17 ms·

> Dawkins isn't going to convince anybody (or at least not very many...) that don't already agree. Dawkins was absolutely an important stepping stone for me br

by d23 4y ago

> Dawkins isn't going to convince anybody (or at least not very many...) that don't already agree. Dawkins was absolutely an important stepping stone for me breaking away from my extremely religious upbringing.

stametseater 4y ago
I also found Dawkins while I was losing my faith, but all I can attribute to him is an edgy phase of that process where I thought it was cool to pick fights with religious people to poke holes in their arguments. I regret that now, but thankfully it was only a phase that I grew out of a year or two later (before I managed to burn too many bridges with very nice and reasonable people who happen to be religious.) Had Dawkins not existed, the ultimate outcome would have been the same. I think once you go down the path of doubting, the obvious contradictions in religion stack up fast and drive you further along in that process, regardless the influence of Dawkins. Reading the bible had a lot more to do with my atheism than Dawkins. It was impossible to reconcile the contents of that book with the christian god as had been taught to me as a child, so the whole thing unraveled.
- d23 4y ago
  Yeah, I get that. I think I'm more bothered by the gross sweeping generalization that not a single individual would be convinced by him. I'm guessing you probably found a bit of an aversion to those kind of simplifications in your faith-shedding process too.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    Tbqh I probably get a bit prickly when the subject of Dawkins comes up for a few reasons. In part because of what I already mentioned, about Dawkins being an edgy influence on me for a time, but also because religious people I meet now seem to often assume I'm presently a Dawkins fanboy, as though atheism and Dawkins are a package deal like christianity and Jesus. So, while I agree that some people may find Dawkin's arguments persuasive, I bristle at the suggestion that he's an important driving force behind modern atheism in the west. I view him mostly as a grifter who's found a way to monetize a social trend, not as an important leader of that trend.
    - JackFr 4y ago
      To be fair, Christianity and Jesus are a package deal...
      - fknorangesite 4y ago
        Yes, but atheism and Dawkins are not. That's the point.
- technothrasher 4y ago
  > Had Dawkins not existed, the ultimate outcome would have been the same. Even without Dawkin's book, you could very likely have still gone through the "edgy" phase. The overly enthusiastic "baby atheist" phase is very human, and very common, as is the eventual rise out of it. "The God Delusion" for me, who was already long converted before I read it, was mostly a quick read and forget. His earlier books on evolutionary biology, though, are brilliant. I honestly can't specifically remember any of his God Delusion arguments any longer, but the things I learned from him on evolution stick with me to this day.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Isn't that all the more reason to dislike his reading on the topic? Exacerbating an unconstructive attitude that people will naturally grow out of on their own only postpones that maturation.
  - alwaysbeconsing 4y ago
    > The overly enthusiastic "baby atheist" phase is very human, and very common Indeed, it's true for any new belief really: people who go the opposite direction and become religious show similarly ardent and sometimes abrasive behavior. Or people who convert between major religions. The same for political ideologies. I think it's just part of the process of switching your thought patterns, at least for the majority of people. A new paradigm, your mind spends a lot of energy on processing it. So it becomes a large part of your external aspect as well.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    > Even without Dawkin's book, you could very likely have still gone through the "edgy" phase. You're probably right, since r/atheism also exists; Dawkins is by no means the only fount of edge. But I don't agree that such a phase is inevitable, independent of social influences which encourage it. Edgy atheism is a 'scene', a self-perpetuating subculture. It has no leaders or formal structure, yet it actively seeks out and recruits people who are in a compatible headspace. It's like being goth. People who are goth didn't all independently discover and adopt the fashion of black lipstick, black dyed hair and pseudo-Edwardian dress. They adopt these fashion choices because other people did so before them, and crowds naturally draw more people in. When you're adrift looking for a personality, it's easier to fall in with a scene that already exists than it is to find your own truly unique way. Scenes generally speaking are inevitable, an artifact of basic human psychology I'm sure, but I don't think any specific scene has ever been an inevitability. Goths specifically were not destined to exist as an inevitable consequence of human psychology, nor do I think the edgy reddit/Dawkins style of not believing in gods was inevitable. I can perhaps see an argument that edgy atheism is an inevitability given the social context of an oppressive christian society that gives people an axe to grind, but I'm far from convinced. Such a context might instead give rise to violent subculture that encourages terrorism against the oppressors. (We're fortunate that it didn't, but in other times and places such violence scenes have emerged in response to oppressive circumstances.) And as it is true that a more violent reaction to the circumstance was possible, I think it is conceivable that a less antagonistic response was also a conceivable possibility. It is conceivable to me that a subculture for "baby atheists" might instead have formed around the premise of demonstrating superior compassion, rather than antagonistic debate. Or to put this another way.. For any violent revolution in history, there may instead have been a relatively peaceful bloodless revolution. And for any relatively peaceful bloodless revolution, there may instead have been a violent one. The Romanian Revolution in 1989 had maybe about twelve hundred people die. Was that specific degree of bloodshed inevitable, given the oppressive circumstance? I think it might instead have been fifty thousand killed, or even fifty. In reality it played out the way it did, but I see no reason to believe it had to be this way specifically.
antibasilisk 4y ago
To give a counter-example, watching Dawkins growing up is the reason why I have radical religious views now.
- d23 4y ago
  Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? What about your religious views would you say are "radical"?
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    One way to read excessive snakiness and meanness is as insecurity in the validity of your ideas. I can definitely see someone having this reading of Dawkins and some of the other voices in "New Atheism". One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. Biblical literalists like Answers in Genesis are really a side show - they're easy to mock, but don't represent what religion is to most adherents. Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. "New Atheism" often had no alternative answer to these functions.
    - antibasilisk 4y ago
      >One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. One interpretation of this apparent misunderstanding, is that it is simply easier and more profitable to create humorous or rage-baiting content around obviously absurd claims that cater to a pre-existing views, than it is to watch an extensive lecture going over particular arguments.
    - epups 4y ago
      > Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. I don't think this is true at all, particularly when you consider the world at large and not just the West. Also, you can find these functions elsewhere. You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that. Also, biblical literalists are the reason many rights are eroding in the West. Confronting them is a necessity, even if you're a religious person.

