Richard Dawkins tells it like it is

September 22, 2006 8:19 AM

The atheist."Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages."
posted by heylight (78 comments total)

Wee! I love this ride.
posted by dame at 8:22 AM on September 22, 2006

Dawkins is the ann coulter of atheism. Discuss.
posted by delmoi at 8:27 AM on September 22, 2006

delmoi, while I find Dawkins' smug righteousness annoying (as well as the smug righteousness of the Haggard-like folks he tweaks), I think that comparison is bogus.

Dawkins is a legitimate authority, a guy with important things to say, who is passionate about what he believes and -- here's the kicker -- actually backs it up. His attitude sucks and I disagree with the sweeping generalizations he often makes about 'belief', but putting him in the same category as Coulter is just... mind-boggling.
posted by verb at 8:29 AM on September 22, 2006

Previously.
Before.
In the past.
Days of yore.

Wee! I love this ride.

*straps in*
posted by mediareport at 8:30 AM on September 22, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

I thought language was a virus. From outer space.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:31 AM on September 22, 2006

Your favorite Godwin sucks.
posted by gramschmidt at 8:31 AM on September 22, 2006

I think he's a dickhead and I'm embarrassed to have him representing my position. He doesn't understand a damn thing about religion, and his argument is basically "this is wrong and why are so many people thinking wrong things? That's bad, being wrong." I'm basing that on the documentary series I downloaded where he goes around the world being a dickhead and talking shallowly about religion.

Anyways he's slightly better on the topic of evolution, I guess.

Dawkins is the ann coulter of atheism. Discuss.

Well, no. He may be shallow, inflammatory and ineffectual but he's not a lying liar. If Ann Coulter said that George W. Bush had two ears I'd find a photograph and count them myself.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:33 AM on September 22, 2006

Actually this thread will probably be deleted. I mean this is just a rehashing of what we've already seen.

Dawkins is a legitimate authority, a guy with important things to say, who is passionate about what he believes and -- here's the kicker -- actually backs it up.

The problem is that he states things in the most strident way possible. He talks about religion as a "Mind Virus" and says that pinning a religious label on a child is "abuse". It's a misuse of language.

I don't think that sort of thing accomplishes much other then pumping up "the base." But who is the base in this case? Strident atheists who are so annoying?

I find the whole strident atheist thing to be somewhat hypocritical. I mean these people don't believe in god but they spend all their time thinking about religion or in a lot of cases spend tons and tons of time thinking about Christianity and the Bible. If you're really an atheist why do you care about any of that in such detail?
posted by delmoi at 8:36 AM on September 22, 2006

I think religion and language are seperate viruses. Language is the more fun of the two, of course.
posted by cellphone at 8:36 AM on September 22, 2006

I realise there's been Dawkins posts before... I totally searched it. With a button.

But I think this is a pretty great interview, everything is nicely summed up, sorted out.
posted by heylight at 8:36 AM on September 22, 2006

If Ann Coulter said that George W. Bush had two ears I'd find a photograph and count them myself.

You know that thing under his jacket during the presidential debates?...
posted by Krrrlson at 8:37 AM on September 22, 2006

Whats to understand about religion? From the point of view of someone who doesn't have it it's just a bunch of comforting gibberish that attempts to replicate itself endlessly.
posted by Artw at 8:37 AM on September 22, 2006

Your favorite outspoken inflammatory celebrity intellectual sucks.
posted by Mister_A at 8:38 AM on September 22, 2006

If you're really an atheist why do you care about any of that in such detail?

Because stupid fucking fundies want to base law, politics, sexual mores, science and culture on the shallowest most literal reading of millenia-old texts.

I'm not saying everyone who's religious is a fundie, or even a fundie enabler. I've seen for myself how thoughtful religious people are as horrified as I am at the idiot excesses of fundies.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:39 AM on September 22, 2006

Also it's been a freakin' year since any of those previous posts.
posted by heylight at 8:39 AM on September 22, 2006

The problem is that he states things in the most strident way possible. He talks about religion as a "Mind Virus" and says that pinning a religious label on a child is "abuse". It's a misuse of language.

