The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[howard male]

I see what you're saying, Martin and June, but it's still a question of which way the scales fall.

You've mentioned what are probably the two most important reasons that organised religion continues to thrive: that it makes people good, and that it consols us when a loved one has died.

As for making people good, my personal view is that good people are born that way, and that if there is a parallel universe devoid of the monolithic religions we have, there would be just as many good souls out in Africa helping victims of war and famine. Obviously this can't be proved but I supect there are many athiest doing God's work, as well as believers!

The consoling aspect of religion is harder to dismiss. All I can say is, just because it's consoling, that doesn't make it good or right. Should we really still be clinging to these intrinsically destructive organisations because the tell us our loved ones are in Heaven? And anyway, that's not really what the Bible is telling us - the fact that it's impossible to live the kind of good life the Bible dictates (following the exact dictates of the Ten Commandments and all the other Old Testament rules and regulations laid down by God) means that Hell would be the more likely destination for 98% of us!

The bottom line is, we need to grow up. The consolations of religion are illusory - like the fairy stories that sent us to sleep as children. Perhaps Jesus (or that blond haired, blue eyed version of Jesus) could continue to be comforting presence to our children just as Father Christmas is. And we somehow grow out of Father Christmas, with no ill effects...

[Con Murphy]

Quick joke to lighten the mood of the thread:-

One day a zoo-keeper noticed that one of the Orangutans was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's The Origin of Species.

Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading those books?"

"Well," said the Orangutan, "I just wanted to work out whether I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

[Martin_Edney]

You've mentioned what are probably the two most important reasons that organised religion continues to thrive: that it makes people good, and that it consols us when a loved one has died.

[...snip...]

The bottom line is, we need to grow up.

Howard - I think you slightly missed my point. I emphasised that religion makes people feel good (Marx's opiate of the masses point). I certainly wasn't saying it made them be good - as you said, for some people it does, for some it doesn't.

After 3 years living in Nigeria, with people constantly trying to convert me to their particular brand of religion, I've ended up concluding that such discussions just end up as a more extreme version of one of Des' "jazz is all crap" discussions, with each side saying "you're wrong" to the other, over something that is essentially subjective and personal. Either you're into it or you're not. If you're into it, and don't use it to do harm, that's fine (but leave me out of it).

I really think it's as simple and subjective as that. Saying "we need to grow up" is fine, if that's your point of view, but equally, saying "God loves me" is also fine, and doesn't do any harm (and may make your life happier).

So I've ended up as a committed (but not proselytizing) atheist - happy with my point of view, but happy to let others have their point of view in peace. I'm not sure that the world would be any better if we all gave up religion tomorrow, nor do I think it would necessarily be any worse.

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Con interjected with ...

"Well," said the Orangutan, "I just wanted to work out whether I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

Thank you Con, mood officially lightened.

Sooooo. I don't think there's much more I can say on this sub-topic. Howard has expressed his opinion, and I, ..... well, I feel its time I gave up trying to nail this particular jelly to the ceiling ....

¤ø,¸¸,¸.•*´¯)-June-(¯`*•.¸,¸¸,ø¤

PS Oh yeah, I forgot to say. I haven't read the book!

[howard male]

Martin wrote -

Either you're into it or you're not. If you're into it, and don't use it to do harm, that's fine

That's one mighty big if, Martin! And if we're talking about the organised religions (which we were) then I think you'd have conclude that it isn't fine.

This may sound like a fatuous thing to say, but would you have the same live-and-let-live approach if we were talking about a fascist dictatorship?

You see, that's what I've been trying to get at here. Our politically correct response to religion has become: respect other people's beliefs. That's all very well, and I do so when I meet people on a one-to-one basis. But we're not talking about well-meaning people here, we're talking about something much bigger and scarier.

The way organised religions have always persecuted women, abused children, and driven gay men to commit suicide - not to mention screwing so many people up psychologically, means they have to be seen as the equivalent to corrupt governments rather than harmless God botherers.

