4 ms·

While Dawkins has some good points, I don't think attacking religion is a way to go, it leads to hatred and tribalism (us vs. them). The better way is to educat

by amix 17y ago

While Dawkins has some good points, I don't think attacking religion is a way to go, it leads to hatred and tribalism (us vs. them). The better way is to educate people better and let them decide what to believe in. In Denmark where I live there is little belief in God and religion isn't that important for people - - this hasn't been done by attacking religion, or presenting religion as a virus, but by educating people better. Denmark is filled with churches, but almost nobody visits them regularly.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
JulianMorrison 17y ago
Dawkins does try to educate people, in fact from his book output he mostly tries to educate people - see for example "the greatest show on earth". I think he has a specific reason for attacking religion, and it isn't to de-convert people. His intent is to break religion's special status as immune from criticism in polite society. There is this assumption that religion always does social good, is always well-intentioned, and even if it turns out to be mistaken about reality, it's harmless. This lets religions get away with all sorts of rascally behaviour - see the Catholic church in Ireland, for example. He wants them to be held to the same account as any ordinary organization, and not placed on a pedestal.
- amix 17y ago
  I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The likely results from his offensive tactics is hatred and opposition against science and more religious fanatics - simply because most people are religious and attacking their beliefs won't make them less religious. And really, even if he breaks religion and removes it, then we will still have skin colors, nationalities and different cultures - - things that will still split people up in tribes and things that will still cause wars. What we need is to respect each other, respect our differences and cherish our similarities - we will never be the same, so respect and understanding is the only way to go.
  - gsk 17y ago
    You may be wrong. I was at the Intelligence Squared debate on Atheism [ http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=EVT0204 http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=... ] yesterday in which Dawkins debated. The vote was overwhelmingly in support of Dawkins' position (which is not fundamentalist atheism but one of calling a spade a spade). More people voted in favor of Dawkins' stand after the debate than before. Things are more nuanced, of course. I personally favor the position advocated by E O Wilson (co-opt religion).
  - berntb 17y ago
    >>I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The only data point I know well enough to talk about (Sweden) contradict your hypothesis. The "Swedish Dawkins/Russel" was the philosophy professor Ingemar Hedenius in the 1950s. He almost made Dawkins look like a bible thumper. It did work well... and Sweden 60 years ago was probably about as religious as the Midwest is today. I see no reason to give old magical ideas like Xianity, Judaism, the Asa religion or Islam more respect than new ones like Scientology.

by amix 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

JulianMorrison 17y ago

Dawkins does try to educate people, in fact from his book output he mostly tries to educate people - see for example "the greatest show on earth". I think he has a specific reason for attacking religion, and it isn't to de-convert people. His intent is to break religion's special status as immune from criticism in polite society. There is this assumption that religion always does social good, is always well-intentioned, and even if it turns out to be mistaken about reality, it's harmless. This lets religions get away with all sorts of rascally behaviour - see the Catholic church in Ireland, for example. He wants them to be held to the same account as any ordinary organization, and not placed on a pedestal.

amix 17y ago
I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The likely results from his offensive tactics is hatred and opposition against science and more religious fanatics - simply because most people are religious and attacking their beliefs won't make them less religious. And really, even if he breaks religion and removes it, then we will still have skin colors, nationalities and different cultures - - things that will still split people up in tribes and things that will still cause wars. What we need is to respect each other, respect our differences and cherish our similarities - we will never be the same, so respect and understanding is the only way to go.
- gsk 17y ago
  You may be wrong. I was at the Intelligence Squared debate on Atheism [ http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=EVT0204 http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=... ] yesterday in which Dawkins debated. The vote was overwhelmingly in support of Dawkins' position (which is not fundamentalist atheism but one of calling a spade a spade). More people voted in favor of Dawkins' stand after the debate than before. Things are more nuanced, of course. I personally favor the position advocated by E O Wilson (co-opt religion).
- berntb 17y ago
  >>I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The only data point I know well enough to talk about (Sweden) contradict your hypothesis. The "Swedish Dawkins/Russel" was the philosophy professor Ingemar Hedenius in the 1950s. He almost made Dawkins look like a bible thumper. It did work well... and Sweden 60 years ago was probably about as religious as the Midwest is today. I see no reason to give old magical ideas like Xianity, Judaism, the Asa religion or Islam more respect than new ones like Scientology.