Sure, and that's definitely counter-productive. But I say this as a Christian who should be grossly offended by Dawkins: I would rather listen to him than Coulter any day. At least I'll learn something from Dawkins.
posted by verb at 8:40 AM on September 22, 2006

I <3 Richard Dawkins.
posted by Dantien at 8:40 AM on September 22, 2006

everything is nicely summed up, sorted out.

Well, if you saw the other threads, I guess what I'm asking is what did you find new to the table in the interview you posted?
posted by mediareport at 8:40 AM on September 22, 2006

Religion is by and large an enormously destructive lie.

I don't think there is really any other way to look at it.

fleetmouse is calling names, which isn't constructive. Dawkins is being honest without regard to people's feelings, which is called telling the truth.

Lastly, I'm always surprised when this conversation starts. Dawkins' points are so obvious that its like repeating the fifth grade. Then I realize that most people need to.

I like the tea pot orbiting Mars thing though. Pray to the tea pot. Maybe it will give you things you like.
posted by ewkpates at 8:41 AM on September 22, 2006

Smack down from another atheist.
posted by brownpau at 8:42 AM on September 22, 2006

A thoughtful review of Dawkins latest book, The God Delusion.
posted by biffa at 8:42 AM on September 22, 2006

You know, people keep saying how awful he is in arguing his points, but if anything, he makes some really good points that aren't too batshit. If anything he's just not into compromising his points for universal appeal. Not that I agree with everything the guy says, of course.
posted by cellphone at 8:43 AM on September 22, 2006

Also it's been a freakin' year since any of those previous posts.

Er, no. But I was just noting the previous relevant discussions; I didn't flag or anything. If folks want to hash this out again, fine. I generally like Dawkins, even if I think he's let himself become kind of a crank on this issue by appearing to delight in phrasing things in counterproductive ways.
posted by mediareport at 8:43 AM on September 22, 2006

MetaFilter: I totally searched it. With a button.

(If I didn't, who would?)
posted by Floydd at 8:45 AM on September 22, 2006

Dawkins' points are so obvious that its like repeating the fifth grade. Then I realize that most people need to.

You know, I've been condescended to by stridently religious people who call me a poor little atheist in rebellion against the obvious truth of Christ's divinity, telling me how I know in my heart that it's true. I can't imagine condescension rankles any less on the other side of the fence.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:46 AM on September 22, 2006

Wee! I love this ride.
posted by dame at 8:22 AM PST on September 22 [+] [!]

Indeed! Any bets on how long this will go until someone uses "imaginary sky wizard" or a similar phrase?
posted by kosher_jenny at 8:47 AM on September 22, 2006

He recently met a minister who was on the opposite side of a British political debate. When the minister put out his hand, Dawkins kept his hands at his side and said, "You, sir, are an ignorant bigot."

He totally does not sound like a gigantic douchebag.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:51 AM on September 22, 2006

Jinx, biffa!
posted by brownpau at 8:51 AM on September 22, 2006

Hyperbole is my new favorite word of the day.
posted by dsquid at 8:51 AM on September 22, 2006

MetaFilter: The snarky meme.
posted by heylight at 8:54 AM on September 22, 2006

A less hostile scientific examination of faith was recently featured on Salon.
posted by Iridic at 8:55 AM on September 22, 2006

I like Dawkins, but I find it ironic that he sees religion as an intellectual position that must be changed, instead of as a part of evolution. A tribe gathering around a lie will beat up a tribe of individuals seeking truth every time. Dawkins misses the evolutionary advantage of religion. Cave guys like Dawkins wouldn't last a day.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:57 AM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

A tribe gathering around a lie will beat up a tribe of individuals seeking truth every time

Which explains so much about the current US political landscape.
posted by doctor_negative at 8:59 AM on September 22, 2006

If there are so many religious believers screaming how we atheists are going to hell, why should we have a problem with one lone scientist being open and honest about his views? He's mean? He's confrontational? If that's all we can come up with, he must be doing something right.

