What does Dawkins say is wrong with religion?
Does this claim make religion false?
McCulloch’s questions:
Is religion itself bad or just certain instances of religion?
Are non-believers justified in being hostile to religion?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=120902#p120902
otseng wrote:What does Dawkins say is wrong with religion?
One of the main critiques of religion that Dawkins has is that religion supposedly undermines science.
“As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise.” (page 284)
I’m not really sure what Dawkins means by “fundamentalist” here. If he defines fundamentalist as “people who believe something and nothing will budge them from that belief”, then non-religious people as well can be a fundamentalist.
Also, he doesn’t give a good argument that religion corrupts science. He gives the example that geologist Kurt Wise had to either choose science or a young earth. This is a false dichotomy. For example, most members of the American Scientific Affiliation accept an old earth. So, one can be religious, a scientist, and also believe in an old earth.
However, I do agree in a sense with Dawkins in that a religious scientist shouldn’t be “forced” to accept a young earth. If someone believes the evidence more strongly supports an old earth, he should feel free to believe it without having to sacrifice personal convictions.
“I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence.” (page 282)
I would also agree with Dawkins that we should go where the evidence leads. And I do not believe that there needs to be a conflict between religion and science. There can exist a harmony between the two.
Does this claim make religion false?
Even if religion does supposedly undermines science, it would not in itself make the belief false. The role of science is not per se to know the truth, but to provide an explanation or model of what we observe.
Is religion itself bad or just certain instances of religion?
There certainly does exist bad religious people. But that doesn’t show that all of religion is bad.
Are non-believers justified in being hostile to religion?
If there are injustices done in the name of religion, non-believers, as well as believers, should be free to point them out.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=121181#p121181
Confused wrote:I think his point was that, in his opinion, Wise couldn’t reconcile his science knowledge with that of scripture, so Wise discarded science in favor of the literal scripture. Though this was a choice that Wise made, Dawkins seems to feel that religion corrupted the potential he could have provided to future science. However, That is his opinion, not the opinion of Wise. Wise appears to have no problem with it.
And if Wise has no problem with it, why should even Dawkins care? It’s a free country. If people willingly choose to believe something, no matter how absurd someone else might think, they should have the freedom to believe in it.
But once again, it seems like he is referring to the extreme literalists who undermine science, not the “middle of the ground”.
Does he give any examples to illustrate this claim?
McCulloch wrote:Religions make claims that conflict with what science has found to be true.
Does Dawkins give any examples of this?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=121546#p121546
QED wrote: In my opinion, which I believe is shared by Dawkins (as taken from TV interview) — if a belief which leads to some significant behaviour cannot be validated (in principle) by others who may wish to question it, then it should not be granted such freedoms. Arbitrary beliefs can readily be fabricated that are independent of the actual world, and so cannot be verified.
If it has no effect on other individuals, it shouldn’t matter. Additionally, how can anything be sufficiently validated? And by whom should the validation be done by?
Also, as much as it would be nice if everyone was on the same page and believed in the same things, we would head into dangerous waters if we determined who can believe what. As long as one’s belief does not hurt others, one should be given the complete freedom to believe in whatever one wants.
An obvious example would be the belief that God (the ultimate authority in the universe) has expressed a wish that all US soldiers or civilians should die for their actions in the middle East — and furthermore that he promises any martyr to this cause an eternal life in paradise where the martyr will be granted all their carnal desires.
In the case where a belief harms others, I’m opposed to it.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=121617#p121617
Scrotum wrote:I had a interesting telephonecall involving Otseng,
It’s not often that I get to talk on the phone with a fellow forum member. And we did have a good conversation. Thanks for calling me. 
Religion is bad in almost, if not all, instances.
Again, I’ll admit that bad has been done in the name of religion. But I’ll also say that good has been done in the name of religion. And probably more good than bad.
My main objection to religion is the clear incentive to lie to people, especially children.
If parents believe in what they are teaching to their children, then it can not be called lying.
Religion is the main cause of most of the wars we have had in the world.
Care to back up this claim?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122026#p122026
QED wrote:How is this a bad thing? Well, it’s tantamount to training people to be irrational for one thing — and for another, it divides human beings into different factions (your religion will be overwhelmingly likely to be that of your parents/geographical location — and will differ from that of a person in a different part of the world).
