The God Delusion / Root of All Evil - Richard Dawkins

[Niflmir]

On the first point I think there are several belief systems that may claim to be religions that do not put a stake on moral authority, I would see neo-paganism, wicca somewhat in this realm and more strongly UU and Humanitarism.

For the sake of the discussion at hand, I think we can usurp the lexical or democratic definition of marriage and posit that a religion need not claim moral authority. These has the consequence of immediately negating Dawkins argument in the literal sense but I think it furthers the view that he is stating. We weaken the wording of his orginal argument and replace "religion" with "institution claiming moral authority", then the classic and perhaps the only examples are the classical religions which some people may claim are the only religions (by discouting our new, implied definition). The move is not a semantic one, but a clarifying one. It becomes that institutions which make claims to moral authorities are the root of evil. So religion is no longer a source of evil if it claims no moral authority. It portrays the classic religions in the sense that Dawkins wanted, since they all claim moral authority, and it sweeps the "hedonistic" religions out of the argument. By hedonistic I mean those religions that claim no moral authority and so allows complete moral agency of its members, since those religions would be labeled hedonistic by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and others. Indeed I believe people have those very views about UU and Humanism.

With this definition in hand, it is much harder to argue against the conclusions as well. You aren't bashing religion per se, so you don't have to continuously show that religions do this or that, you simply show that the claim to moral authority of an institution naturally leads to coercion or attempts at coercion by that institution. I think the conclusion follows more naturally from the weakened hypothesis:

Morally right people do not want morally wrong things to occur. Given the chance to stop some action that they believe to be morally wrong, a morally right person will act to stop those actions. A large enough institution has this power. An individual who claims moral authority believes to know right from wrong in all actions. An institution with moral authority will seek to control people's lives down to the minute level, since it has the belief that minute details are wrong or right and the power to affect those changes.

Is this the essence of Dawkin's argument though? Wars and conflict arise because of institutions (governmental or otherwise) that view the actions of another nation, group, or institution as morally reprehensible and seek to remedy the situation through violence, in an "ends justify the means and there are no other means" sort of manner. Or did he in fact want to point out that this was uniquely because of religious thinking? In that, perhaps only religions define moral rights and wrongs against a spiritual entity as opposed to against a manifest organism?

 

[selfactivated]

I'm glad you're still reading, the discussion that we had after the film was very thought provoking for me, so obviously I've had some time to mull this over at length. I think one of the challenges that we face in our society is this thought process about what religion is to us, not just what our religious beliefs are. These challenges are leveled on a personal and societal level. Please feel free to jump in if and when you feel inclined to do so, I'd love to get more input on this ... question.

Im Pagan, I have no religion I have faith. I refuse to walk in even a UU church for services. I was raised catholic and that didnt work for me. I raised my kids in the sally ally and that wasnt so bad because they're a works based orginization and I Love being involved with community work.....back then.

Religion to me is the total opposite of what Goddess/God created us for. See Im not as smart as yall Im just a simple Priestess with simple beliefs.

 

[jimmoyer]

This has got to be the most self congratulating thread I've read in a long time.

Arguments can be made for both relgious and secular behavior. One trying to prove the concepts of the other side as not as solid or consisting of some hypocrisy seems a self-satisfying pre-occupation.

 

[SVMc]

We weaken the wording of his orginal argument and replace "religion" with "institution claiming moral authority", then the classic and perhaps the only examples are the classical religions which some people may claim are the only religions (by discouting our new, implied definition). The move is not a semantic one, but a clarifying one.

I think this can easily be agreed, that anytime a institution claims moral authority and gains popular support it then has the ability to exercise it's moral outrage in the form of violence against sub-sets of people it sees as it's enemies. This can easily bring darkbeavers argument back into context as while the crusades or the gaza strip are shining examples of religious based moral authority inciting conflict, the cold war is a good example of faith in socio-economic systems motivating people to engage in conflict.

This can be reduced to the general argument that whenever you have an unthinking mob mentality that is blindly following a politically motivated leader it will likely be a bad outcome.