Besides, how else can an atheist's views get some press? It's not easy in this culture. I'm glad he's saying these things. Glad to hear someone espousing my view for once (my cube neighbors talk God all day).
posted by Dantien at 9:00 AM on September 22, 2006

If you're really an atheist why do you care about any of that in such detail?


because, like, people declare wars and dream up laws and ram planes into skyscrapers because of religion?
because religion is everywhere, and politics, on both sides of the current war, are faith-based?

wake me up when Dawkins kills tens of thousands of people. or when he manages to limit women's ability to terminate their pregnancies or African men's ability to find condoms

how long this will go until someone uses "imaginary sky wizard" or a similar phrase?

"IMAGINARY SKY WIZARD"!

happy now? because, like, until She shows up, for all practical purposes God is now a literary character -- probably the most interesting ever, with the possible exception of, say, Jesus and Hamlet. but still. a character in an impossibly difficult, fascinating book
posted by matteo at 9:00 AM on September 22, 2006

Religion is not destructive.

People are destructive, and the most destructive people use religion not for the sake of being religious (which they are not although they claim to be) but for the sake of rallying supporters and drawing boundaries. For the vast majority of people religion serves the same purpose as a flag or a team jersey: it lets everyone else know which team you're on.

Christian fundamentalists do not reject evolution for the sake of being religious. They reject it because attacking outsider ideas is way of rallying their community. It is an excuse to circle the wagons and feel the reassurance of community.

When Islamic fundamentalists chant death to infidels it's not an expression of religious belief but rather is another rallying cry. You can confront them with religious debate and point out how violence is contrary to the edicts of most any religion, but this is pointless. Everyone interprets their own religion according to what they want to believe and for whatever purpose serves them at that moment.
posted by StarForce5 at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Imaginary sky wizard" is awesome (I've never heard it before), but the one I use personally is "magical ghosty man."

Also, as far as Dawkins being too snarky, consider he's fighting entrenched cultural attitudes and ideas that some people have ostensibly gone to war over in the past. Handling it with kid gloves is a stupid way to deal with this subject. Snark is necessary.
posted by grubi at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2006

wake me up when Dawkins kills tens of thousands of people.

I have not killed tens of thousands of people. Ergo, Christians don't kill people.
posted by verb at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2006

I find the whole strident atheist thing to be somewhat hypocritical. I mean these people don't believe in god but they spend all their time thinking about religion or in a lot of cases spend tons and tons of time thinking about Christianity and the Bible. If you're really an atheist why do you care about any of that in such detail?

Gee, I don't know, public debates about putting up the ten commandments at the local courthouse? It's not like religion is in my face every day or something.
posted by dreamsign at 9:04 AM on September 22, 2006

Dawkins misses the evolutionary advantage of religion.

I guarantee you he acknowledges the evolutionary roots of religion, but he is not discussing prehistory here. He is discussing the role of religion and why it persists within the framework of the 21st century.
posted by heylight at 9:05 AM on September 22, 2006

well if there is no god, then what is the point of morality?
posted by obeygiant at 9:11 AM on September 22, 2006

I totally searched it. With a button.
I think religion is a hoax and a put on.
The term "sky wizard", I find to be rawkin'.
I'm causin more Mefi feud's than Richard Dawkins.
posted by ND¢ at 9:12 AM on September 22, 2006

Thank goodness for the Ten Commandments, or I'd be out there raping and killing to my heart's delight.

But luckily, thanks to the instruction in Leviticus and Exodus, I can rape and kill all I want, anyway.
posted by interrobang at 9:13 AM on September 22, 2006

Religion is by and large an enormously destructive lie.

