Richard Dawkins - Poetic Atheism

[Humes fork]

Think of how much better our world would be if everyone, every faithhead, had the point of view and attitude to life expressed in the video.

 

[bjornart]

Think of how much better our world would be if everyone, every faithhead, had the point of view and attitude to life expressed in the video.

Think how much better the world would be if everyone respected each other, and didn't call each other faithead, or apostate, or heathen.

I agree with Dawkins on the beauty of atheism, but he's overselling it in that video when he implies the lottery between the genetic combinations that walk around today and the nearly countless other possibilities that could have been instead has a significance in any way. Being happy you're alive is fine, implying you're lucky and thus the never-conceived nearly-yous are unlucky is silly at best.

 

[Cain]

Think how much better the world would be if everyone respected each other, and didn't call each other faithead, or apostate, or heathen.

I agree with Dawkins on the beauty of atheism, but he's overselling it in that video when he implies the lottery between the genetic combinations that walk around today and the nearly countless other possibilities that could have been instead has a significance in any way. Being happy you're alive is fine, implying you're lucky and thus the never-conceived nearly-yous are unlucky is silly at best.

I mostly agree, however...

atheism is not well-equipped to compete with religion when it comes to romanticism, a fact regularly exploited by preachers. Science tell us that we're a cosmic accident, whereas religion tells us that we are created by an all-loving God who has a plan for us.

What if there were evidence showing atheists are not happy as theists, and atheists are more likely to commit suicide?

Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow impresses the reader with soaring rhetoric about the beauty of solutions, but more than anything else, scientists chase after mysteries. People are more interesting in seeing magical illusions than learning their method. Inasmuch as anyone wants to learn the method, it's because the effect had such a powerful impact.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I mostly agree, however...

atheism is not well-equipped to compete with religion when it comes to romanticism, a fact regularly exploited by preachers. Science tell us that we're a cosmic accident, whereas religion tells us that we are created by an all-loving God who has a plan for us.

What if there were evidence showing atheists are not happy as theists, and atheists are more likely to commit suicide?

So? Atheism isn't a position on aesthetics or poetry or beauty or romanticism. It's the lack of belief in gods. That isn't to say that you can't be an atheist and appreciate aesthetics and poetry and beauty and romanticism, just that they're different things.

 

[Chaos]

I mostly agree, however...

atheism is not well-equipped to compete with religion when it comes to romanticism, a fact regularly exploited by preachers. Science tell us that we're a cosmic accident, whereas religion tells us that we are created by an all-loving God who has a plan for us.

What if there were evidence showing atheists are not happy as theists, and atheists are more likely to commit suicide?

Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow impresses the reader with soaring rhetoric about the beauty of solutions, but more than anything else, scientists chase after mysteries. People are more interesting in seeing magical illusions than learning their method. Inasmuch as anyone wants to learn the method, it's because the effect had such a powerful impact.

Less Dawkins, more Sagan, then. That´s who I´m going to look at when I want romanticism in science.

 

[Cain]

So? Atheism isn't a position on aesthetics or poetry or beauty or romanticism. It's the lack of belief in gods. That isn't to say that you can't be an atheist and appreciate aesthetics and poetry and beauty and romanticism, just that they're different things.

I nearly pointed out in my post that atheism is "not an outlook on life," but ruled that too obvious. If I pre-empted every blockheaded criticism, then I'd be wasting my time. Anyway, you would do well to address what I said rather than what I did not say: I'm charging that atheism does not lend itself to romanticism as easily as religion.

 

[tsig]

I nearly pointed out in my post that atheism is "not an outlook on life," but ruled that too obvious. If I pre-empted every blockheaded criticism, then I'd be wasting my time. Anyway, you would do well to address what I said rather than what I did not say: I'm charging that atheism does not lend itself to romanticism as easily as religion.

Why not? Atheists are human and have the same range of emotional response as other humans. If you cut us do we not bleed and if you harm us do we not suffer?

 

[HansMustermann]

Depends on what you understand by romanticism, I suppose.

On one hand, I suppose it's easier to rant and rave emotionally about the story of Jesus than about the lack of a saviour.

On the other hand, it seems to me like by removing a need to attribute stuff to God, you're slightly more free to write just as emotionally about a lot of other subjects. You can still be awed by a sunset or a waterfall or even, a la Ray Comfort, about how well a banana fits your hand and how you can open it away from you, like a can that you don't want to spray you in the face. (I have to wonder exactly what bananas he's been handling where getting sprayed in the face was an issue.) And you don't have to turn it into obsessing about the same old religious story you already got spoiled to heck and back.

