Over at the Telegraph, broadcaster Melvyn Bragg (I think he’s famous in the UK, though he’s virtually unknown in the U.S.) attacks Richard Dawkins in a 3-minute video for Dawkins’s “lack of respect” for religion. Go have a look; the video appeared on Sky TV’s “The Book Show.” It’s amazing how much “respect” Bragg has for things whose existence is supported by no evidence at all.
Among Bragg’s other bizarre statements are these:
- “Reason is not the primary source of knowledge.”
- “Ever since civilisation began people have believed in many gods, one god or none,” he said. “There have also been atheists, people who say that this is unprovable, that there could not be resurrections and reincarnations and miracles. These are all respectable traditions. What’s changed recently is the animus and the ignorance that has entered into the atheist argument, led by Richard Dawkins, most improbably a fine zoologist, a good scholar, Oxford trained, who seems to have thrown everything off in this odd pursuit, particularly of Christianity.”
- “Things come to us outside the realms of reason; intimations of love, surprise by joy, little pulses that we don’t know where they come from, we don’t know where they lead to, but they satisfy us or they make us despair. Dawkins shows no respect for religion at all.”
Are we supposed to show respect for other delusions as well, like the idea that the god Xenu stashed souls in volcanoes and killed them with hydrogen bombs, or that Native Americans came from the Middle East (a tenet of the Mormon faith that is conclusively disproven by genetics)? What, exactly, about religious belief deserves “respect”? I’ve never heard a good explanation.
I’m curious if any readers think we should “respect” religion as opposed to simply according believers the same civility we’d extend to anyone when they’re not espousing nonsense.
Nope. Respect the believer (if she be civil), not the belief (if it be wacky).
You know, I like the way Jerry phrased it. Certainly everyone deserves to be engaged with civility (unless they’ve forfeited that right with bad behavior).
But I’m of the mind that you don’t always need to make the belief/believer distinction. There are very many people I don’t respect, and I mean the person him/herself. Usually because of his or her beliefs, and they way they act because of those beliefs.
Also, because of WP’s new comment scheme, JS1685 will henceforth be known as musicalbeef.
Oh that’s a shame. Couldn’t you continue the tradition and call yourself CPE1714?
I just notice that the third bullet is true as far as it goes, initially. C.S. Lewis was not wrong (in my experience, at least) that we can be “surprised by joy.” Sometimes I really am overtaken by irrational pulses of love for my children or girlfriend, seemingly out of the blue. And when I’m tired and stressed, it takes little to provoke utterly crazy tears from me–this past weekend, a trailer for the documentary film, “Bully,” did the trick.
What any of that has to do with religion or even theism is beyond me, though. I can’t see how a momentary frisson of nonrational emotion in any way supports something like the Nicene Creed, or any other belief system. To the extent it does anything whatever, I would think it undermines the case that religions can be reasonable at all, give the human penchant for subjective irrationality (or more charitably, nonrationality).
Indeed, while true it’s a rather weird point:
“There’s quite a lot we don’t understand. Dawkins shows no respect for religion at all.” *blink*
Uh, sure .. yes, and bananas are mostly yellow, I once lost my keys, gas is expensive these days and Rush Limbaugh shows no respect for women.
I agree. The funny thing is that it is possible to rationally understand subjective irrational emotional responses. We can even come up with some really darned good (and rational) reasons why animals such as homo the sap might benefit from such irrational experiences, given plausible reasons why the ability to have such experiences could be selected for. It is only a problem is one accepts the theist’s nonsensical belief that anti-theism means everything must be “logical and rational.”
Actually it’s theists who insist that everything must have an explanation (even if it’s not a rational or logical one). You can’t just have a weird thrill for no obvious reason. It must have been Jesus breathing down your neck or reaching his stealthy fingers into your heart.
In fact, to be an atheist one must be emotional as well as rational.
I like Star Trek. Quite a bit. Many people hate it. A lot. That is fine.
If I *believe* Star Trek, then I am deranged. I would hope that my fellow primates would “respect” me enough to grant me a stay in an institution, a hospital of sorts, where serious attempts would be made to get this delusion out of my head.
I see absolutely no reason to “respect” Star Trek or my (non-)belief in it. Nor do I see any reason to “respect” any other delusions, religious or not.
That just about sums it up perfectly. I love reading fantasy books, but I recognise them as fantasy. I wouldn’t expect someone to “respect” the stories being told in those books any more than I would expect them to “respect” me if I tried to claim they were true and every one should believe them.
Exactly. There is nothing wrong with liking fiction, but I fail to see why I should “respect” someone for believing it to be true. They could start by “respecting” me for not believing it to be true. Then, at least, I could respect them for respecting me, but that’s a courtesy they almost never have. So, essentially, I am being asked to “respect” someone *because* they disrespect me. I don’t think so.