This is completely ignoring the historical, cultural, and political roots of religion, which stretch back even into prehistory. This is like saying "Culture is by and large an enormously destructive lie," or "Language is by an large an enormously destructive lie."

Dawkins comes from an intellectual culture where hyperbole and name calling are the order of the day. It's closer to Jerry Falwell than Anne Coulter.
posted by muddgirl at 9:13 AM on September 22, 2006

Why do I even get involved in these posts? Wank away, dear hearts.
posted by muddgirl at 9:13 AM on September 22, 2006

If that's all we can come up with

How about the fact that he invented memetics, the phlogiston of the 1990's? Dawkins never really protested as his philosophical afterthought of a theory was prematurely elevated to a "protoscience"; apparently, he doesn't have a problem with sloppy, unsupported, assumptive thinking if it can be used as a weapon for his ideological agenda. In that respect, he's a lot like the Intelligent Design partisans.
posted by Iridic at 9:14 AM on September 22, 2006

During our conversation in my hotel room, Dawkins was as gracious as he was punctiliously dressed in a crisp white shirt and soft blazer.

But what was he actually wearing? That is a ridiculously bad sentence.
posted by Mocata at 9:15 AM on September 22, 2006

A tribe gathering around a lie will beat up a tribe of individuals seeking truth every time.

Yes. Because, as we no know, early 20th century Germany was all about seeking the truth.
&lt/goodwin>

Seriously, has it never occured to you that truth (by which I mean: Facts) have practical value?
posted by spazzm at 9:16 AM on September 22, 2006

Who was the lifelong prominent atheist who somewhat recently said "oops I was all wrong I love God" upon realizing he was very old? I thought it was Dawkins. Clear it is not.
posted by xmutex at 9:19 AM on September 22, 2006

DawkinsFilter.

At the end of the day faith of any kind, whether it be in a secular or religious system, is dangerous if abused, manipulated, or left unchecked.

'Twas always my impression that Communism had a higher bodycount then religion, anyhow.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:19 AM on September 22, 2006

I find the whole strident atheist thing to be somewhat hypocritical. I mean these people don't believe in god but they spend all their time thinking about religion or in a lot of cases spend tons and tons of time thinking about Christianity and the Bible. If you're really an atheist why do you care about any of that in such detail?
posted by delmoi at 8:36 AM PST on September 22

Because many of the people who do believe in god would like nothing more than to kill, imprison, or disenfranchise those who do not. Know thine enemy, and all that.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:20 AM on September 22, 2006

Starforce5: right on.

lol if we were all atheists we'd stop killing each other lol and everybody would get free icecream lol
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:21 AM on September 22, 2006

Yeah. What Alvy said.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:22 AM on September 22, 2006

A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot be settled by reasoned argument because reasoned argument is drummed out of those trained in religion from the cradle

Yes and no. Dawkins is arguing for rationality, but people are by and large irrational. Religion is a red herring. Religion could be gone tomorrow, and little if anything would improve. Do we have rational discussions over the Iraq War where the most reasoned arguments are settled by agreement upon facts? Or do we have insults, condescension and snark as people rally to their "side"? Most (all?) people are irrational and largely driven by emotion. Religion just happens to be one of the favorite cloaks one wears to dress this irrationality ... remove it, and it still exists.
posted by forforf at 9:22 AM on September 22, 2006

well if there is no god, then what is the point of morality?

You could argue this solely from a point of self-interest: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you propogate the meme that we should all be civil, and if that takes hold, then you have the opportunity to live in a civilization rather than in a constant state of war and strife.
posted by bshort at 9:22 AM on September 22, 2006

iridic: How about the fact that he invented memetics, the phlogiston of the 1990's?

