David Sloan Wilson: "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion"

[Robin]

According to andyandy, any thread that criticizes Dawkins in the title is guaranteed at least 100 posts, so I'm proud to be the first! Except I forgot to read the article beforehand, so I have nothing useful to say.

I will say one thing: I think ALL memes are demonic. Oh wait, I'm thinking about mimes, not memes.

Thanks for giving me the best laugh of the day.

I used to share a house with a mime artist. He came home one day and told the household that he had been performing his act on the street and somebody opened a window above and tipped a bucket of water over his head.

He was genuinely puzzled when we all burst out laughing.

 

[newlyfound]

So you acknowledge that there are lots of anonymous believers working to make this world a slightly better place, but still believe that the majority of believers are just the opposite - i.e. hateful and hypocritical? Am I understanding you correctly?

Exactly, that's how they are along with the ones that miserably work to cover their tracks for them. 90 % surely washes out the poor 10 % that no one hears about or of. Indeed, they are hateful and they are hypocritical.

An interesting point of view. How do you view governments then? Similarly? Should we advocate for the banning of all government institutions based on the failings of so many for so long?

Governments? and who's talking about that? not me. You'd have to find someone else to clear that subject up for you.

It's a shame about your friend, but since few religions have such restrictions, I don't find it reasonable to consider this type of example an argument against religion in general. It certainly illustrates the potential danger of some beleif systems.

You can run but you can't hide.

No, it's not a fraud, it's a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available.

Delusional "evidence" is not evidence.

I have no idea about what may or may not give you personal happiness, but arguing against the average findings of many different studies in this way isn't effective. I once knew a woman who was 6' 2" tall. Does that imply that men are not taller than women in general?

Is this confusion or is it dishonesty?...I don't know and I don't care.

Have you? Do you know how old I am? Do you have any idea where I've been?

You are mixing up 2 different replies to 2 different quotes to make them sound like what they are absolutely not. Go back and fix that if you do not wish me to start thinking I am dealing with a teenager. THANK YOU.

I have heard that argument many times. I don't find it convincing. I think complaining about a group of other people's intolerance of different beliefs and then being intolerant of theirs is basically a demonstration of hypocrisy and insincerity. To me, that is far less convincing than someone who both preaches and practices the virtue of tolerance.

I can now clearly see that you are not hearing what you wish to hear, so you are lashing out. Enjoy dwelling in your misery, I have more important things to do.

Glad to hear it. People often post differently than they act offline.

You mean as you do?...

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in debating the finer points of Christian theology. You'll have to find someone else for that.

The only reason you are not is because you are clueless about it or you do not wish for your carton made castle to be brought down so you run, but as I said earlier, you can run but you can't hide.

There are lots of reason why. In the end, I don't find the atheists arguments against tolerance of other people's beliefs any more convincing the the Christian argument against tolerance, or the Muslim's arguments against tolerance, etc., etc.

And a born blind person does not know what yellow looks like either.

So why bother making the effort of trying to show them. I have better things to do than waste my time with a clearly rapidly aging organism.

Nighty night...

 

[Meadmaker]

Sigh....

 

[newlyfound]

All you have to do to be a temple member is pay the dues. You don't have to believe anything in particular. If you actually participate, you have to go along with the rituals, but once again, you don't have to believe anything.

I'm pretty sure my rabbi is agnostic, but I'm not absolutely certain.

I really admire and appreciate your honesty. Sincere thank you.

If they rewrote it, it wouldn't be the Torah. It would be some other book. They can, however, reinterpret it. See below.

Who knows how many times it has been messed with as far as editing, re-writing, etc. in the past?... because it has been messed with in the past.

I thought you said I was Jewish? I grew up Catholic, but about 20 years ago, I gave it up for Lent.

I am sorry, I meant you've been brought up Catholic. And can I ask what made you switch?

There are three main branches of Judaism. They are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. The main difference is in how they treat the Law. (i.e. all those directives from the first five books of the Old Testament, including, but not limited to, the Ten Commandments. Jewish scholars have decided that there are 613 of them altogether.) The Orthodox teach that the law was given to the people of Israel as is, to be followed forever, and it can be found in the Torah. They teach that Jews are required to follow them exactly as set down, as closely as possible, and they should not take any chances that they might break any of them.

