The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[howard male]

Adam wrote -

Oh, Howard, you drag me back! Kicking and screaming! Much as I love The Beatles (and their chord progrssions) I wouldn't compare their works - or any man-made confection - to a perfect sunset

I think you misunderstand me, Adam. What I meant was that your analytical experience of music, and knowledge of its inner workings, in no way inhibits your experience of it as a visceral and wonderfully enigmatic art form.

Dawkins similarly seems to have a healthy awe-struck view of the universe which is enhanced by his scientific knowledge rather than dulled by it. It is all to easy to dismiss him as just another boffin in a white coat, but if you actually read his books you come to realise there is passion behind the search for knowledge.

[garth cartwright]

Howard, i have read lots of Hitchens - he is forever in Vanity Fair and The Guardian. Thus i know that i do not need to read his book. A vastly overrated and irrational writer - why the UK media are so fascinated by him and his equally obnoxious brother i have no idea. Plebs get excited about Big Brother contestants while the chattering classes go gaga about the Hitchens . . .

As for The God Delusion - i understand his arguement, agree with much of it, but don't need to read the book. Life is short and there's only so much time for reading - I currently am engaged in the last of the Pullman trilogy (OK but a bit hard work compared to the first 2), Sinclair's London Orbital (entertaining if very repetitive - how many times does Iain have to note about the graffitti and dog shit?), Tony Wood's Chechnya: The Case For Independence, Jay Griffiths Wild, Daniel Miller's Winter's Bone and The Rough Guide To Reggae (am on a Jamaican kick at the moment). The God Delusion simply does not attract me to spend time on. Dawkins makes some interesting points in various essays i've read by him over the years but a book? No thanks.

And H, don't make snide remarks about contributors' taste/openness or you will again find your entries attracting a fierce response. Peace both to the world and SOTW.

[howard male]

Garth wrote -

And H, don't make snide remarks about contributors' taste/openness or you will again find your entries attracting a fierce response. Peace both to the world and SOTW.

Now you've made your position clearer on Dawkins I can see where you're coming from, Garth. My apologies for my bluntness - which was only a response to the bluntness of your original dismissal of Dawkins.

I think I will go back to not bothering with those smiley face symbols as they clearly don't seem to convey what I want them to convey - that I may tease, but there is no malice intended.

[Ted]

And Ted, I can't quite make out whether you are being ironic but, yes, that is exactly what I'm talking about.

No irony intended.

What you're doing here Adam, is denying yourself pleasure in the name of ideology. Don't you see - you can have both? You can have the huge awestruck "fuck me doesn't that look fantastic" AND the "the air must be filthy for the sunset to look like that" - you can have those thoughts and feelings together or individually. And you can choose which one to enjoy. I love the instant when the sun drops below the horizon when you get that weird diffraction effect - and sometimes I sit there thinking about optics when I'm watching it. Other times I just try to empty my head and let it flood into me.

Thats all.
TW

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Howard wrote

The biggest and best idea I can think of for helping us become a more civilised and tolerant race is to grow out of our attachment to these dangerously ambiguous and anachronistic books written thousands of years ago. I am optimistic that this is happening already but it will be a slow process (as evolution always is) and we can only hope that our species survives long enough to see these old books just become interesting works of ancient literature, and nothing more. It's the only hope we have.

For Howard to suggest that humans would become 'more civilised and tolerant' by doing away with religion is, to put it quite bluntly, completely ridiculous. Humans, from earliest times, have always been aggressive. As Adam said, its about wanting what other people have or, to put it another way, not wanting other people to take what you've got!

Its human nature that causes most of the problems, not religion; but because many unspeakable acts have been carried out in its name that doesn't necessarily mean that religion itself is evil.

Most religions set out rules for the behaviour of their followers/devotees/subscribers or whatever you want to call them. Those laws are generally quite 'civilised' ie don't kill, steal, lie etc. Most of it sensible stuff. Thus, we have to assume that our 'Gods' were well aware of the need to curb man's natural excesses. It certainly isn't 'God' who tells us to do any, or all, of the above. We have to take responsibility for having interpreted those laws to suit ourselves. It defeats me how the words 'Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself' can be interpreted as 'Fuck it, let's just bomb the bastards..!' Certainly I've never heard our local vicar utter them.

