Re: [asa] Re: Dialogue and the bond in Christ

Dawkins may not be especially interested in ID, ID is but a part of
his interests. As to the question of Dawkins hating religion, I wonder
how people have reached this conclusion. Certainly the response that
almost everything you have ever heard or read regarding Dawkins seems
quite insufficient to further the concept that Dawkins is involved in
hateful bigotry. Furthermore, I have found quite often, that people
have come to make assumptions about Dawkins which fail to be supported
by what Dawkins actually has said. In fact, I consider myself to be
one of the victims of jumping to conclusions rather than relying on
Dawkins.
Does Dawkins hate religion? Based on what writings of Dawkins did you
reach this conclusion? As far as religion being a disease I am
interested in hearing your sources.

I have done some intensive searching and finally found a somewhat
relevant reference

<quote>"I do think the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the
mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus...
Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it
true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus.
It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good
thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped
out."</quote>

or in full context

<quote>Dawkins: That's a matter of individual psychology and
motivation and not my province.

Skeptic: You also took a bit of flak for likening religion (I think
specifically Catholicism) to a virus? Is that still your position?

Dawkins: Yes. I come to it through the analogy to computer viruses. We
have two kinds of viruses that have a lot in common--namely real
biological viruses and computer viruses. In both cases they are
parasitic self-replicating codes which exploit the existence of
machinery that was set up to copy and obey that kind of code. So I
then ask the question, "What if there were a third kind of milieu in
which a different kind of self-replicating code could become an
effective parasite?" Human brains with their powerful communication
systems seem to be a likely candidate. Then I ask, "What would it feel
like if you were the victim of a mind virus?" Well, you would feel
within yourself this deep conviction that seems to come from nowhere.
It doesn't result from any evidence, but you have a total conviction
that you know what's true about the world and the cosmos and life. You
just know it and you're even prepared to kill people who disagree with
you. You go around proselytizing and persuading other people to accept
your view. The more you write down the features that such a mind virus
would have, the more it starts to look like religion. I do think that
the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a
particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus.

Skeptic: But couldn't the Pope (or Evangelical Protestants for that
matter), reply, "Look, we just have a terrific meme. It's winning what
you would describe as a Darwinian battle and you're angry because you
just don't like it."

Dawkins: Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't
make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a
terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean
that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it
stamped out.

Skeptic: So once again the discussion goes back to how do you
determine whether something is good or not, other than by just your
personal choice?

Dawkins: I don't even try. You keep wanting to base morality on
Darwinism. I don't. </quote>

As to Dawkins wanting to protect science against the ID folks, I
suggest you read Dawkins God Delusion.

See also
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

On 4/1/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, COME ON, Pim. I've heard people defend Dawkins on his own merits, but
> I've never heard ANYONE claim Dawkins is primarily interested in debunking
> ID and is otherwise neutral towards religion in general. Everyone I've ever
> heard or read regarding Dawkins agrees that he hates religion qua religion
> -- he sees it as a sort of disease or defect that we should be rid of.
> Either agree with Dawkins or don't, but the idea that he's really a nice
> chap who just wants to protect the integrity of science against the ID folks
> is beyond incredible.
>
>
> On 4/1/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was hoping to hear some support for the hateful bigotry.
> > The quote provided needs to be, once again, seen in its proper
> > context as it is followed by
> >
> >
> > DawkinsL It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God
> > Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely
> > instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face,
> > 'Gentle Jesus meek and mild'.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/1/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I am also looking forward to a dialogue with people like Dawkins,
> > > > rather than accusing him of hateful bigotry
> >
> > > No need to make accusations - Dawkins's words speak for themselves:
> > >
> > > The old testament God is ...
> > > "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and
> proud of
> > > it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive,
> bloodthirsty
> > > ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,
> > > genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,
> > > capriciously malevolent bully"
> > > ( From "The God Delusion").
> > >
> > > Then again there is Dawkins's frequent reference to believers as
> > > "Faith-heads". But as you like to use insulting language like
> > > "Scientifically Vacuous" I guess you don't find Dawkins insulting or
> bigoted
> > > in spite of the evidence in front of your nose.
> >
> > Nice ad hominem. Speaking of being hateful :-)
> > How frequently does Dawkins refer to the term faith head and in what
> > context? So far, I have found a single book in which Dawkins uses the
> > term. Any guesses how many times he used the term?
> > Perhaps actually reading Dawkins in proper context may help better
> > understand his arguments?
> >
> >
> > > In any case, you're inconsistent. In one case you say "what's so good
> about
> > > dialogue" and in another case you say you want to dialogue with Dawkins.
> > > Make your mind up.
> >
> > I am pointing out that those who insist on dialogue seem to be
> > inconsistent... Sarcasm.
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 1 17:34:51 2007