Between Dawkins & God
When Dawkin’s claims, in a clearly unqualified way, that ‘religion is harmful’, this assumes we have identified what is and is not a religion. It assumes we can know when religion is a cause, and when an effect of social phenomena. It takes as read that, with minimal dialogue with religious believers, we are in a position to understand their faith and practice.
Dawkins also implies that, although failing to engage with either ethical or cultural theory, he is in a position to make and proclaim accurate ethical and cultural judgements to a very wide audience. On the face of it, Dawkins seems in these respects to have hardly begun to ask some basic relevant questions. Instead, he comes across as wishing to reach conclusions without a careful consideration of evidence and argument — and this just happens to be one of his loudest criticisms of religion itself.
I feel more sympathetic towards Dawkins’ other claim, that religious belief is a matter of blind faith, and that living by unjustified faith is unwise and to be avoided. Once again, however, this is a simplistic generalisation — easy to digest so long as critical reflection is not allowed to impede the smug satisfaction that comes from thinking that one has understood what one has not studied or personally known.
(John Holroyd. Between Dawkins & God, Philosophy Now (Issue 86, Sep/Oct 2011), p.31)
WoahhhMav
on October 6th, 2011
Its easy to do the right thing, when the right serves your purposes. But if you only do the right thing only when it serves your purposes, it isn’t really doing the right thing at all. Its being expedient.
After all isn’t cognitive dissonance about having a picture of the how the world could should be that is coherent – and usually that we are the good guy. So simply, religion is something that other people do (the bad) and that we (the good) do not…
Greg
on October 9th, 2011
It is difficult to comment too much on the article, since I don’t have a subscription to Phil Now, and so I haven’t read it, but I always think the same thing whenever someone, such as Dawkins, makes the claim that religion is bad because it has caused so many wars, so much strife, etc. I always think that, whenever you really, really care about something, as sinful people, we are willing to go to great lengths to protect it, or to claim it.
For all of human history, one’s religion, or one’s gods, were among the most important things to people. So it naturally follows that some people or people groups would go to war over it.
Think of it this way. In almost every murder case, the motive is one of three things: sex, money, or power. Because these things are so important to people, we will in general go to great lengths to get them. For some, that could include murder. Now, the sin is not in the sex, money, or power, but in the sinner who commits the murder.
If I remember correctly, Dawkins makes a call that we should get rid of all religion. Should we also get rid of all sex, money, and power? (Is that even possible?)
Madeleine, Transpersonal Psychotherapist and Counsellor
on October 25th, 2011
I agree with Greg, that it is difficult to comment when we don’t have the entire article. However, the extract that is posted here seems intelligent, tentative and well thought through.
Psychological research shows time and again that a loving faith does indeed contribute to people’s emotional (and, I should think, spiritual) well-being.
Sadly Dawkins comes across almost as a non-religious fanatic, claiming authority because…?
The psychotherapist n
and philosopher C.G. Jung said once, ” I don’t believe in God – I know God” …So, as you say, the emphasis cannot be on blind belief/following, but on awakening to our own inner experience of whatever we choose to term the divine.