Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism'

Rainman05 said:

If you change that into: Highly possible; then I'd agree with you through and through

Click to expand...

I see absolutely nothing to support that assertion, there are no dynamics of atheism now or anything within its philosophy that would suggest any massive coagulation into an actual religion. In fact the lack of such is part of the draw of atheism in the first place.

Ikari said:

I see absolutely nothing to support that assertion, there are no dynamics of atheism now or anything within its philosophy that would suggest any massive coagulation into an actual religion. In fact the lack of such is part of the draw of atheism in the first place.

Click to expand...

I guess there's things like 'Reason Rally' but, otherwise, don't we call those "symposiums."

You can't be a 'fundamentalist' unless you dogmatically defend things 'established' by revelation, and do it on faith, and with little regard for utilizing reason.

You can't be religious unless you accept things on faith (at a minimum).

Dawkins lays it out himself by stating that, yes, he is passionate. But passion alone is not religious, and it certainly is not fundamentalist. He is very willing to change what he accepts, should evidence be presented. Religion allows for no such adjustment.

Dawkins is mildly militant, definitely. I view mild militant behavior as having disrespect toward the feelings and emotions of those you oppose. Many atheists become frustrated by the wiggle room non-militant arguments leave for theists, and develop this kind of militant behavior. Some theists believe the importance of what 'is at stake' excuses their own brand of militancy. Some people just like being jerks (on both sides) and develop this kind of behavior.

Full-blown militant positions on either side would be advocating for laws or even social pressure which further their own views and/or belief (whether well established or not). For the atheist or theist, this would be things like seeking to impede your opponents in the social function. For example, seeking to allow or even worse, foster discriminatory practices against those with whom you disagree. I think that Dawkins could possibly be this kind of militant, but I have not seen anything definitive in his writings which would tip the scale here.

I think it is ridiculous for Higgs to make the argument that Dawkins is religious in his views, when he clearly cannot demonstrate that Dawkins is accepting things on faith. Perhaps Higgs doesn't think the distinction between scientific and religious thinking is important, but many of us do... and so the distinction between Dawkins and Rev. Graham is crystal clear. Higgs is confusing the issues with his mislabeling, and doing so does absolutely nothing to further the discussion. He should stick to criticizing Dawkins as militant, and argue against militancy.

Fustercluck said:

I disagree. please provide evidence that 'these people' act like 'every' religious person is 'that way'.

Click to expand...

I didn't refer to every religious or nonreligious person. Reread my post.

Fustercluck said:

you either believe somebody is going to be tortured for all eternity just for not believing in the same invisible guy as you or you don't, I don't see how truly believing that is anything but ridiculous and dangerous.

Click to expand...

You have a very narrow view of what religion actually is and the many belief systems that can be considered religion.

Fustercluck said:

If you don't believe for instance the pope is infallible, you're not a catholic, period.

Click to expand...

Are all religious people Catholic now?

Fustercluck said:

That doesn't mean you can't be religious and a good person at the same time.

Click to expand...

Did you actually bother to read my post? When did I say otherwise?

Fustercluck said:

But sometimes a ridiculous view is a ridiculous view, like believing in a giant flying purple crocodile. Nothing condescending about calling it out as it is.

Click to expand...

That's cool. Stay on your high horse, but it is not going to convince anyone, and will only reinforce stereotypes that many people hold about Atheists. If you genuinely want to convince someone of an idea or bring them over to your side, do it in a calm respectful manner, and no just because you think you're right about something and someone else is wrong, that does not give you the right to be rude or obnoxious. You can call people out all you want on the Internet, but in the real world people will appreciate it much less.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

I didn't refer to every religious or nonreligious person. Reread my post.



You have a very narrow view of what religion actually is and the many belief systems that can be considered religion.



Are all religious people Catholic now?



Did you actually bother to read my post? When did I say otherwise?



That's cool. Stay on your high horse, but it is not going to convince anyone, and will only reinforce stereotypes that many people hold about Atheists. If you genuinely want to convince someone of an idea or bring them over to your side, do it in a calm respectful manner, and no just because you think you're right about something and someone else is wrong, that does not give you the right to be rude or obnoxious. You can call people out all you want on the Internet, but in the real world people will appreciate it much less.

