(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

a really interesting essay at The Chicago Boyz blog.

the opening paragraph:

I keep losing my personal heroes.

Richard Dawkins is one of the century’s great evolutionary theorists and someone whose work I really admire. His work revolutionized the way scientists thought about evolutionary theory. I think I can safely say that I have read everything that the man has written in every major forum. So, as an atheist myself, I looked forward to Dawkins weighing in on the subject of religion, from the perspective of an evolutionary theorist, in his new book, “The God Delusion”.

she hates the book. and her reasoning makes for pretty fascinating reading.

a bit that amused me:

Moreover, Dawkins doesn’t appear to spend any time considering the positive role that religion has played in the last two-hundred years. I checked the index under “slavery” and found only three references, all of them complaining that religious people had not, throughout the history of mankind, always opposed slavery. Well, duh! Strangely, missing from Dawkins’ analysis is any mention of the role that Christian fervor played in virtually wiping out slavery worldwide. Indeed, slavery went from being a human universal to virtual extinction due to the efforts of individuals whom many people today regard as the trifecta of evil: Christian, capitalistic, white males.

Comments

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

heh, that was certainly the good stuff. I didn't bother reading much into the book because it seemed right away to be a reflexive diatribe, rather than a path for reasoning that would lead you to the idea that atheism is the best... ultimately her point about EVERYONE being 'religious' pre 1770's is a big deal to me because I never really thought about it in that way before... it's really hard to imagine thinking that anything you DON'T readily understand, MUST be caused by some unnatural force. That we have swung the other way, where everything MUST be caused by an understandable force, doesn't bother me so much, because of the nature of faith. You will never be able to prove a supreme being, but they may be revealed to you in the end... as an aside, what amuses me scientifically is that scientists will postulate a theory like superstring, and then argue about it's validity back and forth, but ultimately it is unprovable. Because it deals with realms of higher dimensions, that inherently CAN'T be proven on our plane of existence, it becomes a pretty theory, an extension of other theories. To those scientists who are atheists, that kind of belief is OK, but my belief in God is ludicrous because I can't prove it? Sounds like a double standard to me. I can understand why, but I tend to classify people like that with hard core creationists... they have made their mind up, and whatever doesn't fit with that must be untrue for them.

Really I guess that is the base for what Dawkins is really selling here: you can't prove it ergo you are wrong. To me that is no different than: I believe [insert holy book name] is the given word of [insert deity] and therefore is true and infallible, and so everyone else is wrong.

Why do we need to make everyone else wrong?

In the long run, there are great mysteries in this life, some we may answer, and some we never will. It is the curiosity about them that leads us on.

heh /tangential meander :D

[itsazoo.livejournal.com]

After much serious thought, I accepted some years ago that I'm an atheist. I used to say agnostic, but I thought that was sort of wishy-washy for myself, so went to the more final term atheist. However, I have no problem with my middle brother being a born-again christian, as long as he doesn't proselytize to me. Frankly, one's beliefs should belong to one only. One of my friends who is devout Catholic asked me what would I do if, when I died, I found I was wrong, I said that the joke would then be on me. I try to do the best I can, be the best person I can be, while I'm still alive. I have tried, believe me, but I simply can't grasp the notion of an invisible spirit which knows all, sees all, influences all. But this is true FOR ME ONLY. It doesn't matter to me that others may hold the opposite beliefs. This is okay FOR THEM.
That's all.

[(Anonymous)]

amen, sister. pun intended.:D

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

that was me, btw.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

Why do we need to make everyone else wrong?


and that's what it *always* come down for me...why does one set have to by definition exclude another.

[itsazoo.livejournal.com]

I wondered that, too. It's like, for some religions anyway, it's my way or the highway. This is what used to get me in so much trouble with my organized religion. There are probably better Jews or Buddhists or even Animists who are better people than I, following the tenets of their chosen religion more closely and with more seriousness than I did. Why should I get into "heaven" and they not, simply because I followed a Christian belief? It didn't make sense to me. I thought that shouldn't be right. I probably turned my pastor upside down when I started asking those questions at 12 or 13. LOL

[gingerwood.livejournal.com]

When confronted with that question, my priest just said that we just had to trust that God loves everyone and will take care of them.

He's the main reason me and my sibs are still Catholic.

[itsazoo.livejournal.com]

He's a smart man, Mickie. I bet he'd like to hear what you told me; let him know he reached somebody, made a difference.

[gingerwood.livejournal.com]

I wish I could, but he died about 15 years ago :(

I really did have the most incredible run of luck with priests growing up. Smart, compassionate men. I remember them when i want to run up to the podium and strangle our current deacon.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

I remember them when i want to run up to the podium and strangle our current deacon.

heh. amazing the kind of impact people can have, isn't it?

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

me too. if the Guy is all knowing, then what does it matter what name i put on my worship? i'm either a good person ultimately or i'm not, and He's either truly omniscient or He isn't. and if you [the larger 'you'] believe truly He's omniscient, then put your money where your mouth is and act that way by recognizing that you aren't Him and He doesn't need your help with the Divine Sorting Hat.

[arthurfrdent.livejournal.com]

He doesn't need your help with the Divine Sorting Hat

ROTFL... sudden vision of albus-as-God putting the sorting halo on my head, and me saying under my breath, "not hell, not hell, not hell..."

I'm always a big believer in letting God out of the box people [myself incl] stuff him in... my understanding of the universe is pitiful, how much less can I fathom God?

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

I'm always a big believer in letting God out of the box people [myself incl] stuff him in... my understanding of the universe is pitiful, how much less can I fathom God?

ayup

[gingerwood.livejournal.com]

I haven't read his book, but I've heard a couple of lengthy interviews with him promoting the book. Most scientists I've heard in the evolution/creationism debate are quite happy to take the stance of "This is science and that isn't" rather than "We're right and you're wrong". He not only crosses that line, he jumps up and down on it.

Either he's a fanatic and doesn't care because he's right and everyone who doesn't agree with him is an idiot, or he's just trying to stir up more controversy in order to sell more books.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i was fascinated by her disappointment with him, as if she shares your conclusion about stirring it up to sell books and how, not only is it sloppy work but that it's lazy.

[gingerwood.livejournal.com]

You can tell that he's not a philosopher, or a trained debater. He's working from an incredibly egotistical premise. He argues that if god existed, he would act in a certain way. RD sees no evidence of god acting that way, so therefor, God does not exist.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

exactly. a really lame argument from a scientist.