To be honest SAM, you strike me as being both a Muslim and a secular humanist. I do not say this to offend. It might even be a compliment. I think often it is a partial act of condoning. If a man rapes a woman who had a short skirt, I will not say to other women shocked at the violent act. I understand his rage, but I do not condone his act. When and in what contexts this 'understanding' is uttered affects its meaning. Or that it is said at all. I also think it is a slippery distinction that is compulsively used - perhaps by all of us in different contexts - to put on the table our sentiments without actually taking responsibility for them. If a man was put in solitary confinement, falsely accused of raping a child, I would not say to the family of a child that was raped when he got out that I understood the man, but I do not condone his act. I might, in a college setting, where we are discussing the psychology of violence go into my understanding of the roots of violence. Nor would it be the first thing that would occur to me to say in most contexts. In a clearly intellectual setting, sure I might go into the psychology of his violence and assign blame in parcels. To me this 'understanding' is code speak. Not always. But often. When you shift the wording just so slightly to 'understanding the basis of violence' you are using language in a way that I associate with other contexts. As I have said above. I am referring to contexts where the speech act is not part of an analysis of causes. 1) I am also critical of many of the same practices and philosophies. 2) In my country the religious people are, for the most part, right behind these policies and tend to pick presidents who are more extreme proponents of those practices. If I look around the world I do not religious people as the only ones or even the primary ones fighting those practices. In my country most of the people fighting those practices are lefties, often atheists. I am sure in countries where the vast majority of the people are religious then those resisting are also religious. I am not sure if we can assign the resistence to their being religious. In fact, for example, the US policy makers tended to support conservative, authoritarian regimes in South America that were religious because it suited them economically. Those practices you hate fit better with the religious portion of the population. Exceptions existed - the Liberation Theology movement - but these priests and nuns were swimming upstream against church policies (god bless them) and were seen as rebels. That's a good point. I have actually, not long term. And I currently live in a country which is considered communist by a large % of my birth country. In the latter I am safe in the ways I mentioned. In the former I would not have been. Good point. In the context of this discussion, however, I think you are primarily dealing with atheists who dislike communism and would fit my description. I happen to see religion everywhere. Some of it has a God or gods, some do not.
My philosophy is 'if it aint broke dont fix it'. In U.S we are free to choose, that seems best to me. I dont know what i would do if i was forced to believe something OR ELSE.:bawl:
Atheists are a tiny fraction of the population, at least here in America we're about one percent. That may be three million people but we don't congregate so we're not organized and hardly constitute a "community" except perhaps with the new dynamics of cyberspace. Naturally "evangelical" atheists get disproportionate attention just the way evangelists of any community do. But I'm not sure how important it is to analyze them since there are so few of them. They don't speak for the rest of us, they haven't converted any theists, and their impact on society is trivial. If their obsession can be called a crusade, it's the impotent crusade of Don Quixote rather than the military attack of the Christian armies. I certainly part company with these people on this matter. As a scientist I know that no generalized hypothesis about the natural universe can be proven true. I call monotheism evil for a variety of well-articulated reasons but I stop short of calling the people who have been duped by it evil. Often several generations of them live decent lives and die without lapsing into evil. It's just that the next generation's orgy of violence is so evil that it makes their net contribution to civilization, as a demographic group, overwhelmingly negative. I just want a better educational system, a more responsive government, and less selfish business leaders to help create a society in which there is freer discourse and more enlightenment. I trust the truth to win out in a fair contest, without resorting to tactics of "extermination." This was happening in the 1960s and early 1970s, when the American educational system was working. As I have argued many times, there is abundant evidence that the Abrahamic religions reinforce our atavistic tribal instinct, and that civilization by definition requires the overcoming of that instinct. My ideas may be controversial but it's disingenuous, insulting, and most importantly not proper science, to call them "silly," That makes them no worse than the old master. This can't be you speaking. Did you miss some quote marks or an attribution??? You've always represented yourself as a Muslim, not fundamentalist, but nonetheless embracing the unscientific supernatural side of religion, e.g. the theism. I can't argue with that. Even if one believes that it is seldom a successful tactic to go around screaming it. Indeed. I have written many letters to many editors pointing out Dawkins's errors of both fact and reasoning. He's an opinionated loudmouth, a crackpot philosopher, a fraudulent scholar, and absolutely no scientist. I don't know about that but he has emerged as a straw man for religionists to hold up as the "typical" atheist so he has done harm to our cause. No, the word has spread out into common parlance. As a management consultant I talk about evangelizing things like process improvement, quality assurance and requirements inspection. I even have the word on my resume. One can evangelize atheism or anything else simply by trying to convince people to adopt it with great sincerity, articulateness and persuasion. We never claim to have proven religion false. In fact the reason we dismiss religion from scientific discourse is precisely because it cannot be proven false under any circumstances. It is an unscientific hypothesis. The foundation of science is the constantly tested and peer-reviewed premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. Religion by definition postulates a supernatural universe which cannot be empirically observed and which is not necessarily bound by logic. Religion is not "blatantly false." It is blatantly irrational. That's bad enough to qualify it for contemptuous and eternal dismissal. We don't have to go any further.
