Comment this Richard Dawkins quote?

Question

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

Until this morning, I didn't know who Richard Dawkins was. I've read the statement above and find myself compelled to agree.

What do you think of it?

Answer 1

I found it quite judgmental and bigoted.
when you start condemning any specific group because of the radical actions, of a segment of that group. or race, then that is Bigotry.

it is like saying that because one gay man had sex with a young boy, that all gay men are pedophiles.
and that is totally wrong.

Answer 2

I have been well aware of Dawkins’ work; especially his scathing attacks on religion, for quite sometime. What can I say about this comment except that it is typical Dawkins in that it is exceedingly well articulated, accurate, admirably irreverent, and spoken with a wit that is of such rarity in this day and age. Read his latest book “The God Delusion”. This book is replete with pithy statements and sound reasoning, such as the one you quoted.

Dawkins is absolutely correct. The only thing I find lamentable is that he highlighted that people thought, and presumably he thought, that religious belief was fairly innocuous until the events of 9/11 hit home. It is sad that they were under this presumption to begin with. If you are a contemplative soul, or someone who has some respect for history, you can never come to the conclusion that religious belief is innocent.

There is a deep connection between dogma, especially dogmas that pertain to the supernatural, and their ability to inculcate in the masses a callous disregard for what should be important in this world. A preoccupation with the supernatural will ultimately be done at the expense of the natural. An obsession with the otherworldly, will only work to debase this world. Belief in a life where morality is defined by the arbitrary and fickle fiat of the All Mighty is not a morality that respects the dignity of the human being, and thus will culminate in the violation of the human spirit.

Answer 3

Religion is not the only way to get this kind of fanaticism. Look at what the Japanese did during the Second World War, look at what the Germans and the Russians did to each other in the same. What the Vietnamese people endured during the Vietnam War. Religion did not play a role in these instances in the way that western religion is understood. It is culture in general that causes people to act like this, a form of nationalism and patriotism that is taken to far to the extreme. Can religion be a form of this identified culture? Yes. Is all religion a part of this culture? No. Dawkins is taking a complex cultural idea and blaming all religion for it because that is what he wants to be responsible for it, not because his idea fits all the facts.

Answer 4

He starts out badly when he calls religion harmless nonsense.

Most folks who have a religion, in whatever form, seldom regard it as nonsense.

But he is correct, religion can be dangerous. In more ways than Mr Dawkins suggests. Christianity, as an example, altered the way people viewed the world and each other. It's dangerous.

Science is dangerous. Art is dangerous.

Do we hold the aircraft industry to account for providing the tools the terrorists used? Do we hold architects to account for designing buildings that draw such attacks?

Should religion, in general, be held to account for what some do in particular?

We have attempted at various time to quell religion, to change its course, to manipulate it. All to no avail.

Dawkins makes valid points but protected from normal criticism? I hardly think so, just check out this board.

Answer 5

As you can see, religious people feel they are compelled by a "higher power", one that supersedes the laws of man. They maintain that Dawkin's doesn't "get this."

I was very close to the events of 9-11, so I saw first-hand the deadly effects of religious fundamentalism. It's quite shocking what people are capable of "in the name of god", and even more shocking when you realize that ultimately, all these beliefs are entirely self-generated. Denial is the only way theistic people can maintain their delusion in light of events like 9-11, but denial is one of the most powerful psychological defense mechanisms there is.

Intentionally killing another human being always requires some form of rationalization, whether it be carpet bombing from 50,000 feet, killing for god, killing to protect society, or whatever. But, most people would be a lot less true to their so-called "holy beliefs" if they were forced to sit in a room with their victim(s)-to-be, see them as living flesh and blood, talk to them, and then be handed an knife and instructed to plunge it into them for their god.

Answer 6

I think it's an interesting quote, but I think it simplifies the conflict--I have respect for Dawkins the biologist--Dawkins the social commentator is no more insightful than anyone else. There are a lot of other reasons for why an event occurs. Also, we could point to sociopaths that do not follow religion, but that doesn't mean we should be less tolerant of people who may hold a few views in common with the sociopath.

It is rarely this simple, and rarely this black-and-white.

Answer 7

I think he has hit the proverbial nail on the head. I particularly find it interesting because you see that a lot here in R&S - people with "unshakable confidence in their own righteousness," who cannot seem to fathom that theirs is not the only possible point of view in the world. I often wonder if they understand how fanatical and lacking in credibility they appear as a result.

Answer 8

Dawkins conveniently labels all faith harmful or dangerous. To him there is no such thing as a truly beneficial attribute of faith and only decided to seriously consider the ramifications of the very real world of spirituality when it impacted him negatively. Beyond the point into which he dragged his discussion of faith there is no reason for spirituality to have any importance. He shuts it out and denies any real evidences can emminate from the spirit.
Dawkins assigns real import to the physical side of the duality of man, almost totally ignoring spirit. It is unfortunate for him and for those he dupes.

Answer 9

I agree completely. The faith delusion is also dangerous because the fundies in this country are trying to get laws passed that affect us all. Not to mention being a threat to science education in this country.

Answer 10

I'm starting to read the same book, and this particular statement rings true as an assessment of human history, not just Sept. 11th, 2001.

Answer 11

Religion is like a hammer.

It can be used to create beautiful buildings, useful tables and chairs, bridges to bring people together, and repair what is breaking down.

But if someone wants to twist and pervert the function of a hammer, they can smash someone's skull in with it.

~ Eric Putkonen