Is this the essence of Dawkin's argument though? Wars and conflict arise because of institutions (governmental or otherwise) that view the actions of another nation, group, or institution as morally reprehensible and seek to remedy the situation through violence, in an "ends justify the means and there are no other means" sort of manner. Or did he in fact want to point out that this was uniquely because of religious thinking?

The crux of the Dawkins argument seems to be the later in this case, which is why I am uncomfortable with it. While we can widely accept that having masses handing over their moral authority to any sort of centralized body and then adhering to the direction of that body typically produces bad results, the problem I wrestle with is Dawkins assertion that religions are not only in an unique situation to create this climate, but by definition will create this climate.

In which case I have to ask is a religious moral authority more or less likely to create conflict than a non-religious one. If we do draw a line in the sand between the belief in the Holy Roman Church and the belief in a Capitalist (or Socialist) system, then can we see that one is more likely to result in conflict "evil" than the other.

There is certainly more evidence for societies going to war on religious motivations, at least on the surface, because until relatively recent history nations were large organized as religious nations under the control of a monarch that either subscribed to a religious institution (i.e. Catholic Empires, Ancient Roman Empire) or located the religious institution inside the monarchy (i.e. Anglican / Church of England). This does not of course mean that it was for religious reasons that wars / conflicts happened, often these were politically or territorially motivated wars that simply engaged the population through religion as a tool.

In which case is it the religion that is causing the problem, or the political institution causing the problem. Dawkins argues strongly that it is the religion that without religion the conflict in the Middle East would not exist, the crusades would not have been fought, 9/11 may not have happened, terrorists would not be blowing themselves up in the name of God.

Dawkins sees religion as at least the rallying point to motivate a population, and at worst the cause of the conflict.

I can agree with the rallying point for classic religions, but question the causal point. We have shown in WWI, WWII that nationalism is a powerful rallying point and the cold war was an interesting blend of nationalism and pure political ideology.

I think the question becomes weather or not religion is the cause of the conflict if it is the rallying point (classical religion that is) then is it pro-active for science / reason to declare a "war" on religion and put forward a viewpoint that religious institutions should be abolished for the greater good because they contribute significantly to conflict.

Then we arrive back at the question of the benign religion. Many people are attracted to non-institutionalized religions. Is there a way to foster these beliefs to meet what seems to be a human need without institutionalizing them.

Dawkins would disagree, while in the movie he picks what I would refer to as the low hanging fruit (classical established institutionalized religions and mainly the fundamental branches of these religions) he does in the book address moderate religion as a corruptive force as well, because he sees a moderate acceptance of a supernatural, without physical proof as the slippery slope to allowing for the fundamentalist cooptation of morality. In this way he levels the argument that all religions will necessarily degenerate into power wielding institutionalism, but provides little proof on this matter.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dawkins ... does in the book address moderate religion as a corruptive force as well, because he sees a moderate acceptance of a supernatural, without physical proof as the slippery slope to allowing for the fundamentalist cooptation of morality. In this way he levels the argument that all religions will necessarily degenerate into power wielding institutionalism, but provides little proof on this matter.

I think Dawkins' argument is a little more subtle than that, though I'd agree that he doesn't go into it as deeply as he could have. But there's a limit to what one book can cover, and I think that's a book-length subject in itself. It seems worth noting, however, that I can think of no case in history in which religion, given secular authority, has not turned into power wielding institutionalism. Much of the history of the nominally Christian nations of the West over the last 400 years or so can be read as the church retreating, or perhaps being beaten back, from its position of secular authority as the scientific revolution revealed the falsity of many of its claims.

I didn't read Dawkins as using the slippery slope argument though, he certainly ought to know that's a common logical fallacy. I understood him to be saying that because religions, even the most moderate among them, hold themselves to be uniquely right about certain things, they feel they automatically deserve respect and should be immune from certain criticisms. To be logically consistent then, they have to further insist that *any* religious belief automatically deserves the same respect and immunity from fundamental criticism, which is a very pervasive, and I think insidious, claim. No idea is so good it deserves a free pass. He does explore that a little further in some of his other writings where he talks about memes and mind viruses.