by d23 4y ago

stametseater 4y ago

I also found Dawkins while I was losing my faith, but all I can attribute to him is an edgy phase of that process where I thought it was cool to pick fights with religious people to poke holes in their arguments. I regret that now, but thankfully it was only a phase that I grew out of a year or two later (before I managed to burn too many bridges with very nice and reasonable people who happen to be religious.) Had Dawkins not existed, the ultimate outcome would have been the same. I think once you go down the path of doubting, the obvious contradictions in religion stack up fast and drive you further along in that process, regardless the influence of Dawkins. Reading the bible had a lot more to do with my atheism than Dawkins. It was impossible to reconcile the contents of that book with the christian god as had been taught to me as a child, so the whole thing unraveled.

d23 4y ago
Yeah, I get that. I think I'm more bothered by the gross sweeping generalization that not a single individual would be convinced by him. I'm guessing you probably found a bit of an aversion to those kind of simplifications in your faith-shedding process too.
- stametseater 4y ago
  Tbqh I probably get a bit prickly when the subject of Dawkins comes up for a few reasons. In part because of what I already mentioned, about Dawkins being an edgy influence on me for a time, but also because religious people I meet now seem to often assume I'm presently a Dawkins fanboy, as though atheism and Dawkins are a package deal like christianity and Jesus. So, while I agree that some people may find Dawkin's arguments persuasive, I bristle at the suggestion that he's an important driving force behind modern atheism in the west. I view him mostly as a grifter who's found a way to monetize a social trend, not as an important leader of that trend.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    To be fair, Christianity and Jesus are a package deal...
    - fknorangesite 4y ago
      Yes, but atheism and Dawkins are not. That's the point.
technothrasher 4y ago
> Had Dawkins not existed, the ultimate outcome would have been the same. Even without Dawkin's book, you could very likely have still gone through the "edgy" phase. The overly enthusiastic "baby atheist" phase is very human, and very common, as is the eventual rise out of it. "The God Delusion" for me, who was already long converted before I read it, was mostly a quick read and forget. His earlier books on evolutionary biology, though, are brilliant. I honestly can't specifically remember any of his God Delusion arguments any longer, but the things I learned from him on evolution stick with me to this day.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Isn't that all the more reason to dislike his reading on the topic? Exacerbating an unconstructive attitude that people will naturally grow out of on their own only postpones that maturation.
- alwaysbeconsing 4y ago
  > The overly enthusiastic "baby atheist" phase is very human, and very common Indeed, it's true for any new belief really: people who go the opposite direction and become religious show similarly ardent and sometimes abrasive behavior. Or people who convert between major religions. The same for political ideologies. I think it's just part of the process of switching your thought patterns, at least for the majority of people. A new paradigm, your mind spends a lot of energy on processing it. So it becomes a large part of your external aspect as well.
- stametseater 4y ago
