David f is right. Dawkins’ attitude is different too.

After Darwin, it was, “What a pity it’s not true”; then it became, “They may be wrong, but there’s no harm in them believing”, now it’s, “This can be really harmful and no idea should be immune from criticism”. Those like Dawkins have helped popularise this more enlightened attitude. The age of his arguments are a red herring given they apparently can’t be engaged without ad hominems, misunderstandings, or misrepresentations.

Craig Minns,

What do you mean when you say that religion “works”? Because, from my observations and experience, it’s Christians who struggle much more to make sense of the world precisely because it doesn’t work. Trying to reconcile the real world with Christian theology can be stressful and is a constant effort.

This is just one of the reasons why I see the desire to “change minds” as a very commendable thing. I use arguments against religious belief that I think may have helped me to see reason earlier. In retrospect, my life could have turned out very differently had I dropped the bigotry inherent to my religious belief earlier.

You only need to read some of the comments from those who thank people like Dawkins and (someone far more effective with much better arguments) Matt dillahunty to understand the stress that can be lifted and the clarity that can be achieved when religious belief is ditched. The world makes so much more sense when you’re not trying to see purpose in every bad thing that happens.

<<The fact that religion may be used to justify political power doesn't make religion a bad thing any more than the fact that science has been used to produce enormously destructive technologies makes it a bad thing.>>

No so. Unlike science, dogma is inherent to religious belief, making it at least partly to blame for the bad that comes from it. I’m not sure why you’re going to such great lengths to not understand this very important distinction.

Sells,

As far as I can tell, no-one here has trolled yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29.

AJ, I say religion works because it is patently obvious that a very large number of people in the world subscribe to some form of religious belief or other, including atheists like yourself who have transferred their faith from one sectarian model to another.

Bigotry is a personal choice, not intrinsic at all to any form of religion or any philosophical tradition. It emerges from the "in-group/out-group" psychological response and I suspect those who are most prone to be "joiners" of all kinds are also most prone to bigotry, although I haven't checked to see if there's evidence for that. Some leaders are especially skilled at triggering that in-group/out-group response, whether in religious groups or secular. It's a standard part of politics, after all.

The "stress" that is lifted by dropping religion may arise from several causes, but I am extremely doubtful much of it comes from the sheer intellectual joy of discovering a better way to think. I'd wager quite a lot that most of it is down to joining the "cool kids" and some of it due to feeling less restricted in personal behaviour.

Dogma is also inherent to the philosophy of science. Furthermore, dogma is not always bad, even if it on the surface incomprehensible. However, if one does not understand it, or it is used to substitute for properly reasoned views, which is, I'm sad to say the big problem with scientism and no doubt for many other religions, then it leads to lousy inferences.

We don't need less religion, as such, we do need more people able to think for themselves. Dawkins and Dillahunty are able to do so, perhaps, but I'm afraid that most of their followers are just looking for the next guru.

Craig Minns,

But you haven’t been talking about beliefs in general.

<<I say religion works because it is patently obvious that a very large number of people in the world subscribe to some form of religious belief or other, including atheists like yourself who have transferred their faith from one sectarian model to another.>>

So I don’t know why you have introduced the “or other”.

I already dealt with “faith” on the other thread. I did not choose a different faith. Scientists don’t have a faith. I lost a faith and replaced it with a more healthy scepticism. The suggestion from certain atheists that those like myself have just found another faith is a pretentious show of elitism and intellectual snobbery from those who think they've managed to rise above it all.

<<Bigotry is a personal choice, not intrinsic at all to any form of religion or any philosophical tradition.>>

This couldn’t possibly be more wrong. You have provided no justification for this claim.

Firstly, our personal choices are always limited to some extent by external factors. Religion can be one of those. Secondly, any system of belief that teaches that is holds the ultimate and incontrovertible truth will almost always breed bigotry. We can even see this in how those who

<<The "stress" that is lifted by dropping religion may arise from several causes…>>

Probably. I’d doubt your wager, though. Where is your evidence for it? There is nothing “cool” about losing a religious belief in many parts of the US. I felt pretty damn cool myself, as a Christian.

<<Dogma is also inherent to the philosophy of science.>>

Not it’s not. There are no principles or sets of principles laid down by an authority in science as being incontrovertibly true.

<<Furthermore, dogma is not always bad…>>

A principle or a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true is always going to end badly eventually.

<<We don't need less religion, as such, we do need more people able to think for themselves.>>

The two go hand in hand.

AJ, to quote Michael Palin (a well-known atheist)

"Contradiction is not an argument. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

I'm not interested in playing the game of apologetics, which means I'm not going to spend 20 minutes showing you why your contradictions are wrong.

Work it out for yourself - or don't, it's entirely up to you. After all, you're the one who wants to proselytise.

That incomplete sentence was supposed to read:

"We can even see this in how those who's levels of bigotry tend to lower with increasing wishy-washiness of their religious beliefs."

Craig Minns,

A contradiction is an argument if your point is that the idea that you're contradicting is wrong.

I’m not playing “apologetics” either. This is just another attempt to put myself and others like me in the same box as theists, as is your use of the word “proselytising”. It’s an ad hominem, essentially.

<<...I'm not going to spend 20 minutes showing you why your contradictions are wrong.>>

I think I’ve demonstrated well and truly that they’re not. Which is why it comes as no surprise to me that you are not interested in continuing. What has me intrigued, however, is how can be so important for an atheist to cling to a flawed defence of religion that they would sign off with snippy and unfair insinuations when it was shown to be wrong.

Dear david f,

>>To Dawkins nothing can trump scientific findings except their falsification by other scientific findings which contradict the former.<<

I agree, but let me again add a metaphor: To somebody restricting his/her attention to real numbers only, the square root of minus one does not exist (this was all mathematicians just a few centuries ago). That is fair enough, as long as he/she does not try to derive from facts known about real numbers arguments against those who see the real line extended into the complex plane.

>>Where Dawkins goes wrong in my opinion is to condemn all believers, even those who do not support biblical literalism, because they are part of a religion which contains those who support biblical literalism.<<

Of course, I agree. It is like condemning all blacks, Germans, Jews or what you have just because some among them are silly (and worse).

Biblical literalism is one of those silly things. On the other hand, people read popular accounts of cosmology, even think they understand why scientists think this is how things are/were, without understanding - maybe even being aware of the relevance of - Einstein's gravitation theory. Perhaps something similar could be said about popular understanding of matters concerning religious beliefs, the Bible etc.

There is nothing wrong with having a limited (naive?) understanding of physics, philosophy, biblical exegesis, or what, as long as one is aware of one’s own limitations. And is able to tolerate that other people have their own, perhaps different, limitations in understanding this or that. (Of course, provided this limited understanding of what their world view is about does not lead to acts harmful to the society or other individuals.)