Atheists vs. Agnostics

[AndrewL]

I have read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker (both are excellent books and I strongly recommend them as part of any thinking person's basic knowledge). I haven't read Dawkins' latest anti-religion book but I heard him on CBC-1's Ideas.

[rant]CBC-1 usually drives me around the bend because it never presents the other side of the story. CBC-1 is, as the name suggests, one-sided.

Yet IMV, the idea of tax-financed, commercial-free radio/TV is a good idea, and so I listen to CBC (and R-C) usually while driving. Bottom line, I get to hear what the Enright/Tremonti Palestinian Leftists are thinking. Nevertheless, I'm waiting for the CBC to hire Mark Steyn for a weekly half-hour on "The Current".[/rant]

----

Dawkins' argument is that we are all atheists with respect to other religions. Buddhists are atheists to Muslims. And Christians are atheists to Hindus. Religious people specifically refuse to believe in other Gods.

If an agnostic meets a Muslim, the agnostic can honestly claim to be possibly wrong. If a Hindu meets a Christian, the Hindu must be an "atheist" in the Christian's eyes.

Dawkins' argument is that the default position, for most if us, is atheism - not agnosticism. Europeans no longer pray to Zeus or Thor. They don't believe in these Gods; they are atheists. IOW, a Christian is an atheist in all other religions.

Is this a good argument against agnosticism? I think it's a good argument against "organized religion". Dawkins is really arguing that if a person accepts to be part of one group, there is an implicit choice not to be part of any other group. Is agnosticism really an expression of the desire not to join?

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim claim to have the same God has always struck me as odd - it certainly undermines Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion. And in the same order of ideas, most religious wars undermine Dawkins' claims about the evils of religion.

In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites kill each other and yet believe in the same Muslim God. European history - far violent than any other continent on the planet - is largely about Protestants and Catholics killing each other.

----

In short, according to Dawkins, agnostics are taking the easy way out. They are in fact atheists.

I'm arguing that agnostics are refusing to join - when the essence of life is commitment.

Im Atheist in regards to a personal God, or any god invented by humans.

Im agnostic in regards to the possibility of a Deity. Just as i would be agnostic in regards to string theory. Interseting idea, but can you test it.

Andrew

[cybercoma]

You mean, humans have no predisposition (genetic, cultural etc) to learning a languge?

I don't belive the quotation in reference admits of that interpretation.

Rather, which particular language that the parents choose to teach is the relevant point.

Even if he wants to choose to go in that direction, animals also respond to the parent tongue of the trainer. In fact, there is a tiger in a zoo in Alberta that zoo keepers want people to speak french to. It was raised in Quebec and does not respond to english commands, it only responds to commands given en francais.

So, once again, yes animals do learn the language taught to them.

[cybercoma]

This is exactly why I can't stand your religious arguments, cybercoma. You try to reduce everyone else to the state of being some kind of weak-willed atheist or total quack and yet you have yet to explore the issue of whether atheists are just delusional or weak-willed nihilists. You're so convinced of your own positions superiority that you can't see that it wobbles just as others do.

Deists are not freakin' atheists who just want to be nice to theists. They are the most pure form of theist.

Deists aren't the purest form of theist, what nonsense is this? Deists have done nothing more than reduce God down to the gaps that science has yet to fill. As soon as scientific discover takes a further bite out of that gap, the deist God will be even more insignificant.

[AndrewL]

This is exactly why I can't stand your religious arguments, cybercoma. You try to reduce everyone else to the state of being some kind of weak-willed atheist or total quack and yet you have yet to explore the issue of whether atheists are just delusional or weak-willed nihilists. You're so convinced of your own positions superiority that you can't see that it wobbles just as others do.

Deists are not freakin' atheists who just want to be nice to theists. They are the most pure form of theist.

Deists aren't the purest form of theist, what nonsense is this? Deists have done nothing more than reduce God down to the gaps that science has yet to fill. As soon as scientific discover takes a further bite out of that gap, the deist God will be even more insignificant.