Of course some individuals are naturally more violent than others. Murderers, torturers, child molesters, thieves and bigots may well greet the outbreak of war with whoops of delight. The rest will no doubt gasp and say 'I would never do any of those terrible things..' believing ourselves too civilised to commit even the smallest of those crimes. Yet, gather a dozen of us together, tell us the tribe over the hill stole our fattest cow, and what do you have? A mob, a gang, a baying pack of humanity ready to do whatever it takes to get back what was ours AND teach the buggers a lesson into the bargain. Then we'd probably butcher the cow for the all night celebrations!

As a matter of interest, how then do you account for all the rapes and killings that happen every day and night in all corners of the world? How many of the inmates in our British prisons excuse their crimes by saying they did it in the name of their God? None, not unless they're certifiable that is. I’ve often wondered what the sum total would be of all these non-war crimes we yawn over at the breakfast table. Millions? Billions? Anyway, I’m sure it would be a figure waaaay higher than anything ever committed in the name of religion!

June @//(*_*)\\@

[howard male]

June wrote -

Its human nature that causes most of the problems, not religion; but because many unspeakable acts have been carried out in its name that doesn't necessarily mean that religion itself is evil.

As I said before, June, chicken - egg. Human nature and religion are inextricably linked. It used to be said that the main thing that separated men from monkeys is that men were tool users. Then monkeys, and other mammals, were seen using sticks to get bugs out of holes in trees, or rocks to break open nuts. I would say it is religion that is now one of the main things which separates men from beasts. And I don't think there is any beast that exhibits so much hatred and prejudice against others of the same species as mankind does.

But I don't think the actual religious impulse is necessarily evil - a healthy sense of a spiritual dimension to one's life can enhance it. But when man - as he always does - feels the need to name that thing, and then attribute laws and instructions to it, we always end up in trouble.

June wrote -

Most religions set out rules for the behaviour of their followers/devotees/subscribers or whatever you want to call them. Those laws are generally quite 'civilised' ie don't kill, steal, lie etc. Most of it sensible stuff.

'Mostly sensible' isn't good enough when you've also got lovely passages like this - which I actually found by opening the Bible at random, which perhaps gives some indication of how full that book is with casual cruelties and xenophobic sadism. From the small-print of the Ten Commandments, Exodus 21:35:

If a man beats his male or female slave (at least no sexual discrimination here!) with a rod and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Yes, you did read that right. Most of us probably already knew the big guy upstairs had no problem with slavery - it's a way of life in the Bible - but here he is actually advocating the beating of your slave within an inch of his life. And they'll be no repercussions because the poor bastard belongs to you.

So if such sadistic cruelty is advocated by the God of the Old Testament, then what terrible crime does deserve severe punishment? Well, don't, what ever you do, dream of exercising your free will, by considering any other God for worship. Exodus 20:3:

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD (His capitals) your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hated me...

So, like a brutal psychotic terrorist, God holds a gun to your children's heads, and, being omnipotent, your children's children's heads, forever and ever, Amen - in order to win your adoration.

And let's get the 'thou shall not kill' thing in perspective too - in the Old Testament it only applies to not killing other Jews, I'm afraid. The Ten Commandments isn't really concerned with the rest of us. Likewise, the Koran. These books are tribal books addressing the tribe they were written for. The rest of us can go to hell, so to speak. Religions are divisive, there's no escaping it.

June wrote -

I've often wondered what the sum total would be of all these non-war crimes we yawn over at the breakfast table. Millions? Billions? Anyway, I'm sure it would be a figure way higher than anything ever committed in the name of religion!

There is little doubt in my mind that the number of people killed in the name of one religion or another, over millennia, would far outweigh domestic one-on-one crimes over the same period. And even within the realms of one-on-one domestics, many of those have been made excusable because of the lower status of women in society, which has always been explicit in all the organised religions.

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Howard said

But when man - as he always does - feels the need to name that thing, and then attribute laws and instructions to it, we always end up in trouble.