Not saying that it's an issue for everyone, but, yeah, there are some people who might appreciate a lot of stuff more for what it is, instead of turning it into an excuse to rehash some other story instead.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I nearly pointed out in my post that atheism is "not an outlook on life," but ruled that too obvious. If I pre-empted every blockheaded criticism, then I'd be wasting my time.

But you don't consider being rude a waste of your time?

Anyway, you would do well to address what I said rather than what I did not say: I'm charging that atheism does not lend itself to romanticism as easily as religion.

I did address that. I addressed it by asking the question "so what?"

 

[Cain]

I did address that. I addressed it by asking the question "so what?"

Well, follow through on it: so... Dawkins is mistaken. And "address that" is a rather lofty way of describing what could have come from the Dick Cheney School of Rhetoric.

Why not? Atheists are human and have the same range of emotional response as other humans. If you cut us do we not bleed and if you harm us do we not suffer?

Yes, atheists bleed the same as everyone else. What does that have to do with anything?

Religion offers the self-serving delusion that our species is special, and that each person is special. You're special. We're not an accident on a rock hurling through a cold, indifferent universe.

On Dawkins' view, you're unique, but not terribly special. You're just an improbable collection of atoms. A roll on a one-trillion sided die. Congratulations #331,599,302,407, aren't you glad you're not #331,599,302,408? Instead religion says that someone out there made you as you are, loves you, has a plan for you, and that someone is God.

I'm guessing a fair number of you might feel thrilled if THE Jennifer Lawrence called you up personally, and complimented you on some inspiring thing she said you did. Well, instead of Jennifer Lawrence calling, you get to have a relationship with THE God, and He's an even bigger celebrity than Jennifer Lawrence, bigger than Obama even. In fact, He's the Big Guy, the one celebrities thank when they win Grammy Awards and football games.

It's not enough for Dawkins to make swiss cheese out of the physical reasons why a God must exist, he wants to insist theism is aesthetically revolting. To me this is not only unnecessary but highly questionable.

I try to actively oppose bad arguments that support my position, just as Dawkins chafes at attempts by science-proponents who try to make evolution more appealing by saying it does not necessarily threaten religious beliefs. When they say "God and evolution can co-exist," Dawkins answers "not really." He wants them to bite the bullet, level with people and say, "evolution threatens your belief system."

Dawkins' argument that atheists live for this life and not the next one is intuitively compelling; we do have a short amount of time, and so we might as well make the most of it. Yet, empirically it's been shown that religious people are more likely to contribute their time and finances to charity, they're generally happier, and are less likely to commit suicide. Yes, yes, yes, you can plead "lurking variable" here or there, and maybe that gap will prop up your own self-delusion, but what does it matter? If it really is true that religious people are happier, more charitable, and less likely to self-cancel... then what? It doesn't follow that atheists should will themselves to believe in a God, or attend church. Just bite the bullet.

 

[A'isha]

Less Dawkins, more Sagan, then. That´s who I´m going to look at when I want romanticism in science.

This.

NatGeo ran a marathon of Sagan's original "Cosmos" yesterday, in preparation for Neil deGrasse Tyson's reimagining (which premieres tonight). Rewatching it for the first time in years, I was struck by how enrapturing Sagan's vision of science and the cosmos was. "We are all made of starstuff" is all you really need if you're looking for romanticism in science.

 

[Cain]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Forget Jesus; stars died for you." *air jerk*

 

[Brainache]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Forget Jesus; stars died for you." *air jerk*

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

 

[HansMustermann]

Religion offers the self-serving delusion that our species is special, and that each person is special. You're special. We're not an accident on a rock hurling through a cold, indifferent universe.

On Dawkins' view, you're unique, but not terribly special. You're just an improbable collection of atoms. A roll on a one-trillion sided die. Congratulations #331,599,302,407, aren't you glad you're not #331,599,302,408? Instead religion says that someone out there made you as you are, loves you, has a plan for you, and that someone is God.

I'm guessing a fair number of you might feel thrilled if THE Jennifer Lawrence called you up personally, and complimented you on some inspiring thing she said you did. Well, instead of Jennifer Lawrence calling, you get to have a relationship with THE God, and He's an even bigger celebrity than Jennifer Lawrence, bigger than Obama even. In fact, He's the Big Guy, the one celebrities thank when they win Grammy Awards and football games.