Click to expand...

Nearly all of us have specific religions we think are ridiculous. Do you think Scientology is ridiculous? What about some of the demonstrably false beliefs of the Mormons? What about the amusing beliefs of some of the isolated island cultures who have worked their experiences with more advanced people into their theology? What about the people who thought their saviors were coming with that comet, oh about 10 or 15 years ago? Even if you are so tolerant of ridiculous methods for evaluating truth that you personally don't contemplate how ridiculous at least some beliefs are, the vast majority of us are not so generous.

When Mormonism encompassed only a few thousand people, no one thought it was unfair to consider them ridiculous. Only after they have obtained a 'respectable' number of believers have we begun to shift on that account. The same would be true of the island people or any other relatively new faith.

Atheists simply don't take the number of people choosing to believe something, or the length of a belief's persistence, into account as to whether it is ridiculous or not. That sounds like 'a high horse' to some people, but it is really just using a correct, consistent standard for evaluating whether something is unfounded or not.

If someone comes up to me and says tomorrow, "I honestly, really believe that god is purple metaphysical octopus whose tentacles created the eight true planets", I am going to think this is ridiculous. I see no reason to grant any other religion any greater deference. If someone wants to present enough evidence to warrant deference for their specific religion, I am ready and willing to hear it. But, evidence is the only thing that should make any difference at all.

I am sure this stance does not persuade the unpersuadable, and it does piss them off. But, it is effective, over time, with people who are.

I have to disagree with you on LDS Mormonism. I have found no demonstrably false beliefs. Now if you are speaking of the tons of stuff you can find on the internet that claim to be LDS beliefs but are simply distortions, lies, and weak strawman arguments against it, sure these "Mormon beliefs" are easily demonstrated as false. Jeff Lindsay is a LDS member that does a good job of responding to these LDS criticisms. You can Google him and likely find responses to all of the problems you have in mind. Here is a start, likely one of the "Mormon beliefs that is demonstrably false" you had in mind that is simply a distortion and strawman: DNA and the Book of Mormon: Science, Evidence, and Scriptures--An LDS Perspective.

I see a lot of faulty logic with Dawkins. I also find him arrogant and glib, and not knowing a lot of things in certain areas that he ridicules.

Andalublue said:

to paraphrase Dawkins, the difference between a fundamentalist and an extremist is that an extremist may be open to changing his/her mind, a fundamentalist cannot or will not.

Click to expand...

Dawkins really is a fundamentalist, in addition to being an extremist. He's not willing to change his mind or reconsider him fundamental belief in materialism.

Dezaad said:

Nearly all of us have specific religions we think are ridiculous. Do you think Scientology is ridiculous? What about some of the demonstrably false beliefs of the Mormons? What about the amusing beliefs of some of the isolated island cultures who have worked their experiences with more advanced people into their theology? What about the people who thought their saviors were coming with that comet, oh about 10 or 15 years ago? Even if you are so tolerant of ridiculous methods for evaluating truth that you personally don't contemplate how ridiculous at least some beliefs are, the vast majority of us are not so generous.

When Mormonism encompassed only a few thousand people, no one thought it was unfair to consider them ridiculous. Only after they have obtained a 'respectable' number of believers have we begun to shift on that account. The same would be true of the island people or any other relatively new faith.

Atheists simply don't take the number of people choosing to believe something, or the length of a belief's persistence, into account as to whether it is ridiculous or not. That sounds like 'a high horse' to some people, but it is really just using a correct, consistent standard for evaluating whether something is unfounded or not.

If someone comes up to me and says tomorrow, "I honestly, really believe that god is purple metaphysical octopus whose tentacles created the eight true planets", I am going to think this is ridiculous. I see no reason to grant any other religion any greater deference. If someone wants to present enough evidence to warrant deference for their specific religion, I am ready and willing to hear it. But, evidence is the only thing that should make any difference at all.

I am sure this stance does not persuade the unpersuadable, and it does piss them off. But, it is effective, over time, with people who are.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for or against atheism. I'm not going to waste my time with that o the Internet. All I'm saying is that not being a prick in an argument goes a very long way.

Even Higgs does not go so far as to call Dawkins a fundamentalist.