Now here, at least, you're beginning to get an idea of what I'm getting at.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one Howard. I was tempted to dig up a raft of statistics for you but, when I saw some of the figures covering only 45 years of recorded violent crime in the US, it sickened me so much I decided to leave it. Suffice to say that reported crimes of violence in that period alone totalled over 88 million (or 88,125,726 to be exact), which made me realise we are an infinitely more violent species than I had ever imagined. From the small bit that I read, 1980 was a bumper year for violence: in that year alone a US citizen had a 1 in 10,000 chance of being murdered or, if they didn't fancy their chances on that one, well, they could rest easy in the knowledge that their chances of being raped were nearly 4 times better. Eek! (Thank Nobody-In-Particular I decided not to quote any statistics then ...:-)) [ darn, that turned out like a double chin..!]

Neither am I going to fall into the trap of opening (say) the Bible and seeking a paragraph (parable?) or two to back up my views. I suspect any monkey with a stick could do that! For instance you pointed out the restrictions on the 'thou shalt not kill' part, but chose to completely ignore the 'love thy neighbour as thyself' bit. See, human nature; human choice, and human interpretation to suit our own ends! Just face up to it Howard, we are a nasty lot. I only wonder sometimes that we're still here at all.

I don't think its simply man's ability to think freely that sets him apart from the rock-wielding chimp. I've seen a couple of documentaries where groups of those self-same primates attacked and beat to death, then tore to pieces a group of rival chimpanzees that had dared to encroach on their territory. So in that way we are rather similar. But there was another one, years ago now, where a chimp had been taught basic sign language - words for various foods, and for various actions and feelings (sit, sleep, up, down, eat, tired, want, give, you, me etc) - and then began making up its own sentences using the signs. It chose to elaborate on the simple grouping of words that it had been taught, and even expressed how it was feeling. It was really fascinating. Did you ever see that?

So what then are the differences between us and our distant cousins? Is it because we've taken things a step further and are able to (we believe) guess how other humans might act or react in imagined situations ie A thinks B is a fool; B thinks A doesn't like him and mentions this to C; C thinks A and B are both fools so decides not to comment; B thinks C likes A better than him so decides not to speak to either of them ever again .... you see what I mean? I don't think its the fact that we can think that's the problem, or even that we believe in lots of different things that can't be proven to exist: fairies, extra-terrestrials, Gods or, the unlikeliest one of all -a catchy jazz tune. It appears to me to be the WAY humans think that's the real problem, don't you agree?

June

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Clowns wrote

lots of different things that can't be proven to exist: fairies, extra-terrestrials, Gods or, the unlikeliest one of all -a catchy jazz tune.

In light of another thread on here (which I hadn't read 'til now...) OOOPS!!!

J

[howard male]

June wrote -

in that year alone a US citizen had a 1 in 10,000 chance of being murdered or, if they didn't fancy their chances on that one, well, they could rest easy in the knowledge that their chances of being raped were nearly 4 times better.

I wonder how those odds stand against the odds of being murdered in Rwanda in 1992? Rwanda is the most Christian country in Africa. 65% of Rwandans are Catholic and 15% Protestant. The trigger for this awful event was when a Catholic saw a vision of the Virgin Mary predicting a bloody apocalypse. A million people were tortured, raped, and murdered. This shows that religion could lead to genocide anywhere at any time. Also this was not the spontaneous outburst of madness it is sometimes reported to have been, it was a systematic and co-ordinated operation.

You bring up America. Do you really think that all these murders have no connection to religion when America is one of the most God-fearing countries on the planet? Do you really think that the 'right to bare arms' has nothing to do with the 'eye for an eye' vengence ethos at the heart of the Bible?

Were you aware that the atheist is the new Public Enemy Number One in America? Your average American bigot would much prefer a gay, black of Jewish president than an atheist one. Now that's scary.

Could it not be that Americans kill each other because they don't value life enough? They think there's better to come because that's what their religion tells them. It is impossible to gauge what effect a religion that tells people there is an afterlife has on those people, either directly or subliminally, but we can guess it would certainly lessen their attachment to this life.

