Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2010 21:11:48 GMT
It seems the second you disagree with religion without hedging your disagreement about with the most mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing caveats you become "offensive", apparently because religious opinions (unlike political, artistic or sporting ones) must be heavily swathed in something called "respect" and saying anything "disrespectful" (like all religion is wrong) is "offensive". It doesn't matter how courteous or reasonable the person saying it is, simply saying it at all is "rude". I brief overview of western intellectual history disconfirms everything you wrote. Religion has been directly commented on or criticized all the way from ancient Greece (Epicurus), till modern times (Hume, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche). Religious claims, like any other metaphysical claims, were held under scrutiny and never had a special treatment of being impervious to philosophical critique. And many of these critiques were not rude or arrogant (David Hume, at some moments, being the exception.) When you read an article by someone as Rowe, there is no loaded emotion-filled language or rhetoric, but a professionally made valid argument against God's existence taken seriously. Anthony Flew, when he was still an atheist, is another admirable example. There is a level where courteous, productive discourse and argument are lead. The New Atheists and their cohorts are miles away from such level of communication. The only thing Dawkins has in common with Hume is the overassured complacent certainty of his position, but, compared to Dawkins, Hume had a fancy prose, and, not to mention, he is truly an important philosopher and a relevant thinker. Compared to him, what did Dawkins ever contribute besides pop-science books and spawning an annoying internet subculture? Dawkins is the king of village atheism and an internet meme. The only thing this man is good for is parody and satire.
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Mar 12, 2010 21:12:37 GMT
Just to add my two cents, one of the things I appreciate most on this forum is the civil tone everyone uses. Overall I agree with tim though, that there shouldn't be an arbitrary wall of protection around any particular viewpoint on a subject. As an agnostic I got used to taking hits from both sides.
I suspect that the reason people get so defensive about religious views in particular is that it's often a large part of the way people define their identities. So that even if a criticism is intended at a purely impersonal level, it usually comes across as a personal attack. This isn't intended as a dig at believers - based on my experiences I think it's a basic fact of human psychology.
That said, I think Dawkins seems to enjoy getting a rise out of people with the language he uses. There's a serious discussion to be had about the extent to which it is ethical for parents to impose their views on their children, but calling all religious education "abuse" achieves nothing except poisoning the well and preventing reasonable discourse.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 21:20:40 GMT
Yes, you are. And I'm not being "silly". You can disagree with all those things if you want, but to pretend that his sincerely believing things about your ideas that you disagree with is instantly "offensive" is fatuous in the extreme. I disagree with many things theists say about what I believe and do so in much the same way and to the same extent that you disagree with the statement by Dawkins that you highlight above. I could cite theists telling me that I have no rational basis for my morality, or that my atheism must lead inevitably to nihilism or that I just don't have their theological wisdom or that deep down I really believe in God. I find all these things as stupid and wrong as you find those ideas of Dawkins'. But I don't find them "offensive" - that would be absurdly fatuous, defensive and thin-skinned. So what's your excuse? What you say here, and the comparisons you use, make little sense to me. Pardon? You gave examples of things Dawkins says that you disagree with and find offensive. I gave examples of things theists say that I disagree with just as much, but don't find offensive. I can't work out why what Dawkins says is (to you) wrong AND "offensive" when the things the theists say are (to me) equally wrong and not offensive at all. How is Dawkins saying things that you simply regard as wrong somehow "offensive"? Please explain. Whether he's right about the concept of a Virgin mother being irrational is beside the point. You keep failing to explain how simply arguing that it is can be "offensive". It seems it's only "offensive" because it's rejecting an aspect of your religion. Which is pretty petty and rather fatuous.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 21:22:30 GMT
And many of these critiques were not rude or arrogant How is Dawkins "rude" and "arrogant"?
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 12, 2010 21:24:11 GMT
I suspect that the reason people get so defensive about religious views in particular is that it's often a large part of the way people define their identities. So that even if a criticism is intended at a purely impersonal level, it usually comes across as a personal attack. This isn't intended as a dig at believers - based on my experiences I think it's a basic fact of human psychology. Perhaps many believers are that way, but not all of them. I don't get defensive about my beliefs, I can discuss rationally. Possibly another reason why I get along with my atheist friend so well. I just cannot stand irrational attacks in the name of 'rationality'. This makes my intellectual sensibilities cringe.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 12, 2010 21:40:48 GMT
Pardon? You gave examples of things Dawkins says that you disagree with and find offensive. I gave examples of things theists say that I disagree with just as much, but don't find offensive. I can't work out why what Dawkins says is (to you) wrong AND "offensive" when the things the theists say are (to me) equally wrong and not offensive at all. How is Dawkins saying things that you simply regard as wrong somehow "offensive"? Please explain. How can I not find it offensive when Dawkins calls me an 'enabler of terrorism'? I have no problem when someone attacks my belief in the virgin birth on naturalist philosophical grounds. I don't find that offensive. However, what I do find offensive, and stupid, is when atheists find the (unproven) position of philosophical naturalism the only 'rational' stance and accuse everyone who does not adhere to that position of being 'irrational' and 'superstitious'. Actually, I am now over finding it offensive (I can perfectly understand that others do though) -- I find it intellectually hilarious because those who have that attitude obviously have no clue, the least about philosophy. But then, atheists often find philosophy unimportant. Too bad, because that way they do not end up practicing no philosophy, but bad philosophy. See Dawkins, who does not bother taking even elementary lessons in philosophy, believing that his thinking as a scientist is all that he needs.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 12, 2010 21:47:55 GMT
I could cite theists telling me [...] that my atheism must lead inevitably to nihilism . You will remember that I have emphatically defended you on this point on 'Bede's Journal'.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 12, 2010 22:12:19 GMT
And many of these critiques were not rude or arrogant How is Dawkins "rude" and "arrogant"? Well, Dawkins went down in my estimation when he commented on a British Airways employee who was prevented from wearing a cross at work he responded that she had 'the stupidest face' he had ever seen. Despite his tweed jackets and professorial manner, his references to stupidity and child abuse take some of his arguments into ad-hominem territory. I don't expect him to respect religious beliefs per se, but I do wish he'd realize that most believers are not idiots, terrorists or fanatics but ordinary people doing their honest best to get through the day.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 22:44:30 GMT
How is Dawkins "rude" and "arrogant"? Well, Dawkins went down in my estimation when he commented on a British Airways employee who was prevented from wearing a cross at work he responded that she had 'the stupidest face' he had ever seen. Dawkins once described the British Airways employee dismissed for wearing a gold cross to work as having "the stupidest face". Did he regret saying it? A slightly naughty smile flickers over his face.
