The readings for this class are all very interesting, and I would like to begin the discussion with some things I liked from the Armstrong reading. First of all is the idea that God is too often a simplistic idea. We pray for our sports teams, good weather, and our country. 'God is on my side.' I would contend that it if God is really so omnipotent and omniscient then it is simply presumptuous to claim that one can define and comprehend God.
Some would say that humans were intelligently designed in God's image. I am of the personal belief that God was intelligently designed in our image. For the sake of full disclosure I will say right up front that I am an atheist and as such have a certain bias and interest in this discussion, and am most certainly open to critique and commentary, as I would hope that were I to critique and comment on religion (as I have been known to do) that it would be well received in the spirit that it was meant. That being said, I will now address the interviews with Harris and Dawkins.
It should be prefaced that Harris and Dawkins are two of the most outspoken and radical atheists. They do not represent many atheists in the harshness of their rhetoric, yet at the same time make a number of uncomfortably poignant arguments. The first point I will draw from Harris is one of the more extreme, where he condemns moderates for "[providing] the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." In short, religious moderates are enablers. While they themselves may do good and give a good name to religion and faith, it is those very deeds that religious extremists use as a shield. I would be interested in the discussion this claim could generate. What do you all think of that idea?
Next I just wanted to comment that like Harris, I find faith and spirituality to be much less harmful or negative as organized religion. While this view earned Harris some criticism from a number of atheists, I agree with him to a certain extent. While I might not share his belief in telepathy or mysticism, I would assert that organized religion has caused exponentially more harm than any sort of personal individualized faith.
Another issue to touch upon is the idea of the Bible as a recipe for religious intolerance. While the bible has many great teachings that any atheist can appreciate in the same way one appreciates Aesop's fables, "There's no document I know of that is more despicable in its morality than the first few books of the Hebrew Bible." Comments?
While there is certainly more to be said on Harris I think we can get to that in class as I would like to turn to Dawkins. He paraphrases a quote that I enjoy, from I want to say Voltaire. "I would contend that we are both atheists. I simply believe in one less God than you do. You will understand why I deny your God when you understand why you deny every other God."
I think this is quite enough to go off of for now and I will add further questions and comments as the thread progresses. This should be an animated discussion!
When reading the texts of both Armstrong and Dawkins, I feel that Dawkins was more into the denial of God than Armstrong was because Armstrong at one point in her life was a nun, but left because she said it was difficult for her to find God when she was a nun. Dawkins on the other hand had some moments in his life in which he believed in God and then later denied the existence of God or a higher power. One thing that I found that was interesting while reading Dawkins' interview was how he stated that how educated or intelligent someone is then it is more likely that they will deny the existence of a God thus become atheist. I would like to disagree with Dawkins when it comes to this because even if someone is intelligent about the world around him or herself, I believe that there are different types of knowledge as well, such as emotions (emotional knowledge in other words, emotional maturity). Yes, I know that there are biochemical aspects when it comes to emotions but what does it truly mean to feel a certain type of emotion? You can measure the concentration of certain neurotransmitters for a particular emotion, but can you really measure the emotion itself on a fixed scale? Therefore, what I am trying to say is that based on my interpretation of Dawkins' interview is that I feel that he is fixed on the notion of scientific knowledge and intelligence rather than the knowledge on what something really means. On here, I like to transition to Karen Armstrong because according to her, science is able to talk about various aspects about the world, but it is difficult for science to explain the meanings behind something. Thus, Armstrong mentioned how science and myth in the premodern world are complementary to each other rather than being two compelling forces to one another. I for one agree with this because science cannot explain everything in the world with the most details. it is possible for science to explain mechanisms, but it is nearly impossible for science to explain a deeper meaning behind why things happen.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with some of Timmy's observations. I would like to point out that Dawkins admits that we cannot disprove God any more than we can prove such an existence, and that is a big part of being an atheist to me. There is a humble aspect of 'I don't know and I am OK not knowing.' Sure, I don't believe, but one cannot know, and I appreciate when individuals of any faith or lack thereof can admit that.
ReplyDeleteAnother important topic is the idea of life having meaning. People always worry that if religion is gone what purpose is there? I ask, need there be such a purpose? Living is a sort of habit for me, and actions are in the pursuit of continuing life and enjoying it to the fullest despite its brevity. While I'm alive I just do what I can to make the world a better place, as cliche as I know that sounds. Some people I suppose need a deeper meaning as some people need a God. As Barbour points out, looking for meaning is an exclusively human trait. Try to imagine life for the sake of life, and let me know what you think.
Armstrong certainly has a point in saying that modern religion has reduced our concept of God to a relatively insignificant concept that modern athiests, like Dawkins, have a right to take issue with. However, her eventual conclusion appears to miss the boat with Dawkins as well. I have to say that I agree with Dawkins in his criticism of the separation of religion and science into two separate and nonintersecting spheres - miraculous events as well as many aspects of basic sociology seem to flatly contradict that view. Additionally, Dawkins offers some remarkably insightful commentary on the 'God of the Gaps' philosophy.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Harris's critique, it is probably true that moderatism has provided a context in which extremism can flourish. But I would argue that that's no reason to figuratively 'throw the baby out with the bath water.' This is an argument that could probably be made for any discipline - the advantageous consequences provide a context which makes people more willing to accept the disadvantageous effects. While religion is an example with particularly far-reaching bad effects, like any ideology, it also has far-reaching good effects. Barbour points out in his analysis that religion is tied up with the development of morality and culture. We may have developed some kind of morality without religion, but religion has certainly progressed moral development and provides a motive and context in which moral development can progress. So yes. Some forms of religion, when misinterpreted (the Crusades) or taken to extremes, can lead to horrible consequences. But so can any other guiding ideology. People are fallible.
I really like Andrews point about how not all atheist are necessarily adamantly against religion but do not believe because they cannot really be sure. I believe that when Dawkins was saying people who are more intelligent are more likely to not believe in God because he believes the more intelligent you are the more you question, and therefore the more justification you need. A lot of people when regarding God often have an approach of I do not know why i believe but i do believe. The hardest part, answering that question, why i believe, is what i believe Dawkins finds as the barrier for the intelligent. If they cannot explain why, then it cannot be. Dawkins insight ont the God of Gaps that Chelsey mentioned is exactly the kind of thing that makes people wonder and then not believe.
ReplyDeleteI really like the Andrew’s speculation on life still having purpose, even without religion. Although I am a Catholic, I must say that even if religion were not an important aspect in my life, my life would still have purpose. As Andrew put it, “I just do what I can do to make the world a better place.” My life is that way now; only difference is religion plays a role in my life.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Andrew’s question on the morality of the first few books of the Bible, one must look at when the Bible was written. During those times, it was part of their culture to do those horrible things; I am in no way condoning what they did, just saying that historical context needs to be taken into consideration.
I agree Dawkins’ idea of how we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It goes hand in hand with the quote Andrew provided “I would contend that we are both atheists. I simply believe in one less God than you do. You will understand why I deny your God when you understand why you deny every other God.”----Michael Beatson
I agree with what people said about not needing religion as their purpose for life. I am certainly okay with not knowing what happens and thinking that despite touching a few people, my life is quite meaningless.
ReplyDeleteI do like parts of both the readings. While I find dawkins to be more true it also seems to be a little harsh, like andrew has said. I personally, find these blogs hard to write about because most of the time, I don't like having an opinion. Especially if it creates a 'side' and an argument. That has definitely been the hardest thing about the class.