Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity

Dear winky,

Here is certainly not the place, and in fairness even as a simple man of Christian faith it is not exactly my forte to convert people! There are much more intelligent and persuasive people than me.

What I draw from it is not exactly a chapter and verse reading of the Old Testament, which in any case is to be understood in the light of the New Testament. But it is not random - it is simply incredible in its wisdom.

Now I hope you forgive the observation that those near me tend to think me a person with whom it is possible to have the deepest friendship and trust. I try to be kind for not only my friends but also even complete unknowns.

This is but one lesson that may be learned from the Scripture. I draw a huge difference between the Scriptures and the top hierachical leadership of any religion.

I am not lecturing, but what I fail to understand is why non-believers seem to be so insecure that they have to try to belittle the church [imperfect though it is, but inevitably so given that it is made of humans with the choice to act in good or evil ways] when the one of the great and true lessons is not merely tolerance of those different to one's self, but the command to love one's enemies as one's friends. Now if everyone followed that, then Peace would happen tomorrow!

I may not comprehend the likes of Dawkins, but I would not seek to belittle him ...

It is not a bad message or aim!

ATB from George

quote:

I may not comprehend the likes of Dawkins

Try.

I have read the "God Delusion." It did not make sense to me. I failed to see what possible motivation he could possibly have for composing it.

ATB from George

Richard Dawkins - one of the finest minds of the century. The Nineteenth century.

He has, though, written a book.

So you *yawn* keep saying...

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
I have read the "God Delusion." It did not make sense to me. I failed to see what possible motivation he could possibly have for composing it.

ATB from George

Sam Harris', "The End of Faith" contains much more explicit justification for its writing. Sam is very clear that he fears the serious and catastrophic consequences of actions that are claimed to be justified by faith. He seeks to reduce the chances of these things happening by raising awareness and arguig the secular/rational/humanist side of the debate. Dawkins' objection to faith is a bit more philosophical, perhaps.

Dear winky,

Really I think anyone planning to commit the kind of actions that have serious and catastrophic consequences which are claimed to be justified by faith, will commit the actions on any excuse.

To use that fact that there are terrorists and evil men who pin their colours to a religious mast is no reason at all to doubt the good in religions ...

Really even non-religious people are subject to belief systems, belief in the news, belief in scientific discoveries that are still not understood in many ways and details are still being sort to fill in knowledge. Does believing in Quantum Physics actually stand as much chance of doing a person as much good as believing in the love, and morality of a religion? I will not venture to speak for anyone else on this of course. But do you believe that science has the power to cause world peace?

In my view, religion is no less prone to abuse than a nuclear weapon, but the nuclear weapon - a product of brilliant science - at best may deter warfare, but at a massive cost in fear and financially! And in the hands of terrorists is of itself a terrible threat. But I don't go round belittling the science and scientists behind the invention of it!

Equally, if such a bomb were catastrophically exploded in the name of some religion, then this would be a perversion of that religion by men of evil, and repulsive as a human act. It is no religion's fault that some adherents of it are essentially evil humans.

Religions are not evil, even if some members of religions are indeed evil - just as some members of any organisation or set in society can be.

I simply fail to see how religion can be blamed for aberrant human behavior in the sense these atheistic authors want to suggest.

ATB from George

To paraphrase Sam from his opening paragraph:

"If we hear that a young man strapped explosives to his body and walked into a crowded place and detonated them, what else do we know with any certainty?. We can't be sure of his race, his socio-economic background, his level of education or his nationality. What we can be sure of to the extent that we would bet the house on it, is his religion." To make this less about a particular religion, I would say that if we hear of the murder of an abortion doctor in the US we can be equally sure of the religion of the perpetrator.

Sure, thankfully these are extreme cases, but Sam's point is that with the increasing availability of the means to destroy very large numbers of people, we should be very concerned that people are able to find justification in the scriptures to commit such acts. No point in arguing that the holy texts don't actually "mean" that we should kill everyone that isn't of our faith or that somehow offends us; the point is that this is what they say, and the problem is that some people believe it.

Religion doesn't need to be "blamed" for aberrant behaviour to draw the conclusion that it is frequently used to justify it. I fail to see how any other passion could so systematically lead people (presumably intrinsically evil, as you say) to the conclusion that it is OK (more than OK - noble, in fact) to kill anonymous others. Fact is, people rarely commit terrorism with any other stated motive. Why is it that we don't belive them when they say to us, "god told me do it"? Why do we seek some other, hidden reason for their actions? A passion for quantum physics just isn't going to reach the same conclusion.

It is not the religion that causes the behaviour, but it is the religion that short-circuits the perpetrator's sense of right and wrong. The morality of their act is only valid in the context of their beliefs. We know this because they tell us. Let's believe them.

quote:

Fact is, people rarely commit terrorism with any other stated motive.

This is the nub of it really, "Stated motive."

Really it is tribalism, and simply justified by false claims to represent religion. These evil people will point to some [out of context] quotation from religious writings, and ignore the parts that cannot be made to fit with their insane actions!

And even if Western Intellectual authors persuade more or less secular Western liberals to drop the last vestiges of their religious roots, these authors are not going to persuade crackpots in any tribe, race, or religious groups to change!

They are preaching [word chosen advisedly] to the already converted. They should expend their energies in my humble opinion, on persuading the terrorists to change!

Dear winky, I have enjoyed our exchange, which has been entirely without personal rancour, but sticking to the issues! This must be almost a first on a religious thread in recent times here Thanks for your side.