I went to high school with someone who thought Star Trek was real. They were treated as an outcast by just about everyone. They were harmless, basically in their delusion.
But you wouldn’t want to elect them President, or have them as your heart surgeon, or trust them to fly a plane safely.
Barb B. Van Bockstaele, I see absolutely every reson to “respect” the morality of Star Trek, the joy of it, the wonder of it. But not to ever get confused about it being fiction.
I agree. If we can’t free up the resources to cure someone from a delusion, we should at least keep our wits and make sure delusionals don’t have access to any serious responsibilities.
Also, Star Trek at least does its best to have some decent morals. I know not of a single Abrahamic religion that goes that far.
I really like the ‘In Our Time’ podcast from the BBC and think he is a great host, so this video was really annoying to watch. I thought he was smarter than this.
He had to go dive in the shallow end of an empty pool right after I discovered In Our Time, didn’t he? Were I religious, I would think someone was trying to screw with me.
I guess this explains why In Our Time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-time/) so rarely features scientific topics in its “history of ideas”.
Actually, Science is the largest category in the IOT podcast library with 148 programmes, followed by History (131), Culture (123), Philosophy (61) and Religion (40). So about 30% (by mental arithmetic). This is up to the end of the last series, I think, so it will have changed a bit in the mean time.
It’s always worth listening to, even if the subject doesn’t sound interesting: three experts on a subject talking about it, with the assumption that you’re intelligent but uninformed about it, normally prodded in the right direction by Lord Bragg, even if some of his more Abe Simpson-ish moments make me shout “Shut up, Melvyn”. This can be awkward when I listen to it on a commuter train.
Isn’t it a sign of respect for religion to subject it to the same criticisms as any other ideas, phenomena or belief systems? Treating religious belief with kiddie gloves as if it’s too sensitive to be criticized is condescending. If religion were really about ‘answers’ and ‘truth’ it would have no reason to be opposed to such attention.
Regardless, it’s too bad to hear this coming from Melvyn Bragg. In Our Time is a great programme, and he really does an impressive job of having intelligent conversations on a wide range of topics. He’s a smart guy, so this attitude is an unfortunate surprise
Well, yes, but it’s really hard to truly respect an idea, phenomenon or belief system that’s supported by nothing more than arguments from authority, antiquity and popularity.
/@
The religious don’t really want “respect”, they want “pandering”.
In the absence of “pandering,” the religious are also willing to accept “forbearance.”
Can’t remember who said it, but ‘I respect you in the same way I respect your right to believe you are married to the most beautiful woman’
I think that’s a paraphrase from H.L.Menken
Yep. (From positiveatheism.org): We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
— H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Insulting Quotations
Rats, beat me to it. Well, here’s another one from Mencken (also from positiveatheism.org): “People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police.” quoted in Jim Versluys, “The Right-Wing Case Against Religionism” (May, 2001)
Find this quote and more in The Atheist’s Diary pg.118 and more published by http://www.ducknet.co.uk
Atheist Bible -not diary
Thanks
This is disappointing. Looks like the cameraman stepped on the wrong bit of fluff. Sorry rabbit… you did not deserve that.
Bragg has been something of a champion for putting science before the public on his radio programme In Our Time (available online) on which RD has appeared. I might have expected this though. He is a soft left Labour peer, so is probably cosy with Warsi & the bishops who sit with him in the lords. Not good.
Hmm, so religious belief is unreasonable, but it should be respected anyway.
How very unreasonable of him.
As many people have said here before, “I respect you too much to respect your silly beliefs”.
Rather a shame, looks like Bragg has fallen for the “Richard Dawkins is horrible and militant” meme.
The third bullet is a howling non sequitur, while the first and most of the second are just wrong.
BRAGG
@What’s changed recently is the animus and the ignorance that has entered into the atheist argument,….’
I think what Bragg is saying is that most Christians in the UK couldn’t name a Gospel even when given a choice of 4 names to choose from.
Or possibly that most atheists don’t know which type of clergyman should be addressed as ‘Your Grace’, which as ‘Your Excellency’ and which as ‘Your Eminence’
Not that religious people like to award themselves titles to make them seem like important people….
The first is a bishop… definitely. But then I’m struggling. Archbishop? Then pope? Or a cardinal?
/@
All should be addressed as “Mr.”
You wouldn’t address the head of the Amateur Dramatics Society as “Chairman” – unless you were a member – would you?
So, would you say that non-U.S. citizens should address Barack as Mr. Obama rather than Mr. President?
/@
For citizens of countries that have no diplomatic relations with the US and do not recognize the legitimacy of the US government, yes, that would be the correct form of address.
I’m a US citizen, and I address him as “asshole”.
Then you should probably change your name from truthspeaker to something more accurate.