Conservatives teach that the law was set down 3000 years ago for the Jews of that time, by God, but today we live differently. Jews are supposed to keep the laws, but they allow for some interpretation due to changing circumstances of modern times.

The Reform movement is the liberals of the bunch. They teach that the Law was a good idea for a bunch of goatherders living 3000 years ago, but the letter of the law doesn't matter. It's the principle of the thing. They also don't teach that the letter of the Torah came from God, but rather from the priests who wrote it.

As for God, most Reform Jews believe in God, but not all of them do, and it isn't very important, especially as regards a "personal" God, that actually cares what you do or listens to prayers.

Thank you sooooo Much ! I truly appreciate you taking time to explain .

That's enough for one post. Ask more if you are interested. However, for the purposes of this thread the important point is that not all Jews, much less all religious people, are alike. There are huge differences between Buddhists, and Reform Jews, and Orthodox Jews, and the United Church of Christ, and the Catholic Church. Not just that, but there are huge differences between individual believers and congregations as well. Finally, the differences aren't just cosmetic, like worshipping an imaginary being called Vishnu versus an imaginary being called Jesus. You can' say very little about "all religions" or "all religious people".

I don't know about buddhists and the others, but I know enough about jews, christians and muslims to no longer want to take part in their beliefs or religious rituals. If god was real, surely he would have showed up considering all killings, genocides, famine, disease, etc. that are taking place around the world for no justifiable reasons. Man created god.

...Again, thank you for explaining, what you said was of great help. As far as questions, I am too dry to come up with one for now. I will keep that in mind if I have any further inquiries in respect to Judaism.

To go back to you, do you go to the temple for strictly social reasons then?
and if someone for example throws the following at you, how do you internally react being atheist?

" ' "The LORD bless you
and keep you;

the LORD make his face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;

the LORD turn his face toward you
and give you peace." '

-<(Numbers 6: 24-26 )>-

 

[qayak]

All you have to do to be a temple member is pay the dues. You don't have to believe anything in particular. If you actually participate, you have to go along with the rituals, but once again, you don't have to believe anything.

WTF? This is a perfect demonstration of the absurdity of religions and the irrationality of the sheeople who follow them.

If I pay the money (isn't that always what it's about?) could I then lobby for change? I mean, if I don't believe what they are selling, couldn't I at least try for an improvement on the product and get my money's worth? I don't know, maybe have the rabbi bring in a guest scientist to clear the air on evolution.

 

[Meadmaker]

WTF? This is a perfect demonstration of the absurdity of religions and the irrationality of the sheeople who follow them.

If I pay the money (isn't that always what it's about?) could I then lobby for change? I mean, if I don't believe what they are selling, couldn't I at least try for an improvement on the product and get my money's worth? I don't know, maybe have the rabbi bring in a guest scientist to clear the air on evolution.

I think your response demonstrates a knee jerk and poorly thought out reaction.

As for lobbying for change...absolutely. Feel free.

And why would anyone need to clear the air on evolution in a Jewish temple? Reform Jews aren't literalists and everyone there already believes in evolution.

ETA: Outside of the Hassidics, there are almost no Jews that don't accept evolution. Some of the Orthodox reject it, but not all.

 

[Meadmaker]

Who knows how many times it has been messed with as far as editing, re-writing, etc. in the past?... because it has been messed with in the past.

Sure, but what we have now is what has been passed down through tradition. If we change it, it isn't the Torah, it's the Revised Torah.

If we were to find the original manuscript of the Book of Genesis, and it turned out not to match what we have now, the original wouldn't be the Torah, either.

And can I ask what made you switch?

I read the Bible. It doesn't say what they tell you in church.

I don't know about buddhists and the others, but I know enough about jews, christians and muslims to no longer want to take part in their beliefs or religious rituals.

That makes sense, but with all due respect, I would still say you know very little about Jews, Christians, and Muslims. If it's something that interests you, you should seek to find out more. If you have more important things in your life right now, you should at least be aware of your lack of knowledge.

