Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

Well, of course he is never going to make any friends among theologians, because he is telling them stuff they don't want to hear.

Why do theologians love more eloquent atheists like Bertrand Russell, then, please? It is because he is challenging, and fun, and logical, and understands the nature of the philosophical discourse involved. Dawkins, with his Father-Christmas chat, is just boring to be honest, because he doesn't actually enter into the discourse in the same way. Of course he is entertaining for some people - just as some people like reading the popular work of Desmond Morris (but not, perhaps, evolutionary biologists ).

There isn't really any "new wave" of atheism - it's always been there.

Well I would disagree really. I don't think there has historically been such a degree of enthusiasm of secularity to the detriment of dialogue.

And how about new world religions? Or even just new ones? Do they do it effectively? Does the distinction matter?

I think racist is a little strong. I didn't use an offensive term - just a well-known (if somewhat cliched) expression in Yiddish.

you are ignoring the argument and constructing a straw man one instead UQD. I actually think the Escher drawing sums up your thinking perfectly.

thanks for mentioning Nick Cave UQD. Here is one of my favourite songs.
Into My Arms

growingup - Actually where have I claimed the "right to offend on religious grounds"? I don't want to offend anyone. I just want them to think a bit.

morningpaper - Is Russell more eloquent than Dawkins? he may be more entertaining! Dawkins can be terribly po-faced and a little hectoring, but really he's mild when compared with some of the people he is up against. How could he better enter into the discourse? I think his contention is that the discourse itself is spurious.

Maybe there appears to be a "new wave" of atheism because it has become more culturally acceptable over the last 30 years (with the decline in church attendance and the rise of indigo crystal woo) to say in public what one thinks in private? At least in Europe... He'd certainly get more of a hostile reception in the US, which seems horrifyingly backward into terms of its unthinking acceptance of religion. (Yeah, yeah, they elected a black guy - big round of applause, but I'll save the cheers until they elect a gay man, a woman or an atheist.) Some of the interviews he has done with US anchor-people show that they totally fail to get even the concept of atheism - they seem to see it as something totally, genuinely alien.

This thread is getting really nasty. UQD is not being remotely racist. Islam, Hinduism, Christianity etc are not races, they are belief systems and sometimes cultures but anyone of any race can be a Muslim, Christian etc.

Calling the questioning of religious belief racist is just silly imo.

Olympedegouges, if you think that then you've totally failed to get the Escher analogy. No surprise.

It wasn't even a particularly Jewish joke. It doesn't seem any worse than saying "Och" in a joke about a Scotsman or "Begorrah" in an Irish joke. Or David Cameron doing a "vere are your papers?" to make a point about ID cards. We emphasise cultural stereotypes for humour.

Olympe, you're repeatedly insulting atheists by implying we have no inner life or creative thinking.

"glimpses of faith, knowledge of our mortal self, of hope and fear, the dichotomy that exists at the heart of all Faith" or essentially, the human condition you mean? Which remains the same with or without a belief in the supernatural?

If i think that then I've totally failed to get the analogy' Straw man argument again UQD.

You are more unpleasant this time around I'll give you that.

No need for that OG, you're just being v unpleasant now.

Olympedegouges, if you think that then you've totally failed to get the Escher analogy. No surprise.

I don't understand why you can't discuss things without resorting to insult in every other post. It's really trying.

How could he better enter into the discourse? I think his contention is that the discourse itself is spurious.

Yes that's the thing really. His lack of background in the area. "Thinking is anathema to religion" - a quote of Dawkins I think, which is really his starting point: religious people are idiots who don't ever think. It's such an utterly baffling thing to say that there is very little point engaging. The problem is that a proper opposing argument generates debate and excitement and perhaps some new thoughts. Dawkins represents a sort of affirmation of atheism for people who aren't really interested in philosophy but prefer to think in terms of pure science. Which is fine, but it is comparing apples and pears. Religious belief doesn't claim to be something that can be analysed in a laboratory.

I don't think I'm being in the least unpleasant. Does anyone else think I'm being "unpleasant"?

A straw man argument is something far more reductive and simplistic than I've been using here. It's one which sets up a weaker version of what you want to argue against. That's not what I've been doing.

I'm repeatedly insulting atheists by talking about the torturous dichotomy at the heart of faith [haven't commented on atheism at all] but it is not insulting to compare Christianity or Judaism to a belief in Father Christmas? LOL

'A straw man argument..is one which sets up a weaker version of what you want to argue against. That's not what I've been doing.'

Yep. It is exactly what you've been doing.

I know everyone wants to beat up UQD. But what about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

I want to be educated by the faithful, genuinely. Because, coming from a social scientific perspective, I just can't get faith, at all. I do get cultural belonging and relativism and the notion of 'effervescent feeling' and/or deep spiritualism that people have when they believe in something. But what I can't reconcile is the conflict between the idea that everyone can (in a tolerant world of faith) have faith in different things, yet that these faiths contradict each other logically.

The problem with claiming that religious belief is somehow outside the usual realm of scientific scrutiny and can't be considered under the same criteria as everything else is that it opens the floodgates for people to believe, literally anything. That simply isn't a meaningful or helpful basis for rational debate. You must see that this is terribly frustrating.

The religious want to have it both ways. They want to say "oh, it's faith, you can't understand unless you have faith, you can't possibly examine it in those terms, god moves in mysterious ways, blah blah..." But then they want to have rational arguments with atheists despite this...

They also say that you can't define god in terms of human concepts of good and evil, which is why we don't understand the mysterious ways in which it moves. This is all rather lovely and convenient-sounding, but Christians use this (supposedly reductive) human concept of "good", as Sam Harris points out, to define what god is. "God is good". Surely this is meaningless if human concepts of good and evil don't apply?

Dawkins attempts to engage them - he's had numerous conversations and debates with leading religious figures in that TV series for example - but trying to have an argument with them is like knitting fog.

Lup: Most of the world's faiths have a 'do as you would be done by' basis in their doctrines and have an emphasis on spiritual development and prayerfulness and communing with the divine.

Of course, wherever they are humans there are conflicts. That's the nature of your beast. If everyone on earth was killed except for Mumsnetters, then over the next few centuries we would see the Formula Wars and great Montessori sects developing and battling it out with people with televisions.

Nonetheless, most humans over the course of history have felt the urge to commune with the divine.

lupus i think you need to go down the route that Olympe was proposing, basically to believe that all faiths point to different aspects of the same god. Otherwise either a) your head will explode or b) you'll have to start a war or something. Both bad things.

No I haven't.

Olympe, please give us poor deluded atheists who don't know how to argue properly the benefit of your (obviously considerable) wisdom, and elaborate a little on this "torturous [or possibly tortuous?] dichotomy at the heart of faith".

In terms that a dim-witted heathen will understand, please.

nice UQD. Not unpleasant at all. Off to play with my children.

Dawkins attempts to engage them - he's had numerous conversations and debates with leading religious figures in that TV series for example - but trying to have an argument with them is like knitting fog.

Yes I can see that. It must be annoying. I suppose love is also outside the realm of scientific scrutiny but if I dedicated my life to proving that it was a worthless concept and should be abandoned it would be a bit depressing.

Listen to the Nick cave song if you like. Might help.