Likewise, we should dissolve all countries since they cause factions and wars. Or dissolve sports teams cause they cause animosity between devoted fans.
Also, I’d disagree that religious people are “trained to be irrational”. Most of the US Ivy league universities had Christian roots. No Sunday Schools are teaching, “here’s how to be irrational”.
In principle anyone and everyone. If beliefs born out of the scientific method are in discord with the actual world, any detectable discord is — by definition — open to correction.
What I was addressing was your statement, “if a belief which leads to some significant behavior cannot be validated (in principle) by others who may wish to question it, then it should not be granted such freedoms.”
People should not be denied freedom of belief. No group or individual should be able to dictate what another person can or cannot believe, no matter how irrational one might think it is.
All are welcome to show that they have detected that discord.
Certainly. People are free to express how they think others could be wrong.
Your President announced that his foreign policy was, in effect, a response to a “calling from beyond the stars”. While world leaders retain respect when personal revelation informs their decision making, I think we are consigned to the barbarism of the past.
Well, I believe God told me that the US shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.
I would suggest that we go back to the barbarism days of the past in which the king went out to battle with his army. If Bush is willing to declare war and join in the battle, then I would certainly respect his decision more.
do you really think it healthy for human civilization to built-up from societies of irrational thinkers?
I’m not saying that we should promote irrationality. But people not always rational either. We all make decisions that are not rational. If we only had a society of rational thinkers, I believe there’d be very few here.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122046#p122046
Confused wrote: Give me one horrible thing that an “atheist organization” did in the name of atheism.
My circle is mainly confined to Christian organizations. So, I am not familiar with atheist organizations. What atheist organizations are there?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122566#p122566
From what I can gather in this thread, I think we all can agree that there have been bad things done in the name of religion. But, what I have not seen is that this shows that religion is false or even wrong.
What I do believe is that it shows that religion is powerful. Religion has the power to cause people to do bad things, and it also has the power to cause people to do good things.
For example, fire is powerful. It can cause wildfires and burn down forests and houses. But, it can also warm us and cook our food. Water is powerful. Hurricanes and floods can destroy. But, water also gives life to plants and animals. So, just because fire and water can do bad things, that does not in itself show that fire and water is bad.
Or some other human examples. Politics is powerful. It can cause genocides and wars. But, it can also support a prosperous economy. Sex is powerful. It can be abused and cause pain or it can also be a source of pleasure. Money is powerful. It can cause people to commit murder or it can provide a great deal of possessions. So, just because bad things can happen in politics, sex, or money, that doesn’t mean all these things are necessarily bad. It just means that all these things are powerful.
So, though bad things (as well as good things) can be done through religion, what it means is that religion is powerful.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122741#p122741
QED wrote:otseng wrote:From what I can gather in this thread, I think we all can agree that there have been bad things done in the name of religion. But, what I have not seen is that this shows that religion is false or even wrong.No, and in principle, you can’t ever be shown that.
To clarify, what can’t ever be shown? That bad things done in the name of religion would show religion is false or even wrong? Or simply that religion is false?
So is it too powerful for the job it’s required to do?
I wouldn’t say that it is too powerful, but it is simply how it is. Is water too powerful for the job it’s required to do? Is sex too powerful for the job it’s required to do?
If, as I suspect, the main motive for monotheistic religions like Christianity has always been an attempt to impose a code of conduct on human beings (something that necessitated an authority apparently higher than man) then the framework of democracy might suffice.
Well, for Christianity, the purpose is not to provide a code of conduct. So, your suspicion would not apply to Christianity.
As for the other traditional roles of religion, we could still permit the possibility of God as creator in a Deist sense and leave room for speculation about meaning, and other existential issues that many feel the need for comforting answers.
That would be like saying we should also remove all forms of money and use bartering. Though it would remove all the negative aspects of money, it would also remove all the positive aspects of money.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123240#p123240
otseng wrote:From what I can gather in this thread, I think we all can agree that there have been bad things done in the name of religion. But, what I have not seen is that this shows that religion is false or even wrong.