And if religion is a topic that interests you, I strongly recommend at least reading about Buddhists. They don't believe in God, for starters. On top of that, it took me a while to realize it, but Buddhism has a lot in common with Judaism. Now, if that seems impossible to you that an agnostic religion has a lot in common with a monotheistic religion, the message that you ought to take from that is that you don't know a great deal about religion.

 

[Beth]

Exactly, that's how they are along with the ones that miserably work to cover their tracks for them. 90 % surely washes out the poor 10 % that no one hears about or of. Indeed, they are hateful and they are hypocritical.

I would tend to put the percentages at least 80% who are good decent people doing their best and at most 20% that are hateful.

Governments? and who's talking about that? not me. You'd have to find someone else to clear that subject up for you.

I brought that up as an analogy to religion. You condemn all religions because some people in some religions are despicable. Should we likewise condemn all governments because some people in some governments are despicable? Or is it possible that human failings do not negate the benefits that society, as a whole, derives from having such institutions in place?

Delusional "evidence" is not evidence.

Peer-reviewed studies in legimate scientific journals do not qualify as delusional evidence. Meadmaker has cited plenty. I've cited a book, written by atheists who did actual research about atheists.

Is this confusion or is it dishonesty?...I don't know and I don't care.

I'm trying ( evidently unsuccessfully) to communicate the idea that statistical evidence of differences between groups is not negated by an anecdote about someone who doesn't fit the statistical average. I'm not confused by this concept, but apparently you are as you keep trying to refute the evidence of various studies relating subjective measures of happiness by stating your own personal experiences and how you are happier as an atheist.

You are mixing up 2 different replies to 2 different quotes to make them sound like what they are absolutely not. Go back and fix that if you do not wish me to start thinking I am dealing with a teenager. THANK YOU.

I'm sorry. That was inadvertant on my part. When I hit the 'quote' button, only your words are kept, not mine from the previous post. I did not want to answer the question about how old I thought you were as I feared you might take adolescent as an insult. However, it seems we hold similar opinions of each other.

I can now clearly see that you are not hearing what you wish to hear, so you are lashing out. Enjoy dwelling in your misery, I have more important things to do.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this. I'm not miserable. I was trying to point out, as tactfully as possible, that to condemn others for their intolerance of your beliefs while describing theirs as 'poison' and a 'social disease' comes across, to me anyway, as exactly the same sort of intolerance you are complaining about.

The only reason you are not is because you are clueless about it or you do not wish for your carton made castle to be brought down so you run, but as I said earlier, you can run but you can't hide.

No, I'm being honest when I say I don't care to debate Christian theology. It simply isn't an area of interest for me anymore. Please refrain from the personal insults though. I prefer not to interact with those who feel that mere disagreement on such issues is justification for insult.

And a born blind person does not know what yellow looks like either.

This is not a convincing argument for being intolerant of those with beliefs that differ from yours. Would you like to try again?

So why bother making the effort of trying to show them. I have better things to do than waste my time with a clearly rapidly aging organism.

I guess not. Been interesting conversing with you.

 

[Faithkills]

I brought that up as an analogy to religion. You condemn all religions because some people in some religions are despicable. Should we likewise condemn all governments because some people in some governments are despicable? Or is it possible that human failings do not negate the benefits that society, as a whole, derives from having such institutions in place?

Can you then explain the strong correlation between nations lack of religiosity and longevity, income, and IQ?

Can you justify the cost personally and to society as a whole of thinking such a fantasy is true? At a personal level the person wastes lifespan that she could be using experiencing reality and is more susceptible to group manipulation which is often counter to the individuals wellbeing. At a societal level believers vote on the basis of these delusions and compromise political systems to allow national action motivated by those delusions. IE the Christian right is what has kept Bush in office. And there are much more horrid examples if you need reminded of them.

People brush off the atrocities that religion allows like it is somehow justified by the warm fuzzy feeling of forgiveness they get watching the football game after going to church on Sunday.

The framers of the US Constitution understood the danger and thought that merely stipulating a separation of church and state would be enough. Yet that is continually and inevitably being eroded due to the continual efforts of the religious. And in nations where that was not constitutionally mandated the progression is often much more rapid, and dangerous.