Just for interest, you can see Bill O'Reilly's interview with Dawkins here. That man must be the worst interviewer in the world. He never let Dawkins complete a thought, just kept interrupting to lecture and harangue him.

 

[L Gilbert]

Capitalism is the religion of the western masses.

-Wanted: A colony for an ant named "Beaver"-

 

[L Gilbert]

We live to civilize our children so that we might live in civil communities. Religion is a great tool in this regard. If religion didn't exist, the rational amongst us would be hard pressed to find an agent equally adroit at doing the job. Humans aren't nice. They need guiding principles that bear authority. A Just Society, even as Trudeau envisaged it, is only possible through numbing regulation. Even then the govs have to hope the people will prove amenable to being cowed.

Reason would be a great tool. Unfortunately, people cannot seem to control their emotions, and let themselves be guided by them: EG, like greed, hate, etc. Reason goes down the tube and emotion takes over.

 

[selfactivated]

Reason would be a great tool. Unfortunately, people cannot seem to control their emotions, and let themselves be guided by them: EG, like greed, hate, etc. Reason goes down the tube and emotion takes over.

Are you against emotions such as Love, Compassion and Caring also........Those rule my life for the most part.

 

[L Gilbert]

There is a "religion" which I happen to like quite a lot, called the Unitarian Universalists. They basically believe... that the individual can believe whatever they like. They have Christian origins, and basically their belief in an Omnipotent god or force or power caused them to reject the trinity and their belief in the omnibenevolence (or just plain apathy) of this force caused them to reject hell. Then they rejected the bible for some reason, and the teachings of other churches. So now, you can call yourself Unitarian Universalist if you just like hanging out with people that like belonging to a religious institution, without the religion.

People end up believing whatever they like anyway.

 

[L Gilbert]

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Peace>>>AJ:love9:

lol.
Do you ever pry your nose outta the "good" book long enough to breathe?

 

[L Gilbert]

This has got to be the most self congratulating thread I've read in a long time.

Arguments can be made for both relgious and secular behavior. One trying to prove the concepts of the other side as not as solid or consisting of some hypocrisy seems a self-satisfying pre-occupation.

Need a hanky?

 

[L Gilbert]

Are you against emotions such as Love, Compassion and Caring also........Those rule my life for the most part.

Does it seem like it? I'm sorry if I don't joke around enough, make complimentary comments about people and strew green rep points all over the place enough, display enough love for my family, etc. But, my nature is to think objectively and rationally.

 

[L Gilbert]

Let's make war on wars!!!
Howzzat for passionate, Self? (I'm kidding around, BTW)

 

[selfactivated]

Guess Im not feeling very jovial today.....My lifestyles been attacked already once.....now twice this morning. I'll shut up.

 

[talloola]

We live to civilize our children so that we might live in civil communities. Religion is a great tool in this regard. If religion didn't exist, the rational amongst us would be hard pressed to find an agent equally adroit at doing the job. Humans aren't nice. They need guiding principles that bear authority. A Just Society, even as Trudeau envisaged it, is only possible through numbing regulation. Even then the govs have to hope the people will prove amenable to being cowed.

I have more faith in the human race, than to think that if there was no religion, the bad
would rule. It would be interesting to see how people would organize, and live in societies
in that way, as I think it could be so good, as everyone would have their eyes wide open
to 'reality', and make decisions for the good of all, and not 'just' their own religious groups, which, in this world, are very politically connected, and have such power when
making decisions for countries.

 

[SVMc]

It seems worth noting, however, that I can think of no case in history in which religion, given secular authority, has not turned into power wielding institutionalism. Much of the history of the nominally Christian nations of the West over the last 400 years or so can be read as the church retreating, or perhaps being beaten back, from its position of secular authority as the scientific revolution revealed the falsity of many of its claims.