Not necessarily. Science can indeed fill in some gaps, as Darwin did with evolution. But ultimately science can never answer the question of 'why does anything exist at all'. There will always be that rather big gap in our knowledge for the unmoved mover to take up residence.

Andrew

[Remiel]

Deists have done nothing more than reduce God down to the gaps that science has yet to fill. As soon as scientific discover takes a further bite out of that gap, the deist God will be even more insignificant.

Not true. " God of the Gaps " may be a theory held by some Deists, but it is not a tenet of Deism. " God of the Gaps " is not even a theory about the existence of God, its a theory about how God could continue to invisibly influence a universe controlled by science, if it were God's purpose to continue to influence the universe, which most Deists would probably hold to not be true.

[myata]

I don't belive the quotation in reference admits of that interpretation.

....

With the quotation in reference the author attempts to infer that the fact of being ignorant of some religions proves the natural predisposition to be ignorant of all.

The obvious logical flaw which the example with the language exposes is that there could be another, simplier explanation of the condition: ie. that the other religion had not been taught. Just as me not knowing ancient Arameic does not prove natural predisposition to alinguialism, the fact that someone pray Allah and not Hindu in no way proves any natural predisposition to atheism. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, every single civilzation has invented some kind of supernatural belief. And the example with atheistic regimes shows that these believes have very strong roots in the culture. Therefore the statement in question is 1) logically inconclusive; 2) practically incorrect.

[myata]

Even if he wants to choose to go in that direction ...

I agree it wasn't necessary. The example with language only needed to demonstrate that the point about

" no to some religions " equals " no to all religions " is hopelessly flawed. In fact, by bringing up the "taught" argument, you yourself have disproven Dawkin's point. The other religions aren't being practiced not because of some natural predisposition to atheism, but quite obviously because they haven't been taught.

[cybercoma]

Even if he wants to choose to go in that direction ...

I agree it wasn't necessary. The example with language only needed to demonstrate that the point about

" no to some religions " equals " no to all religions " is hopelessly flawed. In fact, by bringing up the "taught" argument, you yourself have disproven Dawkin's point. The other religions aren't being practiced not because of some natural predisposition to atheism, but quite obviously because they haven't been taught.

Religion is a constructed form of control that appeals to a supernatural unquestionable supreme being. The only thing it disproves is the idea that God may be real.

[myata]

Control by whom?

[normanchateau]

Yes, the vast majority of those who are actively religious had their religion given to them as children from their parents.

Dawkins and others argue that this practice is a form of child abuse:

"Such abuse begins with the involuntary involvement of children in religious practices from the time they are born. All religions, through ritual, preaching, and religious texts, seek to bring children into day-to-day religious practice. This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them. In many cases, most notably in the Catholic Church, this forced and prolonged exposure of children to religious institutions has also been a key factor in the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of children by religious leaders.

This early grip is so strong that very few people, once grown, ever get an opportunity to change their minds, despite being exposed to science and rational thinking, or even other religious systems. Religious beliefs thrive by imposing themselves upon impressionable minds and gaining their blind adherence to certain dogmatic practices."

Source:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1230,Rel...ecular-Humanism

[Riverwind]

This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them.

Dawkins is quite the crusader. It is ironic that he seems to exhibit much of the narrow minded dogmatism that he claims to dislike so much. He also clearly does not understand the distinction between religion and spirituality. Nor does he seem to understand the role churches play as community and social organizations.

[normanchateau]

This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them.

Dawkins is quite the crusader. It is ironic that he seems to exhibit much of the narrow minded dogmatism that he claims to dislike so much. He also clearly does not understand the distinction between religion and spirituality.

I could be mistaken but I believe that Dawkins' argument is with religion, not spirituality. I'm not sure how you operationally define spirituality but to me, the term is interchangeable with mysticism, and includes, but is not limited to, beliefs in the healing power of crystals and colonic irrigation and other New Age phenomena. I suspect if asked, Dawkins would respect spirituality as he does religion.