  > Even without Dawkin's book, you could very likely have still gone through the "edgy" phase. You're probably right, since r/atheism also exists; Dawkins is by no means the only fount of edge. But I don't agree that such a phase is inevitable, independent of social influences which encourage it. Edgy atheism is a 'scene', a self-perpetuating subculture. It has no leaders or formal structure, yet it actively seeks out and recruits people who are in a compatible headspace. It's like being goth. People who are goth didn't all independently discover and adopt the fashion of black lipstick, black dyed hair and pseudo-Edwardian dress. They adopt these fashion choices because other people did so before them, and crowds naturally draw more people in. When you're adrift looking for a personality, it's easier to fall in with a scene that already exists than it is to find your own truly unique way. Scenes generally speaking are inevitable, an artifact of basic human psychology I'm sure, but I don't think any specific scene has ever been an inevitability. Goths specifically were not destined to exist as an inevitable consequence of human psychology, nor do I think the edgy reddit/Dawkins style of not believing in gods was inevitable. I can perhaps see an argument that edgy atheism is an inevitability given the social context of an oppressive christian society that gives people an axe to grind, but I'm far from convinced. Such a context might instead give rise to violent subculture that encourages terrorism against the oppressors. (We're fortunate that it didn't, but in other times and places such violence scenes have emerged in response to oppressive circumstances.) And as it is true that a more violent reaction to the circumstance was possible, I think it is conceivable that a less antagonistic response was also a conceivable possibility. It is conceivable to me that a subculture for "baby atheists" might instead have formed around the premise of demonstrating superior compassion, rather than antagonistic debate. Or to put this another way.. For any violent revolution in history, there may instead have been a relatively peaceful bloodless revolution. And for any relatively peaceful bloodless revolution, there may instead have been a violent one. The Romanian Revolution in 1989 had maybe about twelve hundred people die. Was that specific degree of bloodshed inevitable, given the oppressive circumstance? I think it might instead have been fifty thousand killed, or even fifty. In reality it played out the way it did, but I see no reason to believe it had to be this way specifically.

antibasilisk 4y ago

To give a counter-example, watching Dawkins growing up is the reason why I have radical religious views now.

d23 4y ago
Because you found him to be off-putting? Or you found his arguments to be weak? What about your religious views would you say are "radical"?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  One way to read excessive snakiness and meanness is as insecurity in the validity of your ideas. I can definitely see someone having this reading of Dawkins and some of the other voices in "New Atheism". One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. Biblical literalists like Answers in Genesis are really a side show - they're easy to mock, but don't represent what religion is to most adherents. Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. "New Atheism" often had no alternative answer to these functions.
  - antibasilisk 4y ago
    >One other problem I've seen with some of the most outspoken atheists is that they fundamentally seem to misunderstand the role that religion plays in many people's lives. One interpretation of this apparent misunderstanding, is that it is simply easier and more profitable to create humorous or rage-baiting content around obviously absurd claims that cater to a pre-existing views, than it is to watch an extensive lecture going over particular arguments.
  - epups 4y ago
    > Most people don't look to religion for scientific answers but for community, a scaffolding to build their lives around, and for relief from existential dread. I don't think this is true at all, particularly when you consider the world at large and not just the West. Also, you can find these functions elsewhere. You don't need to believe in God or in miracles to have any of that. Also, biblical literalists are the reason many rights are eroding in the West. Confronting them is a necessity, even if you're a religious person.