But then I look at their claims:
Dawkins: Religious belief is embarassing
Higgs: Dawkinn-esque belief is embarassing

Looks like similar behaviors, where's the opposition or high horse? It's in your heads.

CaptainCourtesy said:

An extremist is an extremist is a militant is a fundamentalist. Doesn't matter which side of the issue they are on.

Click to expand...

On the spectrum of social and political movements, you are really here claiming that Dawkins is an extremist? A MILITANT? He's neither. Which of course makes your claim...extremist. No really, in what absurd context are you in that you believe Richard Dawkins, intellectual pontificator, is militant? Or in context, "extremist" in the ad hom sense that you use it? Disappointing. You can disagree with Dawkins for all sorts of reasoned or emotional reasons, without the need to absurdly lable him as a militant extremist.

Someone who is vocal about their beliefs != extremist, and sure as hell doesn't equate to militant. You're way off on this one.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

I'm not arguing for or against atheism. I'm not going to waste my time with that o the Internet. All I'm saying is that not being a prick in an argument goes a very long way.

Click to expand...

...with regards to not being a prick. Has nothing to do with extremist or militant, fundamentalist or being correct or incorrect. Which is the point.

Say it people. Dawkins is a prick. This does not imply he's an extremist, or lol, a militant, or a fundamentlist. Is the point. If you do choose to lable him so absurdly, you're being just as much a prick, or "extremist" if you're going to widen that context to basically mean anyone who vocally opposed a belief.

Mach said:

On the spectrum of social and political movements, you are really here claiming that Dawkins is an extremist? A MILITANT?

Click to expand...

Don't try to fight that battle. They've essentially redefined "militant" such that they can label mouthy atheists as militant atheists. They're just militant anti-atheists (see you can use their definition against them).

The only reason why any atheists can be labeled as militant or extremist is because the religious are so used to having complete and unfettered control over everything and have for so long that they cannot handle the merest possibility of that power slipping away from them. No one ever calls those who fervently assert that the world is round extremist, no matter how rude they are to members of the Flat Earth Society. No one ever calls those who fervently assert that Bigfoot isn't real militant, no matter how much they scorn cryptozoologists. Truth is truth, and there is no special reason to coddle the feelings of those who are demonstrably wrong. There is no reason to obscure the truth because it makes some uncomfortable. There only reason why religion enjoys a different standard is because of the power it possesses and its desperate drive to keep that power.

There is no reason why those who have the truth should be anything less than fervent in their support for it. There is no reason why such a person should pretend to be less certain than they are. There is no such thing as an extremist atheist, anymore than there is an extremist supporter of general relativity or Newtonian gravity. Truth is truth. You don't pretend that it's not to comfort those who are wrong.

Any debate on universal moral ideas, the existence and influence of magical beings, life after death... These issues should NOT be debated with kid gloves. Also not with violence. You get your evidence together and you present it. You fight for it fiercely. This questions are too important to leave to wimps who are easily bruised.

The whole "militant atheist" argument is attempting to establish a false equation between the violence that has happened in the name of religion for thousands of years and CONTINUES TO HAPPEN TODAY, with the fact that atheists aren't especially nice when they talk about their positions. By all means, religious folks, come down to our level. Fight us like we fight you. With anger, zeal, and evidence. Just no violence, cuz that's not how we roll.

mil•i•tant [mil-i-tuh nt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.
noun
3.
a militant person.
4.
a person engaged in warfare or combat.

I get it, I think you have valid point. But they will point to the 1st adjective definition of militant and say it means any loudmouth atheist. It also means it’s any loudmouth theist (and they have a much bigger percentage of loudmouth jerks than atheists), or loudmouth “keep atheists out of the religion forum”, or pretty much any person at nearly any time. It’s become rather useless, I’ve just taken to using it against theists now.

Now any rational individual will say that militant in terms of religion would be applied to the ones not running their mouths; but rather the ones ACTING aggressive and threateningly against one’s person or property (particularly person); those who are actually throwing bottles, breaking windows, threatening or carrying out violence. But as there are no atheists like that, and there is the urge to label atheists as “militant” to elicit specific emotional response so this is what they do. And they drag down the entirety of the debate with it. I do so dislike stupid people.