Richard Dawkins Is Wrong About Religion

[cbayer]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexberezow/2013/09/30/richard-dawkins-is-wrong-about-religion/

Alex Berezow, Contributor
I write about science, science policy and a dash of European affairs.

OP/ED | 9/30/2013 @ 3:20AM



Thanks to his new autobiography, Richard Dawkins is making the media rounds again. Recently, he appeared on the Michael Medved Show. The host, who is a friend of mine, is also an adherent of Orthodox Judaism, so perhaps because of this Mr. Dawkins was more well-behaved than usual.

During the interview, Mr. Medved asked, “Do you think it is appropriate and in fact intellectually necessary to level different kinds of criticism at, say, Christianity as opposed to Islam, or is it appropriate to lump all religions together?”

Mr. Dawkins responded:

“I would lump them together insofar as they all go by faith and all believe something without evidence… On the other hand it would be, I think, unfair to tar them all with the same brush when it comes to the ill effects that they have on the world. There is no question that, at present, the most violent religion is Islam. Go back 500 years and you’d have to make a different judgment.”

Let’s tease apart Mr. Dawkins’ answer. He says that it is unfair to tar all religions with the same brush. But, he has a long history of doing exactly that. Consider the opening line from a speech he gave in 1996 to the American Humanist Association:

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

more at link

[djean111]

1. Well, as an atheist, it matters nought to me what Dawkins says.

He has strong opinions about religion, but for me, there is nothing anyone can say for or against religion that would have any effect whatsoever on my non-belief.
I cannot imagine "converting" to atheism merely because religion of any kind is painted as violent.
I do have some born-again Baptists in my family who would be quite dangerous if they could inflict their interpretation of their religion on everyone else.
In any event, Dawkins just writes and makes speeches. He does not kill people in the name of atheism, and that, for me, is the end of it. I never got the sense Dawkins was hoping for converts to atheism, because real belief or non-belief should be a personal choice.

[cbayer]

6. I think most people come to their position on theism from

complicated and highly personalized roads.

And there is nothing to prevent someone from changing their minds at any time.

That's why tolerance and open-mindedness are so important when it comes to others and their beliefs and lack of beliefs.

As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge on the rights of others or damages them in other ways, why should it matter?

But Dawkins doesn't agree with that. Just look at his t-shirt. He very much wants people to convert to atheism, imo. But he's going about it in a way that merely makes some people think they are smarter than others and alienates those that hold a different POV.

[trotsky]

8. "As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge on the rights of others or damages them in other ways"

This shows precisely why you fail to understand this issue, cbayer. And at this point, after everything that's been said to identify the glaring flaws in your logic, I have to assume you're just clinging to your narrative, the facts be damned.

Who gets to define what is a right?

Who decides what it means to "impinge" on a right?

Who decides what constitutes "damage"?

Surprise! The answers to all three of those questions depends on the religious beliefs of the person answering them! You have solved NOTHING with your canned little position statement. You simply punt on the tough questions and hope no one notices. Oh and then condemn anyone who dares suggest that the world is more complicated than you wish to believe.

[MellowDem]

33. I want stats that most people come to religion...

On highly personalized roads.

[dimbear]

34. That is perfectly true. The birth process is about as personal as it gets. n/t

[WovenGems]

2. Dawkins was right

Whenever religion gets too powerful heads roll, bodies burn and populations live in fear. It seems that religion, all drugs really, are best in small doses.

[trotsky]

3. LOL

Theists seem more obsessed with Dawkins than the atheists they accuse of worshiping him!

If you look at both of those Dawkins quotes, they don't contradict each other at all. But as we know, it's pointless to try and appeal to facts when there's a good Dawkins bashing to be had!

[rug]

25. Yeah, that's as bizarre as atheists repeatedly posting about religion.

[whathehell]

27. LOL. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

31. Ha! Touche. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

4. "Orthodox Judaism" - that being a fundamentalist faith that treats women like shit.

For example, by spitting on school girls and other 'fallen women' on a regular basis.

yah, Dawkins has a point.

[trotsky]

5. Can't tell you how many irony meters have been broken...

when someone throws out something like this:

"How DARE Dawkins label Islam as a violent faith? He should try going to the streets of a Muslin nation and say that - bet he's too chicken to try!"