The downside to that story is that you're also supposed to credit your achievements to God and his plan. It wasn't you who scored that goal, it was Jesus that helped you do it. It wasn't you who decided to be a good person, it was the fear of God. Etc.

Now granted, there is a bit of ego-wank hubris in assuming to be so important that the same Jesus who doesn't have the time to save children in a fire, has time to personally come help find your keys or make you make the right impression in a job interview. But still, it seems to me like I can be more proud of my achievements when they're really mine, not some gift from an imaginary guy. I worked for them, not happened to be the humble pawn in someone else's plan.

Think of watching a movie. Are you interested in the hero, or in some henchman that is manipulated to accomplish someone else's plan? Did you ever think some minion is so cool because he's a part of the plan of Lex Luthor himself?

Yes, I may have started as a bunch of quantum coincidences, e.g., having a C14 atom in the DNA decay here instead of there. But from there it was _I_ who achieved this or that. I'm not just getting them for being pals with God.

E.g., I didn't get my first job because Jesus's plan needed a programmer at that company, I got it because I could show them a full graphics engine I did myself. That was my work, including the many thousands of hours in learning and practising that stuff.

And when I choose to do charity or generally be a good person, that's my choice. I don't have to kid myself, like it seems so popular among many Christians, that yeah, but without God threatening us with hell, we'd all be rampaging psychos.

To use your being pals with Obama scenario, it actually seems to me pathetic if all someone can find great about themselves is that they're pals with Obama. Seems to me like one is actually saying they're a zero without a border, if that's all they have to be proud of.

 

[Chaos]

This.

NatGeo ran a marathon of Sagan's original "Cosmos" yesterday, in preparation for Neil deGrasse Tyson's reimagining (which premieres tonight). Rewatching it for the first time in years, I was struck by how enrapturing Sagan's vision of science and the cosmos was. "We are all made of starstuff" is all you really need if you're looking for romanticism in science.

Of course it helps that Sagan´s core message to religious (or superstitious) people is "I know what you´re looking for and I think I have a better way to find it" rather than "I´m so much smarter and more moral than you, suckers".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, follow through on it: so... Dawkins is mistaken. And "address that" is a rather lofty way of describing what could have come from the Dick Cheney School of Rhetoric.

You're a bundle of laughs, aren't you. I'll remember not to engage you in future.

 

[Dinwar]

This.

NatGeo ran a marathon of Sagan's original "Cosmos" yesterday, in preparation for Neil deGrasse Tyson's reimagining (which premieres tonight). Rewatching it for the first time in years, I was struck by how enrapturing Sagan's vision of science and the cosmos was. "We are all made of starstuff" is all you really need if you're looking for romanticism in science.

I remember driving home from the Mojave a few years back. As I crosssed over a mountain range, it started to rain. Every other driver seemed upset by it--for good reason (this being Southern California, no one knows how to drive in the rain). I, on the other hand, was thrilled by the experience. I had spent the last three days discussing the Pleistocene/Holocene changes to the ecosystem of the Mojave with two other paleontologists, and in the simple fact that it was raining on one side of the mountains and not the other I was able to see the entire process of desertification and the creation of the modern ecology. It was one of the most moving experiences I've ever had.

That sort of thing is what we need to be promoting. It's not atheism that can inspire people--the idea that gods don't exist is incapable of inspiring anyone (with the exception of those who are "inspired" by lording their superiority over others and attacking those who disagree). Where we trump religion is the inspiration derived from science. Religion teaches that rainbows are a promise from God to not destroy the Earth anymore. Science teaches us that they are due to properties of light and water--which we can use to make other things that no religion has ever thought of! Religion tells us that an entire culture spent fourty years wandering around a small desert; science teaches us that humans expanded into entirely new continents and fought hand-to-hand with monsters our moder minds have trouble comprehending. And science goes beyond that--we have shrink rays (close enough for me, anyway!), we can map other worlds, we can WALK ON THE CELESTIAL SPHERES. Anyone unmoved by the wonders of modern science is dead inside.

 

[Cain]

The downside to that story is that you're also supposed to credit your achievements to God and his plan. It wasn't you who scored that goal, it was Jesus that helped you do it. It wasn't you who decided to be a good person, it was the fear of God. Etc.

Now granted, there is a bit of ego-wank hubris in assuming to be so important that the same Jesus who doesn't have the time to save children in a fire, has time to personally come help find your keys or make you make the right impression in a job interview. But still, it seems to me like I can be more proud of my achievements when they're really mine, not some gift from an imaginary guy. I worked for them, not happened to be the humble pawn in someone else's plan.