Oops. Was that snarky? Sorry. I had no free will to keep from making that comment, or so I’ve read on this website.
in the german speaking world adressing an elected official by his title would be considered odd, although it’s getting more common these days. angloamerican cultural influence.
academic titles are a different story. they’re used to address people directly all the time, as in “herr doktor” or “herr professor”.
C’mon it’s even worse, admit it. “Herr/Frau Doktor Professor” is the way you address professors in Germany. Always makes my anarchist heart sink a bit.
actually professor kind of trumps doktor in academic circles. not if you’re a medical doctor though. then doctor practically replaces your surname.
here in austria it’s even worse. all kinds of government ranks are used to adress people. “herr rat” etc.
The USian fetish of addressing this way, especially after the person is no longer the president, makes one worry about an ‘over-respect’ for authority being too common there. Many non-USians (perhaps you might guess I’m a Canadian, another one of those natives (not aboriginals, don’t get confused by accurate language)of North and South America, i.e. really an American in the geographically intelligent sense)find this manner of addressing ‘formers’ rather amusing. We have a bunch people running for the Republican presidential nomination, among whom are a non-senator addressed as Mr. Senator, a non-governor addressed as Mr. Governor, and a non-member of the House of Representatives addressed as Mr. Congressman (when ‘Mr. Moron’ would be more accurate for at least two of them).
Oh, I was right… ish. Bishop. Archbishop. Cardinal. At least in certain churches in certain countries.
/@
PS. While checking this I noted that in Italian univesities, a professor is addressed as chiarissimo professore (very bright professor)!
From the Latin “clarus”, although in the sense of “well-known, famous”. Also, deans are occasionally referred to as “amplissimi” (“esteemed, distinguished”) and rectors as “magnifici”. Italians do love their titles, honorific, academic, professional, whatever. So an engineer expects to be called “Ingeniere”, an accountant “Ragioniere”, and so on, never just “Signore” or “Signora”. Incredibly silly, or maybe I should say “stupidissimo”.
So many people need fantasy to help them through life. Even though I suspect he knows religion is nonsense too he clings to aspects of it for comfort and attacks those who are just stating facts.
No respect for faith. Can you imagine not respecting belief without evidence? What a barbarian.
Of course we’re talking here about long long traditions of faith, culture essentially. And dissing culture is always wrong because if the members of the culture feel something is so, it is so.
To quote Christopher Hitchens, Melvyn Bragg gives the awful impression of someone who hasn’t read any of the arguments against his position.
“Reason is not the primary source of knowledge.”
Moron.
+1
My opinion: attempt to respect PEOPLE but not necessarily all of their ideas.
Good people sometimes believe kooky stuff, and much of the kooky stuff comes from religion.
Meanwhile, some Christians in Britain have been convicted of murder after they killed a teenage boy because they thought he was a witch.
Still, you have to respect long traditions of witch-burning, don’t you?
+1
Bragg published a book last year extolling the virtues of the King James Bible and has been sniping at secularists like Dawkins ever since, basically for not agreeing with him that the King James Bible is behind every positive development in British history (development of democracy, abolishment of slavery, workers rights, women’s emancipation etc).
Here’s an article from last year that says pretty much the same as the recent telegraph piece.
http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article.aspx?art_id=4066
I guess his target audience for this sort of revisionist book is hardly going to be the atheist demographic.
This is really Disappointing as Melvyn Bragg should know better. As has been pointed out he has been a strong advocate for the public awareness of science and frequently tackles some difficult concepts on “In our time” with expert opinion, skilfully interviewed.
I doubt he’s that chummy with Warsi as they are from different political parties and Bragg is actually an atheist.
Frankly I don’t know where this nonsense has come from and I doubt he believes it himself…
As for the respect thing, I usually say about religious belief that I don’t respect the belief at all, I have diminished respect for the believer but I have complete respect for their right to believe.
Personally I’d have said that empirical observation is the primary source of knowledge, and that reason is a product of that. (Though that is getting somewhat off-topic for the thread.)
Bragg is someone about who I have mixed feelings. He has been strong on science in “In our time” and is an honorary FRS which are like rocking-horse dung (6 to be precise) so someone values him.. However, I also feel that frequently he is overwhelmingly pompous and full of his own self-importance (South Bank Show). Private Eye (UK satirical mag) has long called him Melvyn Barg ….. I strongly suspect that someone who knows their philosophy better than me (not difficult) could find yet another philosopher, equally “esteemed” who would flatly contradict Hume.
sub
“There have also been atheists, people who say that this is unprovable,…”
In my mind, the unprovability of god, while true, is not a compelling argument for atheism. In my mind, there are a virtual endless stream of supernatural things which could be true and for which there is an equal lack of evidence as compared to the known gods of human religions, (e.g., maybe after you die, to go to sugarcandy mountain; maybe the force, depicted in “star wars” really exists; maybe “god” is a giant pulled pork sandwich; maybe it’s turtles all the way down; maybe upon death you are reborn as a baby, and invisible gods place bets on whether *this time* you do better or worse; maybe our reality exists in a giant supercomputer, and so on.)
