Does Richard Dawkins explain how alienating religious moderates will help progress secular society?

Answer 1

No.

And he certainly doesn't explain how the following phrase is proof of anything:

"No matter how unlikely my theory of [X] is, it HAS to be true, because here we are in [X] talking about it!"

Not that I'm an atheist or anything, but I much prefer Sam Harris' work to Dawkins'. Harris seems to be more understanding of the religious mindframe, and although he's ardently against it, he at least knows how to approach it without pissing people off.

Answer 2

I think what he was getting at was that the moderates actually contribute quite a bit to society- however they act as one voice when it comes to many ideals backed heavily by fundamentalists- paving the way and adding numbers to the voices that stomp down the already withering separation of church and state (medical science, educational issues and in-school practices, right to die/assisted suicide, abortion rights, etc). While the moderates alone are NOT that much of a problem- they enable the problem children the room and the driving force they need to push their ideals. The moderates demand the respect- and it is far easier to give them- then the fundies expect the same treatment (while bashing gays and picketing abortion clinics).

I think what the moderates fail to realize is that if the fundies would happen to get what they want- the moderates would be their next targets of opposition. Imagine a Christian country that considered the Catholics to be HEATHENS.

Answer 3

If religious moderates chose to be alienated by a man simply stating the obvious thru rational reasoning, then that's their problem, not Richard Dawkins'.

Answer 4

The focus on religious 'moderates' is necessary because many assume that the damage religion causes is limited to the actions of fundamentalists and those whose religiosity approaches insanity.

This is used as a cop-out by run-of-the-mill theists to absolve themselves and their religion of responsibility for the (sometimes lethal) actions of those fundamentalists.

But the fact is that 'normal' worshippers and holy men provide the substrate on which fundamentalism grows and thrives.

An individual's level of devotion and religious adherence follows a strange continuum. Consider a newcomer to religion who becomes increasingly obsessed by it: at first he may simply be a 'believer', without spending much time on the issue.

In time, he may study various holy books and theology, and begin to devote more of his life to the subject. Such actions will receive approval from the priest/imam/rabbi etc., and positive reactions from co-religionists.

At some point, his involvement with his theism will surpass even that of his religious leaders - with whom he may be able to argue theology at a high level. Still later, he may come to believe that his co-religionists are in fact insufficiently devout, and he may disagree with what he perceives as their lack of commitment and devotion, and even sinfulness.

The stories that have emerged of many of the 'terrorist' bombers in the US and UK typically follow this path: initial normal engagement with religion, becoming increasingly fervent; an eventual break with local religious authorities; escalating conflict with those authorities; final act of destruction and murder aimed at 'infidels'.

Formal religions encourage all of the earlier steps, and then suddenly recoil from the monster they have created. Ordinary lumpen-religionists can't avoid their complicity in creating these murderers just because they don't like the final result.

CD

Answer 5

You have to hand it to Richard Dawkins: He has a few TV documentaries, sells a bunch of books,, and makes more money out of his Atheist fan club than he gets from proper scientific research. He should stick to his evolutionary genetics as thats the research that saves lives.

Answer 6

does he really explain anything?