[Riverwind]

I'm not sure how you operationally define spirituality but to me, the term is interchangeable with mysticism

No it is not. Spiritually is a personal connection to a greater power or the universe without any associated dogma or ritual. It describes the beliefs of the many of people who might participate in religion for social reasons but do not otherwise subscribe to the dogma. The word is some times used for new age beliefs but that i not what i am refering to.

[normanchateau]

I'm not sure how you operationally define spirituality but to me, the term is interchangeable with mysticism

It describes the beliefs of the many of people who might participate in religion for social reasons but do not otherwise subscribe to the dogma.

This is an interesting definition of spirituality. I suspect the highly-opinionated Dawkins would have a word other than spiritual to describe those who participate in religion for social reasons rather than because of sincere faith.

[myata]

Dawkins and others argue that this practice is a form of child abuse:

...

Source:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1230,Rel...ecular-Humanism

That in itself is quite a ridiculous statement. Most parents introduce their children to religion because it's their own belief, not to impose the dogma. Who's there to decide what would be the "natural" and positive education that should be allowed and what not? A consilium of lofty scientists like minded to Dr. Dawkins?

On the matter of whether religion (organized or spiritual) is really "unnatural", how would one explain 1) its huge upsurge in the post-communist countries (after generations were raised on state imposed "natural" atheism); and 2) such a high level of penetration in most societies? If, instead of religion, involuntary involvement was perpetrated in the activities that do not come easily (i.e., "naturally") to an average individual, like e.g. chess, math calculus or body bending a la Cirque du Soleil, would the rate of success be the same?

[cybercoma]

I could be mistaken but I believe that Dawkins' argument is with religion, not spirituality. I'm not sure how you operationally define spirituality but to me, the term is interchangeable with mysticism, and includes, but is not limited to, beliefs in the healing power of crystals and colonic irrigation and other New Age phenomena. I suspect if asked, Dawkins would respect spirituality as he does religion.

I suspect he would find those forms of spiritualism equally nonsensical to religion, but not abusive in every case. Going to someone to use the healing power of crystals or having colonic irrigation done INSTEAD of seeing an actual medical doctor can be life threatening. So, maybe I'm wrong. That kind of spiritualism is just as dangerous as Jehova's Witnesses refusing blood transfusion to their children.

[cybercoma]

No it is not. Spiritually is a personal connection to a greater power or the universe without any associated dogma or ritual. It describes the beliefs of the many of people who might participate in religion for social reasons but do not otherwise subscribe to the dogma. The word is some times used for new age beliefs but that i not what i am refering to.

You're talking about deism, or having a personal relationship with God and that's fine, but that's not what most people believe in. Most people on this planet believe in the God of the Bible in some form or another (Christianity, Judaism or Islam in all their forms) and ascribe to the dogma.

You cannot prove the existence of a deity in any form whatsoever; however, that doesn't mean one exists with certainty.

Atheists and agnostics cannot disprove a deity; however, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist with total certainty.

It's just that there is more evidence for the unlikeliness of a supreme being and calling upon it as the answer to questions, such as creation, only leads to bigger questions like what created the creator?

[jazzer]

Dawkins and others argue that this practice is a form of child abuse:

...

Source:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1230,Rel...ecular-Humanism

That in itself is quite a ridiculous statement. Most parents introduce their children to religion because it's their own belief, not to impose the dogma.

Mormons, J.W's and catholics (to name a few) are encouraged to raise their children in their faith. Speaking as a catholic, I was highly expected to engage our sons in catechism and other dogma. And being raised Mormon I attended primary and had a great deal of exposure to LDS teachings. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can limit the child and young adult.

[myata]

Surely, it's a lesser evil than having some state run Central Commission decide what is a good thing to teach kids at home and what not?