There is simply no reason to believe any one over any other, so there is no reason to believe any of them. That, to me, is the important point. It’s irrelevant that one can’t prove that god doesn’t exist. No one can prove that ANY supernatural thing exists, so there is no reason to believe that there is any such thing.
Turtles all the way down? Just one with 4 elephants on its shell ……
What has been happening to Richard Dawkins is similar to the smear campaigns that Scientology unleashes against its critics.
Indeed.
Just another blustering idiot who is completely out of his depth. Arguments have been rehearsed ad nauseam elsewhere. Next!
I am all for challenging and criticizing the belief system of religious believers. I do have a problem though with people trying to make religious people out to be idiots. It is worth repeating that ‘the idiots’ span all socio economic levels and all professional
backgrounds. The closer scrutiny of religious belief is a good thing, but I maintain that the future of religion is not ‘no religion’ or even less religion but a religious system largely focused on ethics and community and values and attitudes. Religion I dare say is evolving albeit at a glacially slow pace.
A religious system without supernatural beliefs is “no religion”.
Perhaps so. Decades, perhaps hundreds of years hence it may well be called something else but some version(s) of it will still be around. Of that I’m sure. I do see a role for a ‘religion’ that is largely focused on community building, ethics and values.
“Decades, perhaps hundreds of years hence it may well be called something else…”
Sure! They were called (and still do so) “infidels,” “witches,” “satanists” etc by religious leaders & crowds alike. They were and are not just idiots: they are malicious reactionary bullies. Your point?
Would you call a bottle of corn syrup with no alcohol “liquor”?
There’s a “Shirley Temple” pun in here somewhere…
At some point, when it loses its dependence on belief in a supernatural agent as the fount of ethics and values, it ceases to be religion, I think, at least in a strict sense. (Worldviews like Zen Buddhist are more correctly considered philosophies; see the late Alan Watts and A.C. Grayling, for example.)
For example, Humanism is largely focused on ethics and community and values and attitudes. But it isn’t a religious system.
/@
In a way, this is a recognition that Dawkins and other gnus are having an effect.
He is surely correct about that. Reason is complementary to empirical knowledge. However, reason appears to be the primary source of mathematical knowledge, philosophical knowledge and theological knowledge, all of which are non-empirical.
Bragg seems to be saying that as an expression of his own animus and/or his own ignorance of what Dawkins is actually saying.
Another thing that’s changes is that in some countries, the people who say gods don’t exist no longer get executed for saying so.
Funny how they always leave that part out.
Well, sure, he’s right that there’s more to life than reason. Or knowledge. Or facts.
But when you are interested in what’s true and real (and why), feelings and intuitions and supposings and thinking-really-hard-and-hoping aren’t going to cut it.
This kind of argument (Bragg’s) is so frustrating. You want to grab these people and shake them. “No one’s saying science and rationality are all there is! We’re saying they’re the only way to learn objective truths about the external, physical world.”
Oh, and this?
“Ever since civilisation began people have believed in many gods, one god or none,” he said. “There have also been atheists, people who say that this is unprovable, that there could not be resurrections and reincarnations and miracles. These are all respectable traditions.”
So, over the millennia, all those different “respectable traditions” were living in harmony, huh? Until the modern atheists starting acting naughty?
“But I do believe there are things that I can’t know. I do believe there are things that are beyond the human mind. And oddly enough I respect those things.”
Yes, it’s certainly odd. How can I respect something of which I can never have any knowledge except to the extent that it’s reasonable to speculate that such a class of things exists? Contrast Bragg’s approach to that of Schopenhauer who was both negative and disrespectful towards the unknowable noumenal world.
Well said Jerry – Creationists and evangelicals have no respect for atheists (secular humanists). They insult us, deny our constitutional rights, illegally use our taxes, lie about us, try to convert us, are cruel to us, use free speech to undermine our democracy, attempt to replace democracy with a theocracy, etc. We treat them a hell of a lot better than they treat us. Dawkins is simply a soft spoken atheist scientist who is so effective that he has been singled out by those who are guilty of the very things they accuse him of. In the past Christians would have burned Dawkins and Coyne at the stake as heretics. Never in history have atheists burned Christians for their religion.
++1
“Never in history have atheists burned Christians for their religion.”
Maybe we should start. Then we’d get more Respect. Who’s got the matches? 😉
Why are we wonder about Bragg’s new trots? He is “[A] friend of Tony Blair, the former Labour Prime Minister,[…]”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvyn_Bragg)
Do we need any more proof for his intentions?
Forget his intentions, just the fact that he is friends with a war criminal tells me I can disregard anything he says about anything.
But, but, but… my delusion is better than your delusion!