[cbayer]

7. I'm pretty sure that Michael Medved has not spit on school girls and "fallen women"

on a regular basis.

But I could be wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I'm pretty sure Orthodox Judaism is

grossly and indisputably misogynist. Evidence of this includes spitting on women.

[cbayer]

10. I did a little research on this and found quite a bit about "ultra-orthodox" men

in Israel spitting on women.

Specifically, it's a sect described as "Ultra-Orthodox (“Haredi”) Ashkenazi Jews".

They are a relatively small group and have been condemned by the leaders of the Orthodox community.

You have generalized to an entire group the behavior of a small subset.

What might one call that?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. It was one example. But perhaps you should do a bit more research on the status of women

in orthodox judaism. Misogyny is standard. Women are treated as lesser humans. Ever been to an orthodox synagogue? A wedding? Do you know anything about the subject?

If I had generalized to an entire group based on the behavior of one individual I would be behaving just like many theists in this group, but I didn't do that.

[cbayer]

12. The statement you made was not about misogyny, it was about spitting.

You generalized the behavior of a small orthodox sect to orthodox judaism in general.

What theists are you talking about and can you give me any examples of those member generalizing the behavior of some atheists to atheists in general?

By the way, you never answered my question about that other article. Did you get around to reading it?

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Whatever you say.

I'm done. Please proceed.

[dimbear]

30. In fact, the Haredi represent 10% of the Israeli population, and they grow twice as fast as

the other sects of Judaism.

A cynic would remark that they are a good example of the old saying "Bad religion drives out good" if that cynic believed there were good religions.

[hrmjustin]

14. Whether you agree or disagree with him he gets people talking.

[cbayer]

15. Oh, yes. He is very good at that....

particularly when a new book comes out, lol.

[trotsky]

16. For someone you despise and wish "would go the way of the dinosaurs..."

you sure do a good job promoting him, cbayer!

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Wow the author of this piece really didn't understand what Dawkins was saying, was he?

Instead misconstruing it.

“I would lump them together insofar as they all go by faith and all believe something without evidence… On the other hand it would be, I think, unfair to tar them all with the same brush when it comes to the ill effects that they have on the world. There is no question that, at present, the most violent religion is Islam. Go back 500 years and you’d have to make a different judgment.”

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

So what is Dawkins saying here? He calls faith which is belief without evidence, as one of the great evils of the world. Notice, that in his first statement, he said you can't generalize about all religions EXCEPT when it comes to the affects of faith itself. So the author is either being dishonest, or, more likely, has their religious blinders on.

[cbayer]

18. I think he understands it just fine, he just doesn't agree with it.

One of the points that he makes is how it makes no sense to compare "faith" to a contagious disease or teaching religion to children as child abuse.

There is no scientific evidence to back up those kinds of inflammatory statements at all. None.

Yet Dawkins the scientist thinks it's perfectly ok to present his beliefs (and they are beliefs) as something akin to facts.

BTW, the author is a scientist. His position on religion is not clear, but his position on science is very clear.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. He's presenting it in a dishonest manner, I'm sorry, but that's just the truth.

Dawkins actually has a bad habit of putting disclaimers over his ideas, he will also agree that the research hasn't been done on those "inflammatory" statements, but it should be.

Though, if it were outside the context of that discussion about diseases, he would probably, and I think he has, labeled faith as a meme.

[cbayer]

20. I've not seen anywhere that he thought research should be done, but I believe you.

He still puts them out there as if they were facts, which they most certainly are not.

He's got a research foundation. Are they studying this? I doubt it, because frankly, the things he throws out there can't really be studied. Way too many variables.

To try and do a study that compared the effects of faith on the effects of AIDS is ludicrous on it's face. First of all, I can't think of a single person who would say that AIDS has benefitted them in some way, whereas there are many who would say that their faith has benefited them.

Saying faith is a meme is one thing, and I think there is possibly some testable validity in that. Saying it is comparable to smallpox sells books.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Actually, I just looked it up, apprantly the whole "indoctrinating in religion is child abuse" is...

inaccurate.

A quote from the man himself:

According to decrepitoldfool, I assert that ‘teaching religion to children is child abuse’. That is false. I have never asserted anything of the kind. I have said that LABELLING children with the religion of their parents is child abuse. That is very different from teaching religion to children. As I said in The God Delusion, and as I repeated in my post above, I am IN FAVOUR of teaching comparative religion, and teaching the Bible as literature. What I am against is labelling a child a Catholic child, Muslim child etc. I am, of course, equally opposed to labelling a child an ‘atheist child’.

