she didn't like the question. What I'm trying to say is people seem to desire a bad entity (often called the Devil) to put bad happenings on and a good entity (often called God) to thank for good things. (Of course, in some religions it's the same entity for both cases.)

My personal philosophy is "S--t happens." sometimes it can be good but often it's bad. Only the paranoid believe that there is a plot and "Something" is out to get them just because they're having a bad day. More often than not, if you do things that work, you'll get good results otherwise you'll more often get bad results. Keep in mind that things that worked last century may not work this century and try to be flexible.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

What? You said the original saying was elephants all the way down and claimed that turtles all the way down was from Discworld. Ask Stephen Hawking about the story about the scientist since it is in his book. The same story was told a bit differently by Russell in the book I read by him. It was in connection with a discussion of religion and more specifically some of Aquinas proofs of Gods existence.

Yes, I understand that your point was that the "turtles theory" predated Discworld. However, the "elephants theory" predates both Hawking and Russell by quite a bit.

I understood from your post that you were saying Russell was a scientist. Now I understand you to be saying that Russell was telling a story about a scientist. I was unclear about your post.

Do you really mean "ask Stephen Hawking" as if I'm supposed to trundle on over to the phone and dial?? I've read his work, however, I don't happen to remember a distinction between turtles and elephants vis a vis the structure of faith. It's probably in there, however, I do know that the elephants parable dates from about 400 BCE.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

All of this reminds me of something I saw in some-one's sig once:

"Do you believe in the bible?"
"Hell, yeah - I even saw one once!"

[RickyMaveety]

Oh, I like that.

My plumber came over today (sadly, I need a new dishwasher), and that always leads us to discussions on religion and faith. (He is a member of a very conservative Christian group, the women always wear long skirts, and the men and women generally cover their arms to the elbow ... you know .... dressing for modesty).

Anyway, I was thinking about something that had been discussed briefly in this thread, and that was the idea that, if the Big Bang is the correct theory, then where did the matter in the original BB come from. Was it there forever? Or, did someone "create" it?

But then, if we do consider a god as existing, then, has that god been there forever, or did someone create that god?

It seems to me, no matter whether you argue science or religion, or some mixture of the two, you always get back to something that had to be there "forever."

There is a point beyond which we cannot go.

Also, although I am not quoting him in this post, Gideon mentioned something about religion being separate from the existence of god. That, I completely disagree with, unless you have some really different way of defining "religion."

If religion is defined as being a path to god, then there has to be a god to create a path to. No god, no religion. You may have a philosophical system that produces rules resulting in moral and immoral types of behavior, but that is not the same thing as a religion.

And, it is possible to have one or more gods and not have a religion, in that if the society that believes in that god merely worships but does not believe in a splitting off of god and man, they do not need to have a path back to their god(s). Just a place to do worship/sacrifice/ceremony ... and that's it.

So, perhaps, Gideon, you have some different definition of religion than the one I generally use, but if not, then on that point we definitely disagree. Actually, scratch that ... we disagree on almost everything.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Anyway, I was thinking about something that had been discussed briefly in this thread, and that was the idea that, if the Big Bang is the correct theory, then where did the matter in the original BB come from. Was it there forever? Or, did someone "create" it?

But then, if we do consider a god as existing, then, has that god been there forever, or did someone create that god?

It seems to me, no matter whether you argue science or religion, or some mixture of the two, you always get back to something that had to be there "forever."

The Big Bang created both space and time (the spacetime continuum). So there was literally no "before" before the Big Bang. Time itself did not exist.

This is an intrinsically difficult concept to grasp for most people.