In practically any human activity, there can be shown bad aspects of it, especially any activity that has latent power (eg politics, money, sex). But, this does not show that these activities are categorically wrong. And it especially doesn’t show that these activities are false, or even delusional.
So, unless it can be shown that bad things done in the name of religion demonstrates that religion is false, I’m going to be resting my case in this chapter.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123243#p123243
bernee51 wrote:By ‘false’ I presume you mean not true according to that religions version of ‘truth’. Does one religion’s claim of ‘truth’ negate another religion’s claim of ‘truth’?
What I’m addressing is Dawkins’ assertion that God does not exist. In this chapter, he seems to be arguing that because bad things are done, then the claims of religion are not true. I’m simply saying that this line of argument is not valid.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123408#p123408
QED wrote: Perhaps I should have made it clearer. To me it’s a rather obvious point and is, I think, what Dawkin’s argument is centered upon: It is impossible in practice and in principle to falsify faith-based belief systems.
I’d be curious if you can provide a quote from Dawkins where he states or implies this.
You missed my point about the 300mm Grinder then. There are some ends that can be achieved by different means. Most of the “services” provided by faith-based systems could equally be supplied by other intellectual means.
I would disagree that something else can replace religion. Even attempts to replace religion have been unsuccessful (eg Communist China).
I would like to know how you come about that conclusion. From the outside (nearly always a good position to see the bigger-picture) the collections of writings that comprise the Abrahamic religion appear to be very much about codes of conduct. The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament were stamped with the ultimate authority — and the later teachings of Jesus, while shifting the emphasis away from the cut and thrust of Mosaic Law enforcement, completed the “good cop, bad cop” thing just as effectively.
The main message of the Bible is not a code of conduct, but how to have a right standing with God. And it is clear from the Bible that this cannot be achieved through any set of laws. The only way is through Jesus Christ.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
This is the one key difference between Christianity and almost all other religions. Other religions’ main emphasis is how one should act through some set of principals. Though the Bible does also touch on this, it is not the main emphasis of the Bible.
otseng wrote:QED wrote:As for the other traditional roles of religion, we could still permit the possibility of God as creator in a Deist sense and leave room for speculation about meaning, and other existential issues that many feel the need for comforting answers.That would be like saying we should also remove all forms of money and use bartering. Though it would remove all the negative aspects of money, it would also remove all the positive aspects of money.
I can’t see the analogy.
Christianity : Deism :: Money : Bartering
The skills we have picked-up in understanding the world over the last couple of millenia should be allowed to refine our arguments and ration our need for unsupportable beliefs.
Of course, I’d disagree with the position that the beliefs are unsupportable.
Your U.S. Constitution is a self-confessed man-made artifact that can be upheld and respected — is that not a better model?
Well, the US Constitution is no replacement for religion. Nor was it meant to be.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123474#p123474
QED wrote:otseng wrote:QED wrote: Perhaps I should have made it clearer. To me it’s a rather obvious point and is, I think, what Dawkin’s argument is centered upon: It is impossible in practice and in principle to falsify faith-based belief systems.I’d be curious if you can provide a quote from Dawkins where he states or implies this
OK:
p282 wrote: FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE
SUBVERSION OF SCIENCE
Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the
truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will
budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an
axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is
true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence
that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a
scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of
reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. It
really is a very different matter. Books about evolution are believed
not because they are holy. They are believed because they present
overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. In
principle, any reader can go and check that evidence. When a
science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake
and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn’t
happen with holy books.
I think his point is that you cannot use a holy book to support the belief of its own religion. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to falsify a religion.
Dawkins states on page 50, “God’s existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.”
So, though one cannot use a religious book to prove itself, what Dawkins does say is that one can use science to prove or disprove it.
otseng wrote:QED wrote: The skills we have picked-up in understanding the world over the last couple of millenia should be allowed to refine our arguments and ration our need for unsupportable beliefs.Of course, I’d disagree with the position that the beliefs are unsupportable.
Well, I think you’ll find it impossible to distinguish between a multiverse and a fine-tuning creator so I can’t help but see great difficulties for your beliefs.
Then it would be just as valid to say that the multiverse belief is unsupportable.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124980#p124980