This is agreeably the strength of Dawkins argument. I would stand that there is no historical proof of a religion that given secular authority has not turned into power wielding institutionalism. Having however a great deal of respect for the basic scientific process, I am still at a loss of weather to conclude that this is simply an abundance of evidence leading to a good hypothesis, or if it can be applied as a tested theory. The evidence for the ability of institutionalized religion to be a negative force and a force that demands faith rather than reason, and sometimes the abandonment of reason is huge. But what it does not show is if religion can be apart from institutionalization.

Can religion exist without having to assert a moral claim?

I didn't read Dawkins as using the slippery slope argument though, he certainly ought to know that's a common logical fallacy. I understood him to be saying that because religions, even the most moderate among them, hold themselves to be uniquely right about certain things, they feel they automatically deserve respect and should be immune from certain criticisms.

I think you're dead on with Dawkins answer to this question that in his view religions cannot operate / exist without that moral claim and he takes it a step further to religions who assert that moral claim generate a culture of entitlement, and try to insulate from criticism.

But, secular society itself tries to provide the answer of in law separating church and state, and in law protecting a diversity of religions. Is this simply secular society fooling itself thinking that religions can be relegated to a religious / philosophical realm, or is it actually possible to have religion that does not exert a moral influence on the political. Or is this like asking if a religious person can act morally without attributing their morality to their religion?

 

[L Gilbert]

Guess Im not feeling very jovial today.....My lifestyles been attacked already once.....now twice this morning. I'll shut up.

Sorry, hun. My joking around doesn't help?

 

[selfactivated]

Sorry, hun. My joking around doesn't help?

Not when I think your serious. Rational thinking is what started religions. If we thought with our hearts there would be no wars.

 

[SVMc]

Reason would be a great tool. Unfortunately, people cannot seem to control their emotions, and let themselves be guided by them: EG, like greed, hate, etc. Reason goes down the tube and emotion takes over.

I'm not sure if that is an argument for or against religious institutionalism (or perhaps it was intended to be neither).

I completely reject the idea that without religion there would be no morality, or that our morality is rooted in X (Judeo-Christian or otherwise) religious teachings. There is too much evidence that social animals, chimps etc.. are biologically predisposed to act in the social good. Animals who live in social groupings and behave in an anti-social way are quickly excluded from the social group and often die off because of no support / group system.

There is also enough philosophy out there to be supportive evidence that humans reasonably contemplate the good life without a religious context.

So, I would agree that reason is there is ample evidence that we can act morally without a religious moderator, but to claim that we will not because of our emotions... seems irrational, and like an argument for religious institutionalism as a moral moderator.

 

[L Gilbert]

This is agreeably the strength of Dawkins argument. I would stand that there is no historical proof of a religion that given secular authority has not turned into power wielding institutionalism. Having however a great deal of respect for the basic scientific process, I am still at a loss of weather to conclude that this is simply an abundance of evidence leading to a good hypothesis, or if it can be applied as a tested theory. The evidence for the ability of institutionalized religion to be a negative force and a force that demands faith rather than reason, and sometimes the abandonment of reason is huge. But what it does not show is if religion can be apart from institutionalization.

Hmmmm. I think religions by nature are authoritarian. They each have their tenets and dogmas to hold up as the way we should live life. Authoritarianism needs institution.

Can religion exist without having to assert a moral claim?

I don't think so.

But, secular society itself tries to provide the answer of in law separating church and state, and in law protecting a diversity of religions. Is this simply secular society fooling itself thinking that religions can be relegated to a religious / philosophical realm, or is it actually possible to have religion that does not exert a moral influence on the political. Or is this like asking if a religious person can act morally without attributing their morality to their religion?

Yes. People cannot seem to help trying to use their beliefs to influence others. As long as we have gov't there will be people in them that will try influencing others into believeing similar things they do. Very few pols have the will to beat those temptations down in themselves.
IMO, nope.
IMO, nope.