But God gave us free will, and choosing to have faith ain't easy. There are sober moments where Christians realize, "Hey, this sounds like a crock of ****."

Also: God is your co-pilot.

Think of watching a movie. Are you interested in the hero, or in some henchman that is manipulated to accomplish someone else's plan? Did you ever think some minion is so cool because he's a part of the plan of Lex Luthor himself?

Nah, I like Superman. Krypton sent their only son, and he repeatedly risks his life to save us from ourselves. We can all be heroes. You're a hero if you school your nasty atheist professor about darkness being the absence of light.

Yes, I may have started as a bunch of quantum coincidences, e.g., having a C14 atom in the DNA decay here instead of there. But from there it was _I_ who achieved this or that. I'm not just getting them for being pals with God.

E.g., I didn't get my first job because Jesus's plan needed a programmer at that company, I got it because I could show them a full graphics engine I did myself. That was my work, including the many thousands of hours in learning and practising that stuff.

And when I choose to do charity or generally be a good person, that's my choice. I don't have to kid myself, like it seems so popular among many Christians, that yeah, but without God threatening us with hell, we'd all be rampaging psychos.

I'd bet that a lot of grown Christians are not really motivated by the possible bad consequences.

 

[Quinn]

It's not atheism that can inspire people--the idea that gods don't exist is incapable of inspiring anyone (with the exception of those who are "inspired" by lording their superiority over others and attacking those who disagree).

Demonstrably untrue...

"Say, you know that 'God' thing you've been hearing about your whole life? That alleged all-powerful being that created the universe, and supposedly loves and watches over everyone, but allows a ton of really awful stuff to happen to them, and then condemns some of them to eternal torture? You know how the whole thing never really made sense to you, and this deity just seemed like sort kind of cosmic tyrant with the emotional maturity of a 4-year-old, so you just kinda didn't think about it too much, because when you did, it was all vaguely terrifying?

"Well here's some good news: it's all made up. There is no such thing -- no capricious celestial overlord who may or may not punish you with an eternity of suffering, based on standards that no one can seem to agree on. The bad news is, there's no eternity of bliss either, but then again, their idea of bliss also seems pretty awful when you really think about it. Nope, when you die, you'll just cease to exist, and it'll be like being unconscious, only more so. You won't mind it, because you won't be around to mind it. All you've got is a few decades on this chunk of rock, in a universe that has some discernible rules and a lot of chaos and doesn't play favorites, with a bunch of other people in exactly the same boat. So go make the most of it."

There are people who find that message decidedly uplifting. They may not be the majority, but to deny their existence is pretty short-sighted.

 

[HansMustermann]

But God gave us free will, and choosing to have faith ain't easy. There are sober moments where Christians realize, "Hey, this sounds like a crock of ****."

Yes, but between

A) I chose to have faith, and God found me a job for it, and

B) It was MY work, and the kind of skills and experience that come from sinking tens of thousands of hours into it,

I'll choose B any day. In fact, A is just admitting to having not much more merits than being a sycophant and getting the job just for brown-nosing the right ass. If that's anyone's merit, they're just a zero without a border.

And if it's that hard to keep up the motivation to keep brown-nosing that guy, it just makes it even more disgusting.

And note that I'm not just talking about jobs or major achievements. It can be about completing your beer can collection, or just raising your kids right. Any parent has put a lot of work in that and done sacrifices. If anyone's telling it was actually Jesus doing the parenting, and why their kid managed to even reach an age that a non-religious cat can reach, seems to me like they're telling me they hadn't been doing their job themselves.

Also: God is your co-pilot.

If the copilot is to credit for saving the day, and generally for everything not going downhill, then the pilot was doing an awful job. Doesn't sound like something to brag about.

I mean, seriously, if anyone who landed on water after having a seagull go through their engine tells me that it was only having a super-powered copilot that allowed them to land... what, were they sleeping in flight school?

Nah, I like Superman. Krypton sent their only son, and he repeatedly risks his life to save us from ourselves. We can all be heroes. You're a hero if you school your nasty atheist professor about darkness being the absence of light.

Yes, but if any "hero" had the only qualification that they brown nosed an actual superhero real hard and might get saved by them when they're in distress... that's not a "hero", that's the damsel in distress. Also, those tend to be screwed by the hero at the end