And Ceiling Cat will beat up your invisble friend!!!!111!!eleventy!!!
Lost all respect for Melvyn Bragg now … a once wonderful progenitor for the arts in the UK, now aligned with what appears to be an organised hard core establishment bullying of Dawkins.
BRAGG
“There have also been atheists, people who say that this is unprovable, that there could not be resurrections and reincarnations and miracles. These are all respectable traditions.
CARR
Melyvn should consult religious people before he declares that non-belief is a respectable tradition.
‘The fool has said in his heart there is no God’ – Psalm 14.
Of course, this is neither shrill, strident not militant. It is religion and to be respected, even when it looks just like vile abuse.
And I won’t begin to say how much Islam ‘respects’ non-belief….
We atheists are clueless amateurs when it comes to reviling, demonising and hating people with different beliefs.
Warning, warning… category error alert! Category error alert!
For crying out loud, I really wish the “deep thinkers” who argue in favor of religion would try to gather their critical faculties together well enough to recognize the difference between a fact claim and a meaning claim.
“God exists” — is a fact claim.
“I am oh ever so thrilled to the tippy top of my being that God exists and I feel such deep and abiding love for everyone whenever I think about how absolutely peachy it is that God exists and when I contemplate beautiful things I feel as if God is just reaching out and squeezing me ever so tight in a big love hug” — is a meaning claim.
Get them straight.
And oh yeah … emotions and values and experiences and desires and sensations are not, in and of themselves, “irrational.” They’re non-rational. You can’t just say that it’s irrational to believe in God … but it’s also irrational to experience love … so therefore believing in God is like experiencing love. And those who don’t believe in God are therefore the kind of people who have never felt love.
I mean, you can say that. But we will not think you’re a very deep thinker here.
It bugs me when people use jealous when they mean envious. Likewise when they use respect when they mean deference.
“Ever since civilisation began people have believed in many gods, one god or none,”
Is it logically possible for anything different to be true? It’s like starting an attempted argument by saying ‘Since 2+3 =2+3, therefore etc. etc…”
Also I guess that civilization had no need to begin, for this set of possible beliefs to be the case. When someone reveals their stupidity so quickly, one is saved from bothering to read on.
“When someone reveals their stupidity so quickly, one is saved from bothering to read on.” – LOL 😉
Strangely, for me, I no longer feel “disrespectful” of those with insane religious beliefs – Oh, I was the epitome of rabid, mocking, scornful ‘disrespect’ about 8 months ago..
Then I had a revelation – this site helped! I fully realized that “free will” was a complete illusion – That I am what I am, and I ‘believe’ what I believe, because – and only because – this is what the universe has made me.
And I realized that this MUST apply to everyone else! I am not ‘entitled’ to any respect for my (in my view) rational beliefs.. I am not responsible for them, and can take no credit for anything I have said, thought, believed or done.
And likewise, no person deserves disrespect for their stupid religious beliefs, or for anything they have said, thought or done.
The choices I have made have all been determined by the forces acting on me, over which I had and have no control – the ‘wiring’ and ‘programming’ of my brain – hereditary and environment, etc etc etc..
And the same applies to everyone else, whether they believe it or not!
LOL – Does this mean we should give up? No! – For one thing, we cannot! For another, our anti-religious “disrespect” acts as one of the ‘forces’ which influences things.
But the course is already plotted – we are just acting out our roles. So relax and try to enjoy the ride!
😉
Even the so called religious do not believe half of the nonsense ditched out to them.There are so many versions of bibles written by men, notice I say men, who were most likely high on drugs.
“Even the so called religious do not believe half of the nonsense ditched out to them”
Many do not, I agree – But they desperately cling to their faith.. The alternative (for them) is often too frightening to face. I can understand this – I was brought up saturated in fundamentalism (father was a baptist missionary) and I fully believed all the crap till I was about 12 – Clung on in fear of my doubts till I was 16.
I abandoned Xtianity not through rational reasons, but through “moral” reasons – Living in apartheid S.A. I could not reconcile the attitude of my white “brothers and sisters in the lord” and left to join the CP, where I was exposed to hard athiesm – and reason took hold.
For many Xtians, their whole social world, the people closest to them, their reasons and purpose for being, are all centered on their faith – lose it, and you lose the lot! It is NOT easy to make this jump – What you ACTUALLY believe is only a tiny part of the influences which are extremely strong .. Many people who have lost their faith will still profess faith, just to keep in their comfort zone.
I can understand this.
This is why atheists coming out is so important. When fence-sitting weak believers learn that they are not alone, the weight of leaving the faith is much less. Nothing is more important than atheists coming out.
“When fence-sitting weak believers learn that they are not alone, the weight of leaving the faith is much less. Nothing is more important than atheists coming out”
Yes – I can see where YOU are coming from here.. I agree.. BUT..