BTW, I'm not arguing that religion (especially formal dogmatic kind) is necessarily a good thing. Just that unsubstantiated gross simplifications like "religion is unnatural" or "religion is a form of child abuse" add any value to the discussion. Being a "weak" atheist myself, I find "militant" forms of both religion and atheism equally pointless and repulsive.

[normanchateau]

Dawkins and others argue that this practice is a form of child abuse:

...

Source:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1230,Rel...ecular-Humanism

That in itself is quite a ridiculous statement. Most parents introduce their children to religion because it's their own belief,

I think Dawkins would agree completely that parents introduce or impose their religion on their children because it's their own belief. However, he would also argue that it's too early in life.

[ScottSA]

Dawkins and others argue that this practice is a form of child abuse:

...

Source:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1230,Rel...ecular-Humanism

That in itself is quite a ridiculous statement. Most parents introduce their children to religion because it's their own belief,

I think Dawkins would agree completely that parents introduce or impose their religion on their children because it's their own belief. However, he would also argue that it's too early in life.

Why would that be? Do they undertake potty training too early too? After all, it's merely a parent's personal belief that children ought not shit all over the living room floor and pee in the oven, eh wot? What about teaching kids "please" and "thankyou?" Ought that wait until a child's brain is fully developed too, lest they become abused by enforced politeness?

[normanchateau]

Dawkins and others argue that this practice is a form of child abuse:

...

Source:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1230,Rel...ecular-Humanism

That in itself is quite a ridiculous statement. Most parents introduce their children to religion because it's their own belief,

I think Dawkins would agree completely that parents introduce or impose their religion on their children because it's their own belief. However, he would also argue that it's too early in life.

Why would that be? Do they undertake potty training too early too? After all, it's merely a parent's personal belief that children ought not shit all over the living room floor and pee in the oven, eh wot? What about teaching kids "please" and "thankyou?" Ought that wait until a child's brain is fully developed too, lest they become abused by enforced politeness?

If you view the need for childhood indoctrination in religious and other faith-based beliefs to be analagous to the need to be toilet trained or polite to others, then your point is well-taken.

I suspect that Dawkins views childhood religious indoctrination as more analogous to the Communist or Nazi indoctrination of children which occurred in Soviet Young Pioneers or Hitler Youth.

[myata]

What is indoctrination in your view? Should children be allowed to participate in family activities? Celebrations? Imitate their parents as children do? Or they'd have to wait outside till they strike certain age?

Should parents be allowed to indoctrinate math? music? chess? tennis? Why?

Now as Scott rightfully mentioned, children are usually taught many things besides religion. Like listen to the teacher, obey certain rules and so on. How many of those should be considered "indoctrination"? And who gets to decide what constitutes one / or not?

As mentioned earlier, the last thing I'd like to do is to apologise religion. Except that certain atheist ideas a la those attributed to Dawkins in this thread sound no more credible than 6,000 years old Earth.

[August1991]

I thihink it's hard to defend the atheist position. It's about as hard to prove that there is no God as it is to prove that George Bush is not actually an alien from another planet. I don't believe in God because I have no reason to (i.e. I haven't seen any evidence for a God), but that doesn't mean I can prove that God does not exist, just as I would not be able to prove that George Bush is not in fact an alien (though I have no reason to believe he is). So, I'd call myself agnostic.

And in the process, you are entirely missing Dawkins' point.

Hard to defend the "atheist" position? Then you are disagreeing with most of humanity. Most people (the vast majority) are religious which makes them 'atheists' in the eyes of every other religion. How do religious people defend their "atheism" with respect to other religions?

And what about your agnosticism, gc1765? Dawkins would argue that in a world of atheists, you are the truly religious one.

I would argue that you are merely a conscript in this modern world of non-commitment - when the essence of life itself is commitment. Agnosticism is an attempt to avoid the issue.

[geoffrey]

"Sorry Jimmy, but your too young to understand Christmas and make a rational decision about your belief so you won't be eatting with the family or getting any gifts this year like your older siblings do!"

I'll pass.