From an article on Dawkins website: http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,Im-an-atheist-BUT---,Richard-Dawkins I'm an atheist, BUT . . . by Richard Dawkins Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What follows such an opening is nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic or – worse – suffused with a sort of exultant negativity. Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned. I've noticed five variants of I'm-an-atheist-buttery, and I'll list them in turn... 1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it! 2. I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need? 3. I'm an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture. 4. I'm an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What's the point? 5. I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language. As is apparent from the above statements, Dawkins is now focused on atheism as opposed to science. So has atheism turned evangelistic? And is this in favor of or to the detriment of atheism as a (non)belief system? What do you think?
It's not apparent at all, where do you get that idea? Atheism isn't a belief system, where do you get that idea?
Dawkins has pretty much always been a militant evangelistic atheist, I think. How do you decide whether something is in favour of or to the detriment of atheism? Atheism doesn't have any goals that I'm aware of. I don't think it's a belief system, either... it's just a belief.
I'm not surprised its not apparent to youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Does this help? Hence the (non) non=not
By the way, sam, I'm impressed that you're reading Dawkins. Too many people refuse to read works that they don't agree with.
Why would they, unless they were evangelising? If specifically asked for my religious outlook, I have no problem with proclaiming my disbelief in God... but I've never had an occasion where it was necessary to bring it up otherwise. Situations differ, of course. Proclaiming atheism would be difficult to do in the presence of a deeply religious an highly respected family member, for example.
I read the Selfish gene the year it came out. Although I did not agree with some of it, it was entertaining enough to keep reading him. I liked the River out of Eden and the Devils Chaplain. I haven't read the Ancestor's Tale (which I've heard is good) or the God Delusion, but its on my TBR. I prefered his science books, at least he knew what he was talking about. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I could think of many situations: for children, for example in the case of baptism or holy communion or if you don't want them to attend Sunday school. Or in case they want to tell their family or community because they have no desire to participate in religious functions. I'm curious. What would the results be in a religious Western community, if one "came out" as an atheist?
I've only read Climbing Mount Improbable, Blind Watchmaker, and Selfish Gene. I find him to be very entertaining, but annoyingly preachy. A bit like CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft (a Roman Catholic apologist).
mmm... yes. Those are the difficult situations. It depends how religious, I guess. I live in a conservative regional city in Australia, conservative enough that if someone running for council is atheist they're probably better off not making a big deal out of it. For lower profile folk, the implications would be limited to family. Friends and other community members would usually consider it "none of their business", and few (if any) religious leaders are dedicated enough to chase down strays to bring them back to the fold. My mother and most of my siblings are strong Roman Catholics, so there were some repercussions when I chose to stop going to Mass, and more so (much more so!) when we didn't have our children baptised in a Catholic church. I personally didn't care. My wife preferred them to be baptised in a protestant church. My mum didn't come to our firstborn's baptism, but she got over it and came to the next one. Aside from that, and the occasional gentle reminder that they hope I'll return to religion some day, there's no real change. I'm not outcast, I don't make an issue out of being atheist, but I don't hide it either... and it doesn't matter.
Ultimately, one has to ask this question: Would life really be that better off in Atheism? The only Atheistic states have been Communist and catastrophes. Whereas sensibly religious states, such as Greece, Rome, India, Japan, China before Marxism, et cetera, have always been culturally advanced. Also, as shown by my thread "What have Atheists Done?" (or whatever it was named) the contribution of Atheists to the world has been slight. These ubermenschen aren't really that uber.
I wouldn't say atheists have made slight contribution. Woody Allen, John Lennon in recent culture; Kurt Godel, Bertrand Russell in philosophy and math; many great scientists - and actually the majority of current research scientists... Regardless, you cannot judge the value of a position based on its holders. As for Dawkins... well, he's a fair amount self-righteous. Frankly I think the atheists best course of action would simply be to not engage in the debate. The positions have been published, they are all available and nothing new has been said on the matter in quite some time. There is no scientific evidence for a deity, there is no good logical argument for necessity of one, and if for a moment I may agree with Nietzsche - if there was no god, it would have been necessary for us to invent him. It's like the 'should creationism be taught in biology class' debate. No. It's not biology or science. End of debate. I'm really tired of academics giving long winded speaches on the subject - the answer is simple and present and to argue this only gives credibility. If hacks and pseudo-philosopehrs want to debate the subject, fine. But don't bring into the world of academics, it doesn't have that merit.
And no, you don't really have to ask that question. For starters, it's unanswerable - too many variables to even begin to consider. Secondly, we shouldn't give belief to something simply because it makes life better. Otherwise I would believe I'm a devilishly handsome Bond-esque gentleman.
I think they are just tired of being oppressed, and having religion placed out of bounds for discussion and criticism. While Dawkins is now focused on discussing his book, that is no reason for him to discontinue an interest in science. In fact, fundamentalist religion is now a threat to science in schools and in government funding of research. It's only self defense.
Do you think Dawkins' approach is helpful in undermining the effect of fundamentalist religion in schools or government?
Yes, I do. Not only does he provide a clear disquisition of the logical underpinnings of atheism, he is part of a broader backlash against creeping fundamentalism, a spokesman for the scientific and rational legacy we all share.
Dawkins in a genius, but he seriously needs to lay off the evangelical atheism, i think its deeply obsessive and counter-productive.
from the comments section of Dawkins' site: Mystics and religious fanatics held back human development for almost 1500 years, imagine where we might be now if the ancient tradition and reverence for knowledge had not been destroyed, perhaps many major causes of current human misery would have been eradicated long ago. Unfortunately, last time round the mystics won, they burned the written work and murdered the scientists; we can't let that happen again, and it's entirely possible that it could.