I doubt that we shall agree on it, but perhaps we may agree that those who pin evil acts on religion by claiming it as being done in the name of religion will find something else to pin it on if there were no religions. But most of all, that the fact of religions existing is certainly not more possible to wind back than the invention of say the nuclear bomb.

Best wishes from George

I too am enjoying the debate, George.

The assertion that amoral desire to harm others is rooted in tribalism and not inherently religious is worth a thought. I see two problems, however:

1) It doesn't explain why those that commit acts of terrorism almost exclusively claim religious justification. Your assertion does not explain this. Why would they lie to us? Why not claim another justification?

2) Religious prejudice is "special". Society does not, in general, respect bigotry nor discrimination. We, as a society, correctly find abhorrent the notion that one group of of people should claim inherent privilege over another. Few of us find beliefs or attitudes founded on racism, homophobia, sexual discrimination or any other arbitrary distinction worthy of respect WITH ONE EXCEPTION. We are expected to respect the religious belief of various groups of people that they alone hold a privileged place, not just in this world, but in the eternal universe. Is this not bizarre? Why should we respect such a view? What is special about an unfounded belief in a non-provable (nor falsifiable) concept that commands such a unique respect.

There is something "special" in people's minds about their religious beliefs that makes it much easier to for them to internally justify cowardly, violent and destructive acts. It is not simple tribalism in the same sense that nationalism and racism is. Their irony-free demands for "respect" is evidence of this. I personally will not respect religious beliefs. I find them ridiculous - that is; worthy and deserving of ridicule. As I have previously said, this is not the same as thinking the believers themselves ridiculous; they are are simply delusional.

All the best,

Winky

I've been following this thread with some interest. Quite often in discussions of this nature, atrocities performed in the name of religion are dismissed as tribalism. However, I don't really see the distinction. I think that religion of any type is basically a sub-set of tribalism. Certainly the edges are blurred (other sub-sets include politics, nationalism and sport - and all of them cause problems!).

Trev

South Park and "respect"

This would be laughable if lives weren't being threatened.

Shouldn't those guys be arrested for the non threat?

In light of the dreadful cases which have occured I believe the Catholic Church should review the rules preventing Priests marrying. I do feel that if they were able to enjoy normal sexual relationships then many of these people would have relieved themselves with their wives rather than someone else's children.

I married a lapsed Catholic and as a result had to attend a few nights of a pre-marriage course with a Catholic Priest. I found his insistance on the evils of contraception morally offensive in a world beset by AIDS, poverty and overpopulation. This dogmatic twaddle turned me off Catholicism forever and even my wife goes to the local C of E on the rare occasions we go to Church.

My own feeling is that the Catholic branch of Christiananity has an awfully long way to go in order to make itself relevant to the modern world. This is true to a lesser degree for the Church of England. By adapting to the modern world better, both organisations would be able to make a positive contribution to society and attract younger people in to reverse declining attendances.

It seems to me that the Church is mostly supported by the generation of people who turn up with a dead stoat around their neck.

Jonathan

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
In light of the dreadful cases which have occured I believe the Catholic Church should review the rules preventing Priests marrying. I do feel that if they were able to enjoy normal sexual relationships then many of these people would have relieved themselves with their wives rather than someone else's children.
Jonathan

By extension, all homosexuals could be 'cured' if only they found the right girl (or boy in the case of lesbians)? I don't think so!

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
In light of the dreadful cases which have occured I believe the Catholic Church should review the rules preventing Priests marrying. I do feel that if they were able to enjoy normal sexual relationships then many of these people would have relieved themselves with their wives rather than someone else's children.

by that logic if i were somewhere where there were no women for a few months i would start eyeing up the boys,not in a million years i would rather chop it off.

Jonathan makes a perfectly valid point; sexual abstention is not easy.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Fact is, people rarely commit terrorism with any other stated motive.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the Viet Cong, the Provisional IRA / the UVF, Israeli treatment of the West Bank are example of terrorism in action that his little or nothing to do with Religion.

Mike is correct. Even suicide bombings - the vast percentage of them - are politically motivated and have little or nothing to do with religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
Mike is correct. Even suicide bombings - the vast percentage of them - are politically motivated and have little or nothing to do with religion.

Facts and figures????

Even if the allegations by Mike and Mr Sniper are correct (I'd be interested in sources for this, though), and that religion is not the justification for the vast majority of terrorism, I would still contend that it is an issue. The difference is that hatred, discrimination and exclusion is somehow to be "respected" when it is claimed to be borne of religious beliefs. I find this abhorrent. we don't grant this respect to racists, or to racsim, for example.

So-called soldiers in holy wars will claim that they aren't in the business of killing innocents. But they should be asked to explain their personal definition of "innocents". Most would say that the only innocent people are those who share their faith. That is what their scriptures teach them, after all.

quote:

Facts and figures????

Mongo, you seem to have forgotten to post the facts and figures. Is there a problem?

Surely, if you are going to counter Mike's statement, you are going to provide your own facts and figures to demonstrate your point of view?

Cheers

Don

This seems to have something to do with religion.

OK, the plural of "anecdote" isn't "fact" or even "statistic" but there does seem to be a bit of religion being used to jutsify hateful acts from time to time.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Facts and figures????

Mongo, you seem to have forgotten to post the facts and figures. Is there a problem?

Surely, if you are going to counter Mike's statement, you are going to provide your own facts and figures to demonstrate your point of view?

Cheers

Don

Not at all Don.

I have not made a sweeping statement without regard to example or origin.

I have made no statement at all.

I'm merely requesting back up information before treating the statement as worthy of further thought.

Atb,

Paul.