“fence-sitting weak believers” Do not have (or are not aware of) reasons to “come out” – We have reasons why we want them to come out – but from where they are, often they have little or nothing to gain, and sometimes a hell of a lot to lose!
The actions they take (Coming out or staying) is entirely decided by the matrix of causal determinants which apply to them –
If we want more to “come out” we need to have some strong causal determinants to put in the matrix.. What do we have?
Nothing!
Sorry, but its the truth! We can offer “reality” unbuffered, harsh, cold – Everything they have is false.. But it can be a lot more comfortable!
Its like offerring a drug addict who is on a high, a withdrawl program… You wont get many takers! They will only be open to the suggestion when they have hit rock bottom, the drug isnt working for them anymore, and they are hungry and sick and abandoned by their community.
I think you are overly pessimistic. When atheists come out, it lowers the cost of departure for people who are otherwise fear they will lose everything.
And I think you are totally wrong to say we have nothing to offer. If nothing else, we have honesty and intellectual freedom. Those are not nothing.
@ gbjames : Hear, hear!
/@
PS. OT : I’ve referred to you as “James” a few times, but a recent comment of yours suggests that that might be your surname rather than your forename. If so, I apologise — I should know better with a surname of “Allan”.
Yeah… surname of “James” leads to a lifetime of being called “Jim”. And I’m sure you know the feeling! 😉
I always figured that your use of “James” was following the Brit practice of surname use that I remember from my brief months in a post-colonial British boarding school in Kenya (mid 1960s). My younger brother was there with me and I remember it was always “James, Sr.” this, and “James, Jr.” that.
Not James Major and James Minor? (The first, at least, sounds like an actual name!)
So, which of “G” and “B” can/should we address you by?
/@
Major/minor. You are right. The years have taken their toll on the memory cells, it seems. I had forgotten the proper terminology!
Not that it matters one way or the other, really, but fully expanded I am Gregory Bernard James. I prefer the minor ambiguity and ease of typing “GBJames”.
“And I think you are totally wrong to say we have nothing to offer. If nothing else, we have honesty and intellectual freedom. Those are not nothing.”
honesty and intellectual freedom are everything to me and you – but they are nothing to those who do not recognise (a) the value of these (b) that we have these.
Honesty carries a high price (delusion carries an even higher price, but this is not recognised by the deluded).
I hope you dont misunderstand me – Its just that I dont think we stand any chance of communicating our paradigm if we are judgmental or pushy –
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
Fred
I guess I don’t understand what you are offering here, other than advice that being “judgmental or pushy” is bad. OK, we should all brush our teeth, too.
What are you suggesting is not being “understood” (by atheists here)? Why is being honest and direct, “pushy”? What exactly do you mean by “judgmental” anyway? Are you suggesting atheists should quietly stay in the closet because to come out is to be “pushy”?
If that is what you are pitching, then I’m having none of it. There are plenty of people who have come out as atheist because they felt secure enough having learned that they are not alone in the world. The closet is a bad place to live and encouraging people to stay there, living in fear, is not something we should advocate.
” Are you suggesting atheists should quietly stay in the closet because to come out is to be “pushy”?”
No, that is not what I am saying at all.
Without repeating postings I have made on other threads here, I do not think that pushing people to “come out” serves any purpose. People will ONLY come out when their comfort zone becomes uncomfortable, or when the comfort in their ‘zone’ is seen to be less comfortable than an alternative being offered to them.
The church is full of arrogant bullies – The last thing we should do if we want people to leave it, is to act like arrogant bullies!
Application of any kind of pressure to “come out” because it is important TO US, will have the opposite reaction – They are in an environment where subdugation of THEIR needs to the churches demands is oppressive.
They will not be tempted to leave if any sense of “righteous duty” is suggested to them! They will leave because they need to escape from this kind of bulls*it!
Fred.
I think you are failing to differentiate encouraging atheists to “come out” and “outing” them. The latter is completely wrong, for the reasons you mention, and others. The former is perfectly reasonable. It reflects nothing more than the experiences of the many who have already done so. And it represents the atheist position as honest and nothing to be ashamed of.
I do not think it is in any way good to encourage the climate of fear perpetuated by closet life.
One other aspect of this issue, IMO, is detailed in my earlier posting .. “The choices I have made have all been determined by the forces acting on me, over which I had and have no control – the ‘wiring’ and ‘programming’ of my brain – hereditary and environment, etc etc etc..”
These are, as one non-free-will advocate here advised me, a “matrix of causal determinants”. The only influence we can exert on anyone is by feeding new data / causes into their ‘matrix’.
It is a fact (backed up by the expierience from many who have left religion for athiesm) that scientific / rational argument is the weakest causal determinent in the process of their escape from religeon – Science / reason became important only once they have left.
The delusions embraced by those in religions is most often shattered by personal / emotional factors – the way they are treated by those they fellowship with, the behaviour of those who ‘minister’ to them, the unreasonable and hypocritical constraints these people impose on them.