Dawkins does nothing of the kind, this is a total hysterical strawman argument, with a good degree of projection. Secular Humanism is especially important if you live in a multi-religious society, since it would not be fair to use one religion over another as a policy guide. It has almost nothing to do with atheism. To answer your Abu Grabe and Guantanimo question, the atrocities performed in these places were promoted by the Neo-Cons, a group well-known to consist of fundamentalist religious types.
Well I just go one step further and say it is false. As I will observe this Easter as the pilgrims mindlessly celebrate the day a man came back to life and flew off into the sky. I say false as well as irrational.
I have met many educated and secular humanists who would not give Dawkins the time of day, are in fact embarassed by him. Thats not an answer to my question. Read my question again.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Fraggle: The OP is a quote from the link. I'll edit it so that it is clearer.
Shhh... better not say secular and Muslim in the same sentence.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is what I mean by understanding. If we do not address the rage, we cannot tackle the violence. How do you know the context that other people are using? e.g. when I say I understand the feeling that drives some (not all) Muslims to protest against cartoons, it means I am familiar with the context of their acts. Does this translate to condoning it? After all if we were discussing riots due to unemployment or due to the beating of a black man, would anyone even need to question that context is important? How do you differentiate between the two? For example, if a leftist in the US says he understands why there was a 9/11 or if a Muslim from Saudi Arabia says it, what do you infer between the two? Just one question: would atheists in these groups stand up to be counted? You mean communists were not evangelical about their "faith" in a "better society"?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, I'm not embarrassed by Dawkins, but this sentiment if mostly expressed by those who have never read him.
I agree. But I think this is a slightly different issue. I am not suggesting in any way shap or form that we should not try to understand why people are angry - or in many cases afraid - and then act on this feeling (and the thoughts that often are causal here. In fact I think it is a big step if people would at least say "I understand the anger and do not condone the act." But often they simple understand the person and are vague about in what way. I was speaking about contexts where I was there. I was a part of the context, in person with the one's saying they understood. I was referring to the context of the communicative act, not the context for the violence. That depends on, yes, the context. How it is said. Perhaps what it is said in response to. Etc. Sure. Often. No, I did not mean that.
How long would these people last in a Muslim country? I dont agree with everything Darwin wrote but there is something to learn from it. You may get angry with these people but that is not sufficient reason to stifle them.
It's not necessarily immoral to imprison percieved enemies. The problem I have with our places of detention center around following American law. In fact, religious countries imprison many percieved enemies for so-called immoral behavior that in a secular country would be considered a matter of personal freedom. Religion's morals are arbitrary. People are supposed to follow them out of faith and devotion to tradition, not because the rules are derived from reason.
According to your fellow evangelical theists, anyway. That's not what Dawkins says, to mention the current representative "evangelical atheist". Dawkins, btw, seems neither vitriolic nor bad-tempered. I don't think that's really a judgment call - it's just the case. He may of course be concealing his true personality in his writings and films - presenting himself as more reasonable and eventempered than he really is - but it's that image that we are talking about anyway, true ? The ascription of "vitriolic", in particular, seems to be projection by its usual ascribers (the OP is fine example) - a remarkably common feature of criticism of Dawkins, for some reason. But meanwhile, those who are feeling surrounded and beleaguered by "evangelical atheists" can take comfort, at least in the US, from the obvious trends and circumstances of life. In a world in which criminals get special considerations and more lenient treatment if they have found God, and the daily newspaper refers to toddlers as "Muslim" or "Christian" or "Jewish" children, and the observation that "Communism" appears to be a religion in some places is treated as outlandish, your worldview is quite safe.
Secular morals are as arbitrary. I doubt any secular country would hand over a political refugee for purported crimes without evidence of the crime, and yet we have NATO bombing Afghanistan for seven years for the Talibans refusal to do so.
I bet the communists did pretty well in communist countries too. I recall a joke from an Indian newspaper, when Nehru goes to visit Russia. He sees a row of people standing in line for rations and asks the Russian Premier who they are. The answer" These are the people of Russia" He sees a row of limousines with body guards, filled with well dressed opulent people. Who are these? He asks. "The servants of the people" is the response. I think that analogy probably applies as well to secular philosophy today.