Of course people kill each other for other reasons too, domestic or non-domestic, but I'm willing to bet my poor atheist's soul that religion is in there somewhere, either as a direct trigger, or on a more subliminal level.

Why don't we turn this whole thing around, and you tell me what good organised religions has done?

I have more faith in human nature than you do. I actually think that most human beings are intrinsically caring and good, and don't actually need a list of dos and don'ts from on high to be that way. But treat human beings like children (which is what religions do) and they'll behave like children, and run wild now and again, with devastating consequences - just like monkeys do.

[Con Murphy]

I wonder how those odds stand against the odds of being murdered in Rwanda in 1992? Rwanda is the most Christian country in Africa. 65% of Rwandans are Catholic and 15% Protestant. The trigger for this awful event was when a Catholic saw a vision of the Virgin Mary predicting a bloody apocalypse. A million people were tortured, raped, and murdered. This shows that religion could lead to genocide anywhere at any time. Also this was not the spontaneous outburst of madness it is sometimes reported to have been, it was a systematic and co-ordinated operation.

What the blazes are you talking about, Howard? Apart from that last sentence, your reading of events is almost Biblical in its simplified absurdity. This was a centuries-old ethnic conflict which was brought to a head by decades of geopolitical unrest covering a number of Central and East African states, and exacerbated by United Nations intransigence and French incompetence (which bordered on war crimes, arguably). And if there was a trigger, I think the President's plane being shot down might take precedence over the ramblings of some god-botherer.

And Ted wonders why I rant about atheist zealotry.

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Howard suggested

Why don't we turn this whole thing around, and you tell me what good organised religions has done?

Now why on earth would you ask me to do that? I think you assume, because I'm not ready to blame all the ills of mankind on the existence of religion, that I surely MUST be a supporter of it. Sorry Howard, but you've got me all wrong.

I may not support it, but I do question the nouveau trendy sport of pointing the finger at religion instead of asking ourselves why people do the horrendous things they do. Let's face it, if there was no religion, we would just swing that finger round and point it at something else - the weather maybe, or poor housing, or poverty, or people who wear cravats.

I 'brought up America' simply because it was the first site Google threw up at me! I typed in 'crime statistics' and up popped the good old U S of A. I've no idea why. But you made some interesting suggestions as to why those figures are so high. I disagree with them, but they were interesting nonetheless. Your idea that belief in an afterlife might somehow makes believers value life less, was stretching things a bit far don't you think? So therefore it must follow that believers in reincarnation are more likely to commit murders too? I suspect not.

No, I wasn't aware that athiests were PE No.1 in America. But it worries me no less than knowing that God-botherers are routinely vilified and smirked about in this country. Bigotry takes many forms.

Do we agree to disagree and walk away smiling, or do you still want to try wiping the bracket off my smiley?? :=)

June

[howard male]

June wrote -

Your idea that belief in an afterlife might somehow makes believers value life less, was stretching things a bit far don't you think?

Er, actually no. Suicide bombers - need I say more?

Yes, I know they are in the minority, but is it that hard to believe that a little bit of their blind conviction in afterlife rewards lives in every believer's brain?

Con wrote -

What the blazes are you talking about, Howard? Apart from that last sentence, your reading of events is almost Biblical in its simplified absurdity. This was a centuries-old ethnic conflict which was brought to a head by decades of geopolitical unrest covering a number of Central and East African states, and exacerbated by United Nations intransigence and French incompetence (which bordered on war crimes, arguably). And if there was a trigger, I think the President's plane being shot down might take precedence over the ramblings of some god-botherer.

Yes it was a centuries old conflict but one which had remained dormant until its reawakening was incited by state and church. And yes, the factors you mention played a part. But to deny the involvement of the church... Well, let me relay the version of events I have read about.