I'm sorry to keep going on about this but, while other people may get heated about Blair or Bush, I've always been more interested in the general bigger picture. I've always been fascinated by what makes people behave the way they do in the first place. I mean, even the supposed secularism of Hitler's Germany has religion as the starting point of its hate mongering.

I think comparative religion should be taught at all schools with an emphasis placed on free thinking and conjecture, so that every child can look at the full picture and - if they are predisposed to need a spiritual dimension to their life - they can even invent their own religion if they wish. I mean, why not! It's not likely to be any more or less far-fetched than the thousands that have come and gone already.

Some kids might prefer to have god as just a woolly ephemeral version of an imaginary friend, others would envisage a more distant unapproachable presence, and some would jump straight in at the deep-end as no-nonsense atheists. But at least they'd have a choice. And they'd be able to build on, or knock down whatever it was the came up with, as they got older.

You see, I'm no Richard Dawkins; I don't have a problem with people finding new ways to think about our weird and wonderful world and universe, but i do worry an awful lot about where the old ways are going to lead us.

When 9/11 happened, I remember thinking briefly as I watched the TV footage, this is it; this is the end of the world. And with that thought came a second thought, that religion had done this. Not neccessarily Islam, but the domino repercussions of the event that would just keep rolling on for years and years to come.

So, no Martin, I can't just say that the world would be just as good a place with or without organised religion. There's no question that if it could be instantly made to disappear we could all breath a lot easier.

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Con said

and I’ll probably read The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief* by Francis Collins** as well for the opposite (ish) view from a scientific perspective. Any of my fellow non-believing anti-organised religionists read this one yet? Thought not !

Con,

After your mention of this book I ordered it from Amazon. So far I'm about halfway through and its an interesting read. Although Francis Collins is now a committed Christian, he doesn't attempt to sway the reader, but rather (so far!) examines the question of God's existence from his experiences in biology, physics, sociobiology, medicine, and now through what he has learned from his involvement in determining the DNA sequence of the entire human genome (busy man!)

What surprised me most is that his 'quest' began when he (as an athiest) became fascinated by the effects that having a profound faith in God had on his patients. There's a big shocker near the start that will have you wondering how the **** he can possibly still believe in God, but I'll leave that one for you to experience for yourself.

So, the verdict? Well, its an easy read, and not full of scientific jargon. He appears to be approaching the subject from a purely scientific perspective, yet I have an uneasy feeling he's about to steer things in the direction of 'This is all so amazing that it surely must be the work of a Greater Being...'! We'll see. But, based on the first half, I'd recommend it.

June

PS Yes Howard, I'm also prepared to don my crash helmet and recommend you read it too...!!

[Con Murphy]

Hey, thanks for that June. You actually beat me to it, I still haven't even bought the book yet, let alone read it. I will do so now on your recommendation.

[howard male]

I too have ordered it. I was going to let sleeping gods lie, but it looks like this strand may have just been given a new lease of life.

Insert your own appropriate reversed dog proverb here:

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Howard instructed:-

Insert your own appropriate reversed dog proverb here:

... er.. you ain't nothing but a hound-god?

June

[Dominic]

- You can't teach an old god new tricks

- Why keep a god and bark yourself

- A man's best friend is his god

- Gods are people too

[Con Murphy]

- You can't teach an old god new tricks

- Why keep a god and bark yourself

- A man's best friend is his god

- Gods are people too

...and for all those for whom religion is a once a year occasion at Christingle or Midnight Mass:-

A god is just for Christmas, not for life...

[Tom McPhillips]

doing it goddie-fashion!

(the mind doggles!)

[NormanD]

Song for Howard:
"How come my god don't bark when you come around?"

And for Gordon M:
"They'd better quit kicking my god around"

[Gordon Neill]

How about a hint from Roscoe Gordon: No More Goddin'?

[Dayna]

What does a dyslexic insomniac, atheist do?



He stays up all night wondering if there's a dog.



:-)