And just in case people missed it before. Here's an example of the personal dangers of believing in religion:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/529308

Just data, draw your own conclusions

 

[Herzblut]

Can you then explain the strong correlation between nations lack of religiosity and longevity, income, and IQ?

Poor people are in more need of religion.

Herzblut

 

[Faithkills]

Poor people are in more need of religion.

Herzblut

Or more on target poor people make better prey for religion.

And it still doesn't explain why atheists are measured as a group they have better socioeconomic metrics.

Why did people do worse post op when they know they were prayed for?

 

[Meadmaker]

To go back to you, do you go to the temple for strictly social reasons then?

No.

It's hard to describe "exactly" why I go there. I started going there because I married a Jew. It's hard to describe why I go there now. (I don't go all that often.)

I'll try to elaborate in the future, but right now, I'm rushed. I think going there helps me to be a better person. I don't think going to church or other religious services is necessary to be a better person, but it is one way that I think works for me. I do think that in order to be a better person, you have to spend some time thinking about how to be a better person, and going to a religious service can facilitate that.

and if someone for example throws the following at you, how do you internally react being atheist?

I would thank them for their kind thoughts.

 

[qayak]

I think your response demonstrates a knee jerk and poorly thought out reaction.

You see nothing wrong with money being the only requirement to belong to a temple? You might as well go stand in a crowd at a mall for all the good your temple visit does. The travelling Ginsu salesman is as inspirational and I don't believe his BS either.

Let's waste our time and money on something we don't believe in. That is the epitome of absurd!

 

[qayak]

I don't think going to church or other religious services is necessary to be a better person, but it is one way that I think works for me. I do think that in order to be a better person, you have to spend some time thinking about how to be a better person, and going to a religious service can facilitate that.

(Bolding Mine)

Now I agree wholeheartedly with this. I can also agree that religious services could, and often claim to, do exactly this. Unfortunately, what they claim and what they deliver are two different things. However, a religious service could, and I am sure it does happen.

I think broader based community events would work even better but it is easier to get a group with common interests together than it is to get many groups with varying interests together.

If this is what you get from your temple services then not only do I not have a problem with it, I greatly respect you for it.

 

[Meadmaker]

You see nothing wrong with money being the only requirement to belong to a temple?

It's a membership organization. It's like joining the Sierra Club. If you pay your dues, or have them waived, you're a member. That doesn't mean you go along with the entire philosophy of the organization.

Overall, I think the temple provides a benefit to me, to my family, to the Jewish community, and to the community at large, so not only am I a member, but I'm happy to be one. As for God, who cares? It's not something I find all that important. Interestingly enough, I also almost never hear the rabbi talk about God either. Wierd, eh?

 

[Meadmaker]

I think broader based community events would work even better but it is easier to get a group with common interests together than it is to get many groups with varying interests together.

If this is what you get from your temple services then not only do I not have a problem with it, I greatly respect you for it.

I agree with that. I think the statistical difference we see in happiness of religious versus non-religious is most connected to that. I think there is a broad need for being a part of a community, and religion provides that. It isn't the only way, and I doubt it's the best way, but it is a way that exists.

I think that in some way, "communities" like JREF serve the same purpose, at their best. At our best, we pose thought provoking questions that force us to critically examine our beliefs, and challenge us to decide what the right course of action ought to be. At our worst, we squablle like naughty children. Some of our members make an effort to improve our community. Others blindly recite the words of people they admire. It really isn't all that different from a church.

 

[newlyfound]

Sure, but what we have now is what has been passed down through tradition. If we change it, it isn't the Torah, it's the Revised Torah.

How is 'tradition' vital and fundamental to today's human life? There is nothing wrong with whiping out that dark ages stuff that's in that book. There is nothing wrong whith reflecting the real modern israelite way of living to the torah, updating is not bad dirty word, clunching to archaic middle age type of philosophy is. Of course this applies to all not just the hebrew version of religion.

If we were to find the original manuscript of the Book of Genesis, and it turned out not to match what we have now, the original wouldn't be the Torah, either.

Why does one have to write a book and pretend it comes from god to frighten oneself into obeying what's in it when they could simply freely as well as responsibly commit to living ethical decent life? if this is the purpose of the authorship of that book?

I read the Bible. It doesn't say what they tell you in church.