In the years (37) since I left the church and embraced first agnosticism then ‘hard’ athiesm, I have not persuaded one believer through scientific argument alone – every one of the 15 ‘de-converts’ I have had a part in ‘deprogramming’ was due to giving them encouragement and help with normal life situations – showing them by example that an athiest can be moral and caring, motivated and happy –
If I had ‘pushed’ any of these people, even slightly, to expose their doubts about their faith publicly, or to “come out”, they would have run back into the arms of those in their former comfort zone.
It is my belief that it is far better for people to develop a social network among non-believers, without any pressure or ridicule from these non-believers, so that they can abandon their old crowd safely when / if they do “come out”.
Pressure / ridicule / continuous badgering of these people just makes us look like another ‘church’.
Straw man. Nobody is advocating such a thing. You are mischaracterizing the position.
fredjackm, You are yourself an example of exactly the “coming out” I’m talking about. You describe yourself as having assisted in some way in the transition of other people from faith to sanity. The only way this can have been possible is if these people knew that you were a non-believer. Had you been in the closet they would never have known that you didn’t believe in The Deity.
“Had you been in the closet they would never have known that you didn’t believe in The Deity.”
The reason I “came out” was entirely down to the matrix of causal determinants applicable to me – there was (and can be) no other factors. In fact, when I “came out” I was not sure that my action was “sane” – it was an act of rebelion – more a political stand against a church which was advocating apartheid.. At the time, it was my love for Jesus and what I believed he stood for, which was my primary motivator.
I “switched church” and joined the S.A.Communist party (illegal in S.A. at that time) because they had the clearest opposition to apartheid – My beliefs about Jesus morphed into seeing him as a great man, and I saw his teachings align with socialism.. In this process Jesus lost his ‘divinity’ for me, enabling me eventually to move away completely from the god delusion.
Over that time I was never put under any pressure from my comrades – they knew I was “on the fence” – I made this clear to them – and I sometimes “fellowshipped” with believers who were fighting aparthied – In particular, I attended meetings led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who became a personal friend. At this time, however, I was past being able to return to belief – science and sanity had taken hold.
“Coming out” was never really a choice – I have always expressed my thoughts openly, so as my ideas / beliefs changed, these were voiced.
Perhaps I do not understand – perhaps there are people who find it difficult to be open about themselves even when there is no real reason for this – For me, it takes an awful lot of pressure and the threat of really severe ‘penalty’ to shut me up!
Perhaps, for this reason, I feel that people who “stay in the closet” are either actually believers trying to play both ends off against the middle, or they have (from their perspective) powerful justification for not coming out.
Well, from out hear it sound like you are saying that “being out” is something that was OK for you, because you could handle it given the “matrix” of your life. Somehow you don’t seem to think that it is reasonable to think that others might manage the same transition. I think this is just a bit disrespectful of these people.
Your (and every other atheist’s) “being out” contributes to changing “the matrix” in which remaining closeted atheists live. This allows them more freedom because it shows that the non-believing life is every bit as fulfilling (more, in fact) as a “worshiping” one.
To be truthful, I don’t at this point understand exactly what your position is. It seems to be the common “faithiest” request that we be polite and demure, and not rattle the cages of religion. If that is the point, then I disagree profoundly. If it is not, then you have managed to lose me.
“To be truthful, I don’t at this point understand exactly what your position is. It seems to be the common “faithiest” request that we be polite and demure, and not rattle the cages of religion. If that is the point, then I disagree profoundly. If it is not, then you have managed to lose me.”
I am not at the “be polite and demure” end of the ‘spectrum’ – but likewise I am not at the “call them what they are – a crowd of deluded f**ing idiots” end either.
I am firmly in the >>”>> they, like me, have absolutely NO CHOICE about who they are – I “deserve” neither respect nor disrespect for who / what I am – and they “deserve” neither respect nor disrespect for who / what they are <<"<<
Like I said… Straw man.
Do you believe that these people have free will? do you believe that you have free will?
Do you think that you are any “better” (as in, more ‘worthy’ of respect) than them, because you are not deluded?
IMO, belief in free will as as delusional as belief in god.
I do not see any “straw man” here – I do see a different opinion on tactics between you and I, that is all.
(unless you believe they and you are actually free to make contra-causal choices).
And I am grateful to those wise athiests who allowed me to express my doubts without making me feel like I was an idiot, and who gave me information and TIME to privately let go of my delusion, and who never put any pressure on me to come out.
Alas, I have not always been so wise – in recent years my frustration with the religious has caused me to openly mock them..
Realising that no-one has any control over the choices they make has taken me off my ‘high horse’ – What wins people over is not argument, its when they believe that they are heard and they are valued.. One cannot convey that if you feel contempt for them.