- See more at: http://www.skepticink.com/azatheist/2013/05/02/richard-dawkins-and-child-abuse/#sthash.z5SWUhqg.dpuf

ON EDIT: To elaborate on my own beliefs on the matter, indoctrinating children into a particular religion is rife with abuse, but, depending on how its presented, varies greatly in damage to a child's emotional development. Fire and brimstone theology, taught to a child, is definitely abuse, its trying to control their behavior almost strictly based on fear. Emphasis on original sin can also be abusive, as are faith based misogyny, homophobia etc. taught to girls, homosexuals, etc.

[cbayer]

22. Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure that saying that labeling children

is child abuse is much better and, again, I don't think there is any kind of evidence that would support that.

The issue of indoctrination is an interesting one and there is no doubt that it happens, but some children are raised in homes where they are introduced and exposed to religion AND encouraged to ask questions and explore other belief systems.

He has also made the statement that there is no way for a child to know what they are. Again, there is no evidence to support this. I think some children do know.

Faith, by his own definition, is believing in something without evidence.... which is exactly we he frequently does.

[skepticscott]

23. You "think some children do know"?

What's YOUR evidence for that? If you're true to form, you have none, but simply said that to be contrary and to try to paint Dawkins as off-base (which seems to have become a big part of your agenda here).

And can even you provide a link to Dawkins saying that there is no way for a child to know what they are? That would be a good start, given how common it is in this room for people to simply lie and invent things that Dawkins has never said. You know that as well as I do, though you would never call anyone on it in the name of honesty. In any case, the burden is on you to show that any child's religious identity can be self-established by the time their parents start labeling and indoctrinating them.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. I think its the point of labeling children on a belief system they don't have the maturity...

to understand.

I doubt many children before the age of probably 10 or so actually know, they would identify with what their parents are, I doubt they actually understand the implications of the beliefs their parents hold. Remember, he also said labeling children as atheist is also child abuse.

[cbayer]

26. That's a reasonable point.

Sometimes it's just a cultural reference, I think. Similar to saying "We are Jewish" for secular jews, a family may identify themselves as one thing or another, even though the kids really don't know.

In my church, kids were baptized at 13, reportedly the same age as Jesus. We were asked to take a course and then asked to make a personal decision on whether to join the church or not. The class was open for discussion, debate and disagreement. There may have been an expectation that one would agree to the baptism, but I don't think that there were any consequences if one said no.

I'm not sure how the labeling could be used to harm a child, though. Can you think of examples of that?

[Humanist_Activist]

28. It can be used to create cliques based on something subjective...

I think Dawkins once used the example of certain areas in Northern Ireland, where being labeled as either Protestant or Catholic can determine things such as who you can be friends with and who you can date and ultimately marry(sticking with labels here).

The issue is that its OTHER people labeling the kids, not necessarily the kids themselves.

[cbayer]

29. Northern Ireland is an extreme but very good example.

But I would again suggest that the divisions in NI are more clannish and cultural than actual differences in religious beliefs.

And I bet many of the kids there pick up one of those labels themselves at a pretty young age.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. The fact is that the author of the piece you posted is being dishonest...

frankly it gets worse the more you read it, I actually clicked the link, he threw every smear you can think of at Dawkins, while quote-mining him.

I'm assuming you posted the article to expose the writer of it as a dishonest man.

[cbayer]

36. He's not being dishonest. He is merely expressing an opinion with which you disagree.

And these aren't smears. These are legitimate points of contention that have been raised by both believers and non-believers.

When you are trying to make a point, gathering someone's comments is not quote-mining. He links to them, so that they can be read in context, and pulled out the ones that have caused the most controversy.

You may be a supporter of Dawkins. You may be a defender of Dawkins. Hell, you might even be an acolyte.

And you can disagree with the author, but that won't make him wrong.

No, I did not post this to expose the writer as a dishonest man.

[Humanist_Activist]

37. Gathering up someone's comments and then telling people they say something they don't...

is, at the very least, stupid.

[Laochtine]

32. I must follow

What my atheist pope says, I've heard it's a religion