Beat me to it. Even though he no longer uses "meme" as often, he still attempts to push the "mind virus" concept as an explanation for social behavior. His attempts to talk sociology and psychology come off as embarassingly ill-informed as a result.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:25 AM on September 22, 2006

Wow, a link to a freeper essay? Really? I don't know how to advance atheist/ theist relations, but I'm sure that's a good way not to.
posted by boo_radley at 9:25 AM on September 22, 2006

It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.

Ann Coulter would blow an aneurysm trying to come up with something remotely as valid and as cogently stated as that. What a fucking idiotic comparison.

Tha fact that his views are controversial in the slightest only confirms his thesis. Religion is a fucking cancer.
posted by docpops at 9:26 AM on September 22, 2006

Reading conversations about religion gives me the heebee jeebees. It is like watching evolution go backwardsor listening to hardcore stoners tell you that mathive pot conthumpchion hathn't effected them all.

if there is no god, then what is the point of morality?

Without spankings you would be evil?
posted by srboisvert at 9:26 AM on September 22, 2006

obeygiant: well if there is no god, then what is the point of morality?

Be good for goodness sake?

Be good because moral behavior is more likely to lead to contenment than immoral behavior?

Be good because it helps the greater good?

Be good to avoid retribution from our fellow monkies?

Seriously, there are lots of rationalizations for moral philosophy that don't depend on a law-giver god.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:28 AM on September 22, 2006

This is like saying "Culture is by and large an enormously destructive lie," or "Language is by an large an enormously destructive lie."

How is that, exactly? Just because religion has deep historical roots and came about for whatever reasons, negative or positive, doesn't change the fact that, right now, it's a lie, and that it's destructive. It was tool for justifying destruction back long ago, and it remains as such. Comparing his statement on religion with a similar statement on language is ridiculous.

'Twas always my impression that Communism had a higher bodycount then religion, anyhow

They’re hardly any different, deep down. Both aim for an unattainable world, a plateau at the end of progress. Both are delusional.
posted by heylight at 9:28 AM on September 22, 2006

Atheists have killed more people than Christians.

Arguing that we should abolish religion because it leads to mass murder is a dumb argument.

Better to say, "We should abolish religion because people shouldn't be allowed to believe in things that I don't think are true."

Sorry that it's a Freeper article, I was more interested in the body counts than the publisher. I'm sure you'll find that they're accurate.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:28 AM on September 22, 2006

Atheist is mean to religious people, makes them cry, film at 11.
posted by bshort at 9:30 AM on September 22, 2006

Atheists have killed more people than Christians.

My ass itches.

One of the above statements is true.
posted by docpops at 9:31 AM on September 22, 2006

well if there is no god, then what is the point of morality?

Because it's nice.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:31 AM on September 22, 2006

if there is no god, then what is the point of morality?

Or more to the point, without god, where do you get any morals?

Easy: biology. :-)
posted by grubi at 9:31 AM on September 22, 2006

Atheists have killed more people than Christians.

Well, that's just not true.
posted by bshort at 9:31 AM on September 22, 2006

That freeper essay contains some of the most specious reasoning I've seen. I kind of wish I could get away with that general line of reasoning in day-to-day life: the action I just undertook was inconsistent with my general moral code, so it therefore doesn't represent who I am, therefore you can't hold me accountable for it.

Sure does make spreading blame a little easier.
posted by Corey Feldman and the Goatse National Orchestra at 9:32 AM on September 22, 2006

lol if we were all atheists we'd stop killing each other lol and everybody would get free icecream lol
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:21 AM PST on September 22

Oh, it's cool to link to Free Republic as a source now? Okay.

If the WOT is to kill our enemies, then we should kill this and all other like-thinking enemies.

Since many are senators I cannot type their names else the Secret service pay me a visit.

But we have enemies within just as dangerous and treasonous and treason calls for the death penalty.
22 posted on 09/04/2006 6:17:37 PM PDT by Prost1

-

And metastisizing cancer islamofacisim is hiding everywhere and winning the PR battle every time a so-called "civilan" is killed. We should kill them all at once and minimize the PR damage.