Our contempt is only ‘justified’ if we believe we have control over our lives and they have control over theirs – when we realise that neither of us is anything more or less than what the universe has made us, all grounds for contempt evaporate.
That is my present position.
The straw man repeatedly appears in your comments, in phrases like:
“…act like arrogant bullies”
“Pressure / ridicule / continuous badgering”
“If I had ‘pushed’ any…”
My position, and the position of most of us Gnus, is that religion needs to be confronted. This does not mean bullying. It does not mean “continuous badgering”. It does mean being honest, forthright, and direct. (I’ll grant that my position does allow the use of ridicule of ridiculous IDEAS – not, generally people… although I do make exceptions for powerful public figures like of Pat Robertson and bishops of the church).
What I think about free will is not material. The subject is sufficiently subtle and complex to make my brain hurt whenever Jerry posts on the subject. In any case, whatever _you_ think of it, you are quite willing to engage people on some subjects. You manage to express your outrage at the offenses of atheist “badgering” but I see no reason to distinguish that act from your average atheist expressing outrage at religion-infused misogyny. So, you seem to think that your fellow atheists can handle direct differences of opinion but benighted believers are not capable of this feat. That, IMO, is far more disrespectful of them than anything I might say about Jesus.
So, again, you leave me confused. You hold firm to your straw men. Meanwhile you appeal to the absence of free will to suggest that there is no point in confronting religion, or at least to do so is sets one on a a distasteful “high horse”. But then you invest way too much time trying to convince _me_ that all we need to do is let religious people feel listened to and valued and they will just come around. This mix of positions is internally conflicted and incoherent. All it really says is that you are discomforted when people directly confront bad ideas. OK, I’m sure that is true. But your discomfort is no reason for the rest of us to start “respecting” religion.
I’ve a funny feeling that Dawkins might have had to suffer some Christian Brothers ‘loving experience’ while young at school but Bragg was lucky not to.
Given Bragg’s reputation I was surprised at the inanity of this video. How can he not be aware that everything he is saying is years out of date?
I was also surprised at how over-rehearsed and over-gesticulated it seems. It’s actually quite creepy, the way he’s been coached into waving his arms all over the place. Like watching Gordon Brown pretend to smile or listening to Thatcher attempt a smooth voice.
Seems to be a pointless vanity project concocted to be a little ‘gem’ of content for a paper that’s increasingly losing its way.
On the one hand, he co-wrote the screenplay for Jesus Christ Superstar.
On the other hand, he’s an honorary Fellow of the Royal Society, and judging by the weekly In Our Time email/newsletter thing, he attends regularly.
Melvin Bragg is a worthy TV presenter and a great debater of ideas. I saw his programme on the King James Bible. I enjoyed it very much. I always thought of Melvin Bragg as extremely bright.
Respect for religion is hard to give as religious belief is of such a fanciful nature. The religious will be religious irrespective of logic and reason. Their brain is wired that way. I don’t know why I am not set in the ways of the religious. I was raised a catholic and my mother was a fortune teller. Perhaps a double dose of superstition set me free.
I give religious people the same respect I give any child’s imaginary friend but children know their friends are not real.
Respect is not something to be given without reason, respect is earned. Show me solid evidence why I should give a person my respect and if it’s worth it I will. Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered over the last decade over religion and greed so no religion or government will gain my respect as long as I live.
Respect of a person’s right to believe in something is a valid issue. I do not however have any moral obligation to respect that idea in itself. If I think that an idea is ridiculous or absurd, I feel that I have the right to say so, even if some person does not like what I say. I similarly accept that he has a right to criticize my opinion. When it comes to acting on those beliefs, or forcing others to conform to them, I feel also that I have a right to protest when the results of those actions are not acceptable. Believe what you like, but be careful when you act on it.
It is notable in Bragg’s argumentation that he did not mention the negative aspects of religion (Dawkins does in fact concede that religion may convey survival advantages). Faced with the hostility of the evangelical American public to the scientific argument of Evolution, it is hardly surprising that an eminent scientist in the field might become frustrated and strident. Without high profile opinions of such as Dawkins, Hitchens et al we would be well on the road to having the next generation inculcated with the distorted logic of Creationism as indistinguishable from legitimate Science.
“Reason not the primary source of knowledge”?
I believe I’ve just heard one of the most senseless statements, made by one of the most disgusting posturing snobbish hypocrites!
BRAG We can all tell how desperate you are to capitalize on “Dawkins”, a name you envy soooooo much.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645299-melvyn-bragg-attacks-richard-dawkins-atheist-fundamentalism
Mr.Bragg as so called intelligent man be so ignorant. Perhaps the books he reads,such as the bible, which of course loves to preach killing others who disagree with you. He should try reading The Religion Virus by Craig A James and The Invention of God by Bill Laritzen to find out the truth about how religion devoloped and who actually wrote it.