I don't mean to attack or insult you as you are much too nice for one to be rude to you for any reason, but I have to say that the Talmud over-rides the Torah and there are some scary ugly directives in the Talmud. How do you feel about that?

That makes sense, but with all due respect, I would still say you know very little about Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

I dare say that in a way, I know more that these three religious breeds know about their own religions. And in another, I'd say I know the essential at least, and that's plenty.

If it's something that interests you, you should seek to find out more. If you have more important things in your life right now, you should at least be aware of your lack of knowledge.

Thank you. I just got a copy of the first published version of "The origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. This is the route I plan to borrow to further my reading and understanding. Reading a book that works to brainwash the masses into believing that "Satan" is out there when there is nobody out there. That if they happen to be intelligent enough to question certain aspects of any religion, due to its obliviously exposed flaws that even a mentally blind person can spot, that that could only mean they are evil and they are going to go to hell for it, does in no way interest me. Yes, I know there are nice religious people, there are atheists that are equally nice if not much nicer. I don't need to believe in bunch of junk to be nice, I can just make the free choice to be nice, that simple. Those who believe one has to believe in A god and a religion in order to be decent are evil by essence, otherwise, why would they need to repress themselves into believing in such garbage as hell to frighten themselves into behaving??????...Just imagine what they'd do if they thought they could get away with anything!!! I don't need hell to behave, I can just behave on my own free will. Life is in fact this simple.

And if religion is a topic that interests you, I strongly recommend at least reading about Buddhists. They don't believe in God, for starters. On top of that, it took me a while to realize it, but Buddhism has a lot in common with Judaism. Now, if that seems impossible to you that an agnostic religion has a lot in common with a monotheistic religion, the message that you ought to take from that is that you don't know a great deal about religion.

I don't know great deal about religion? and who said one needs to in order to live a fulfilled life? religion was the only thing 5000 years ago, it was carefully crafted to repress the masses into obeying their rulers. Just see how today's theists still desperately work to keep the church and the state buckled up to together. For A reason. Today, there are literally 100's if not 1000's of fields of study, topics, subjects that are begging to be explored. None of them require that one be or at least act stupid in order to be accepted or approved of.

 

[newlyfound]

I would thank them for their kind thoughts.

No, but how do you react internally?...I mean if you are atheist, what are the types of thoughts that go through your mind when you come across such material? and I really appreciate you're taking the time to answer.

 

[newlyfound]

I am just soo full of it, it's beyond belief.

Frankly you're too dishonest from me to make an effort in continuing to take your crap. You're not worth it. You constantly recurred to ad hominims to avoid addressing the points I've made, your cheap hostility and attacks on me prove how miserable you are as believer, and that just demonstrates those ooooh so cute studies you brought up (as much as My "misery" proves your corny dude's, ...shall I call it, righteousness??? LOL.). This is what remains wether you acknowledge it or not.

Also, your main problem you theists is that upon saying this or that is blue when one can clearly see it's otherwise and expecting whoever you are bs-ing to just take your word for it demonstrate your incompetence and immaturity as well as dishonesty. This is where your delusion resides. I am going to go read me "The origin of Species", a book that's bound to actually teach me A real something.

Any junk that comes from your direction is bound to be deflected back to it because I won't be looking at it. I've wasted enough time like this.

 

[Beth]

I think going there helps me to be a better person. I don't think going to church or other religious services is necessary to be a better person, but it is one way that I think works for me. I do think that in order to be a better person, you have to spend some time thinking about how to be a better person, and going to a religious service can facilitate that.

Nicely put Meadmaker. Thank you. That expresses nicely why I occasionally attend church services. I've found a very liberal Christian church that welcomes atheists and agnostics and requires no belief in the supernatural (although, of course, it's fine if people do). They simply follow Christ's teaching as they understand them, best summed up in these four words: "Love everybody, judge nobody". A core value I find fits well with my own personal values.

To Newlyfound: Your mature, erudite, and well-reasoned response to my last set of arguments are impossible to refute without resorting to the sort of verbal attacks I despise, so I won't be responding to your posts anymore. However, I do apologize if anything I said made you feel that you were the victim of an ad hominim attack. That was never my intention.