"Well ... well ... yes, I do really. Yes. That was an unguarded moment. Although I think I said stupid-looking. Did you see the photograph of her? I think if you look up the story, and they've got the photograph ... " He checks himself, and stops. "But this is unkind." www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/25/richard-dawkins-religion-science-books"Child abuse" you can disagree with if you like, but it's a valid view however much you don't agree with it or like it. With the best intentions in the world, my parents actively insulated me from ideas contrary to their cult (one called Catholicism), sent me to a school that did the same thing and that devoted many hours a week purely to cult teachings, venerated the cult leader and instructed me to do the same, never questioned the cult's teachings and taught me some odd beliefs that most people would regard as weird superstitions (praying to an Italian man who died in the Thirteenth Century when I lost something or saying three rapid incantations before a car trip, for example). Was this "child abuse"? I'd use the term "brainwashing" myself. You might call that an ad hominen too, but I'd maintain it's a valid position and not "offensive", or "arrogant" or "rude". And there are so many examples of things in religion that even most religious people would agree are clearly "stupid" that pointing them out is valid as well. However you cut it, it seems the real problem people have with Dawkins is that he says things they don't like. This whining about how "rude" and "disrespectful" he is seems to be little more than ... well, whining.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 12, 2010 22:55:29 GMT
Pardon? You gave examples of things Dawkins says that you disagree with and find offensive. I gave examples of things theists say that I disagree with just as much, but don't find offensive. I can't work out why what Dawkins says is (to you) wrong AND "offensive" when the things the theists say are (to me) equally wrong and not offensive at all. How is Dawkins saying things that you simply regard as wrong somehow "offensive"? Please explain. How can I not find it offensive when Dawkins calls me an 'enabler of terrorism'? The same way I don't find it offensive when any number of Christian apologists tell me that atheism led to the horrors perpetrated by Stalin. I think they are wrong, but I don't get "offended" by having a monster's crimes pinned on my beliefs. Have you considered developing a thicker skin? See above. You seem weirdly easy to "offend".
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 12, 2010 23:00:44 GMT
However you cut it, it seems the real problem people have with Dawkins is that he says things they don't like. This whining about how "rude" and "disrespectful" he is seems to be little more than ... well, whining. Well, Tim, we'll always disagree on that one I guess. I don't think any more discussion will bring us further on the issue.
|
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Mar 13, 2010 0:01:17 GMT
I have always depicted Dawkins as a gentleman. He is usually soft-spoken, friendly and well-mannered.
The problem is just he talks a lot of crap.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 13, 2010 1:03:17 GMT
It obviously didn't do him any harm having to sing 'all things bright and beautiful' before classes every morning. Apart from making him rude and arrogant
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 13, 2010 11:06:43 GMT
It seems clear from the discussion that offense is in the eye of the beholder (to mex a mitaphor!). Some people have thick skins, some thin; some are offended at snide comments, or even even-tempered criticism, some not. Perhaps then, we may be able to agree (or not) on these propositions:
1. It would be better (for human relations) if we learnt to be less easily offended.
2. It would be more pleasant if we also tried harder to avoid giving offense, but learn to make our points without scathing overtones. To use scorn instead of, or as well as, rational argument suggests we agree that rational argument is less important than most of us would claim.
3. If someone causes a discussion to become unpleasant and/or unproductive, we have a choice whether to gracefully withdraw, or gracefully continue. Giving back in kind seems to me to be counter-productive, and for a christian, contrary to clear Biblical teaching.
Many christians unfortunately choose opposite to my suggestion on all three - some do it in an attractive or humorous way, some not, but I can't feel they honour Jesus.
And of course, some atheists do the same. And this where many christians dislike Dawkins. Take this quote from his website:
"I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up and head-patting that Jerry [Coyne] is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt. ...You might say that two can play at that game. Suppose the religious start treating us with naked contempt, how would we like it? I think the answer is that there is a real asymmetry here. We have so much more to be contemptuous about! And we are so much better at it."
I don't think we should even think about trying to "win" that little war.
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on Mar 13, 2010 13:09:58 GMT
How can I not find it offensive when Dawkins calls me an 'enabler of terrorism'? The same way I don't find it offensive when any number of Christian apologists tell me that atheism led to the horrors perpetrated by Stalin. I think they are wrong, but I don't get "offended" by having a monster's crimes pinned on my beliefs. Being linked to terrorists, or Stalin, would be offensive to most people, whether believers or not. You obviously have a thicker skin than usual, but did you ever consider that you might be an exception rather than the rule?
|
|