Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Robert]

I am not myself a religious believer, but I do object to a certain sneering attitude to be found among some rationalists and scientists. This attitude takes the form of damning religious believers as simpletons, wishful thinkers, naive idiots etc. Well, Kurt Godel proposed a variation of the ontological argument, and his intellect needs fear no comparison with anyone's.

[c.d.]

I am not myself a religious believer, but I do object to a certain sneering attitude to be found among some rationalists and scientists. This attitude takes the form of damning religious believers as simpletons, wishful thinkers, naive idiots etc. Well, Kurt Godel proposed a variation of the ontological argument, and his intellect needs fear no comparison with anyone's.

That's true, Robert but you also see the same attitude among some religious people who believe that anyone who does not share their views is evil and those people will be punished by God for not believing as they do. It works both ways.

c.d.

[Robert]

Yes CD, there are too many people who think they have a hotline to God. The trouble is, even if their god exists they'll find that the hotline has been scrambled.

Nothing is easy.

[Steven Russell]

Dawkins is a biologist and an expert on Darwin. His profound understanding of evolution makes him the ideal critic of religion. Not only does he prove it's a fallacy, he argues convincingly that it's extremely dangerous.

[DVV]

Steven Russell has a hotline to Truth.

[Steven Russell]

I wish I did have a hotline to Truth. But the fact that religion is bollocks is so obvious it's ridiculous.

[Robert]

Hi Steven

Dawkins's expertise in evolution gives him a good basis on which to discuss the argument from design. But that isn't the only argument.

I haven't read this book (at least, I don't remember reading it ) but if he's arguing that religion is dangerous, then fair enough - but then he is presumably writing as a historian, and his words will carry less weight.

(Presumably his designation of what is dangerous will be based on his moral preferences, so he'll also be writing as a moralist. You see how quickly we get away from science?)

[j.r-ahde]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello you all!

Cannot help adding; profitable prophets like Peter Popoff won't add trust to the religion with agnostic people like me.

All the best
Jukka

[Robert]

Peter Popoff!? I had to Google him - I thought he was someone from Camberwick Green.

[DVV]

I wish I did have a hotline to Truth. But the fact that religion is bollocks is so obvious it's ridiculous.

Well, is that how atheists try to build a better world ?

I've read no post saying : atheists are stupid, dangerous and ridiculous.

Shame.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dawkins is a biologist and an expert on Darwin. His profound understanding of evolution makes him the ideal critic of religion. Not only does he prove it's a fallacy, he argues convincingly that it's extremely dangerous.

Surely a scientist, of all people, should understand that there are no absolutes.

Dawkins is a militant. Most people would share his view that there probably isn't a God, but I'd imagine most would reject the idea that religion is the root of all evil and needs to be stamped out.

Why on earth is he dredging up old arguments? Science, by and large, won the debate in this country a while back; but science and religion have found a way to live with one another in this country, including respecting the beliefs of the practicing minority. The boat sailed a long while back; I'd suggest Dawkins is on a personal crusade.

Actually, it is human beings that are dangerous animals, as shown through the countless coups, revolutions, extreme political systems over the years; and to a lesser extent by the liberal secular West, primarily Britain and the USA, who became the Soviet Union (the idea of freedom became worth killing for).

Ultimately, Dawkins and Hitchens are not treading new ground. They're dredging up old arguments that simply do not have much of an audience in this country. At best most of us are agnostic and have moderate views on religion: has its uses, such as providing a sense of order, moral instruction, a sense of purpose but overtaken by other ideas in today's England.

I think Dawkins and Hitchens are residing in the minority corner in this country with their extreme views on religion.

[Magpie]

I applaud Hichens for challenging the cult of personality surrounding Mother Teresa, and for having the nads to call waterboarding torture (and for being waterboarded).

Generally speaking, though, I don't need a book telling me why I don't believe in gods.

[Steven Russell]

Surely a scientist, of all people, should understand that there are no absolutes.

.

Good point, Mac. In fact, Dawkins does make a slight concession by insisting that there is "almost certainly" no God or words to that effect. Would you call the US a secular country? I've only been once for a holiday and since we were all being very polite the subject didn't come up but I'd be surprised if the majority of US citizens are not religious.

Of course religion is not the root of all evil but it is often used as justification for evil deeds.

I like the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas as much as the next man but these are stories and not to be taken seriously.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[DVV]

"Almost certainly no God"... good joke. And people need to hear that from Screamin Stephen Hawking's mouth ? - not realizing that saying so is saying nothing ? - with equal certainty.
Oh, and Stalin, Hitler, Mao and so on were excellent christians.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

How about John Lennon's view:

"...God is a concept
By which we measure our pain..."

All the best
Jukka