-

We should kill these people [note: environmentalists] first. Then the islamofacists.
6 posted on 07/24/2005 12:55:43 AM PDT by jocon307

Shall I keep going?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:33 AM on September 22, 2006

Religion is not destructive. People are destructive,

Which reminds me of the expression "guns don't kill people, people kill people." To which I say fine, let's use the same system we do with guns: regulation and training. Also, like guns, once you have demonstrated bad judgement and used your religion to hurt someone, you aren't allowed to use it anymore. Seems fair to me.

I find the whole strident atheist thing to be somewhat hypocritical.

Actually it's not hypocritical at all; we are not strident because we really really don't believe in god, we are strident because we have seen how, when misused, religion can be a caustic and damaging agent. We are strident in the same way that a biohazard or radiation sign is strident. Because trying to be subtle isn't always the best answer when people are getting hurt.
posted by quin at 9:34 AM on September 22, 2006

Well, does anyone have any numbers for people killed by religion?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:34 AM on September 22, 2006

Hyperbole is my new favorite word of the day.

Isn't that the ancient land where Conan is from?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:35 AM on September 22, 2006

Communism aims for a plateau at the end of progress?

You don't know very much about communism.
posted by bunglin jones at 9:38 AM on September 22, 2006

If religion is a virus, how come I'm immune? I come from a clan of atheists but I live among the religious and the religiose -- is immunity genetic? If immunity is acquired, how? Can we develop a vaccine? Or is religion a disease or a symptom of a disease? Are there other symptoms of the same disease? Is it an advantageous infection, like the flora in our bowels helping us to digest the world?
posted by pracowity at 9:40 AM on September 22, 2006

Most of those so-called atheist regimes (Cambodia, China, etc) seem to me like quasi-religious dystopias anyway. They simply replace the notion of God with a Godhead (Mao, anyone?), and then they defend their ideologies with the same sort of “no room for compromise” line-of-thought that the worst religions take.
posted by heylight at 9:41 AM on September 22, 2006

I love reading Dawkins's books, but I find that his premise that Religion is the source of evil deeply flawed, and that he ignores zealots of all stripes who seem to obsess about forcing every experience of life into the artificial dichotomy of "good" or "bad."

Religion isn't dangerous. Zealotry is. The assertion that certain verifiable facts to tie necessarily to unverifiable claims and calling it "virtuous" or "right" or even "productive" is the root of this evil of which he speaks.

From my perspective, religion is merely the unfortunately error-prone byproduct of a more basic human trait -- the profound desire to associate effects with causes. When it's working right, you get technological advances. When it falls afoul of some logical fallacy, momentary hallucination, or just the contamination of confirmation bias, you end up with religion and politics.

And when you pair religion, or politics, or sports, with the portion of the population for whom being mistaken is a terminal failure and who, to protect their fragile egos, decry anything at variance with their opinion to be The Most Wrong Thing Ever, you get people who have crusades, burn those who insult them (directly or by proxy of insulting their religion, party, or team) in effigy (or in person), and blow themselves up in crowded places rather than ever admit to themselves that maybe, just possibly maybe they're wrong about not just anything, but everything.
posted by chimaera at 9:41 AM on September 22, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Well, does anyone have any numbers for people killed by religion?

I'm sure you can make some good guesses by finding the numbers for general populations and for soldiers in various countries. I think we would see that religion makes little or no difference in the likelihood that one will kill. Alone, we kill out of madness or passion, and in groups we kill as part of the tribe.
posted by pracowity at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2006

Which reminds me of the expression "guns don't kill people, people kill people." To which I say fine, let's use the same system we do with guns: regulation and training. Also, like guns, once you have demonstrated bad judgement and used your religion to hurt someone, you aren't allowed to use it anymore. Seems fair to me.

But that doesn't work as well as restricting the supply of guns, which is the system we apply.
posted by biffa at 9:46 AM on September 22, 2006