The wife of the Rwandan president - who fell for all the Madonna vision crap - was a close friend of the bishop of Kigali, Rwanda's capital. This guy was a also a member of the National Revolutionary Movement for Development. These thugs were fond of rounding up 'prostitutes' and trashing stores that sold contraceptives. Prophesy was at last being fulfilled and the 'cockroaches' - the Tutsi minority - were getting what had long been coming to them. The Tutsi people thought they would find refuge in churches, but priests and nuns informed the authorities where they were. This was why so many of the mass graves were on consecrated ground. Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka was smuggled out of the country by French priests but was later charged with genocide. Another bishop, bishop Misago, told a group of Tutsi schoolchildren who were being held in preparation for slaughter, not to worry - the police would protect them. Three days later the police slaughtered them. This bishop even referred to his own mother as a cockroach. I don't think I need to go on.

However you dress it, whether it was ethnic conflicts past (which I'm sure had a religious dimension anyway) of religious or political conflicts present, I can't see how you can deny the long dark shadow of religion hanging over these events.

Con wrote -

And Ted wonders why I rant about atheist zealotry.

Well, if being deeply saddened and angry about the fact that most of the ill treatment or murder of other human beings on the planet - be they women, gays, or other god bothers who bother other gods - is done in the name of religion, makes me an atheist zealot, Con, then it is a label I shall wear with pride.

However, as I've explained before, I am not an atheist, I am an entertainer of the possibility. I believe this to be the only reasonable position to take on the issue of a hypothetical higher intelligence which may or may not have had something to do with the evolution of this planet and all its life forms.

I'd like to share this Bertrand Russell quote with you. Not an atheist bandwagon jumper, I hasten to add, as this was written in 1957:

I think all the great religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism - both untrue and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not more than one of them can be true.

[Con Murphy]

Apologies for going off on one last night - bad journey home from the flood plains of Berkshire :-)

Obviously, I join you in condemnation of acts perpetrated in the name of religion, Howard (I need to point out that I did not deny the involvement of the church in Rwanda, as you suggest), and I'd also rather organised religion did not exist. But you are offering a partial, selective explanation for what happened in Rwanda which seems to ignore the worst offenders simply because they weren't acting in the name of a god. You also conveniently ignore that much of the early opposition to the Rwandan president came from the Catholic newspaper Kinyamateka and bishops within the country. I think some context is needed*, but I think we should leave it there. Especially as the more I think about this particular example - and what happened in the Balkans - the more I'm thinking that nationalism is at least as much a force for evil as religion. But that's a whole new debate, and I think I'd better get back to the music!



*eg the term 'cockroach', which originated amongst exiled Tutsi insurgents but was turned against all Tutsis to justify Hutu murders. I'm not excusing the use of the word, but it does need putting into context.

[Martin_Edney]

Why don't we turn this whole thing around, and you tell me what good organised religions has done?

I'm an atheist. There, I've put my cards on the table at the start. While this is a fairly common point of view in my home country (UK), I think it's worth remembering that religious belief is the norm almost everywhere else (I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, just that it's a thing).

My attitude to organised religion was turned around by the 3 years I spent living among committed Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. I remember one morning greeting a friend in the hot sun (47c is REALLY hot!). On her head was a 25l jerry can full of water. In each hand was a 25l jerry can of water. I asked her how far she'd been carrying this water. "Oh, about 20 minutes away" was the cheery reply. I then asked her how long she'd had to queue to get the water. "Oh, about 3 hours", she said with a smile. "And, you're smiling, after all that?" I asked. "Of course", she replied, "God loves me."

So for me the good side of organised religion is that it helps people like my friend get through the day under the most extreme circumstances, and to keep going with hope in their hearts.

Sure, religion causes a lot of bad things in the world, but if it brings happiness to people such as my friend, that's something to recommend it.

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Martin Edney said

So for me the good side of organised religion is that it helps people like my friend get through the day under the most extreme circumstances, and to keep going with hope in their hearts.

Yep, I agree.

My son attends our local Catholic primary school but, because we're not Catholic, his involvement in their religious lessons has been minimal - morning or afternoon prayers only. Yet when his father died 4 years ago, although deeply distressed, he wasn't inconsolable. You see, he had formed an unshakeable belief that Jesus would take care of his dad, and that he would see him again one day.

I suspect similar stories are being acted out the world over right at this moment, yet we won't hear about any of them because they don't make for very exciting headlines, do they? Nor do they sell books ... ahem ... okay, maybe one!

June