Religionists as Low-Hanging Fruit

In the "You Tube" thread, Tyson Russell recommended Richard Dawkins's Root of All Evil, a documentary about the irrationality of religion and religionists. In that same thread, Russell recommended a cartoon, which attacked a target (President Bush, actually) that was admittedly "low hanging fruit." I have to say that Dawkins does not achieve much more. Dawkins confronts (the now completely hetereosexual) Ted Haggard. Dawkins also tussles with priests at Lourdes and a secular Jew from New York who know lives as Jusef al Katta in Jerusalem. None of it is very deep. Dawkins goes after low-hanging fruit.(1)

It is pretty easy to attack a myriad of tenets on many grounds, and thereby to rattle the facade of religion. Dawkins speaks of the assumption of Mary. It is an easy point to make to a largely Christian audience, who, while not Catholic, at least understand who and what Mary was. You could do this to Hindus, but there would be no context for a television audience. What would be the point? Unless you want to write a big book, The Baseless Assertions of World Religions.(2) That would still leave the deeper problem of faith versus reason, which Dawkins never addresses.

It is more useful to assert than to contradict. Books like Road to Serfdom and Socialism have their place. Human Action achieves more of lasting value. There is nothing like that for the scientific method, for rational-empiricism, of which Objectivism is one kind, perhaps the best example.

(1) Dawkins does not go to the taproot, of course, because no one is allowed to attack Judaism. It would be trivial to show its seed as the mythology of Sumeria and move forward from there.

(2) I know that the universe had no creator. At the same time, it seems pretty clear to me that humanity is not the pinnacle of order. Beings more powerful "cooked the soup" which is planet Earth. Of course, I have only a thin, rationalist argument with circumstantial empirical evidence. So, as interesting as I find the hypothesis, this is not something that I am willing to got to the mattresses over.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/23, 5:02am)

Post 1

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 10:08pm

Michael,

I do love your way with words... "Religionists as low-hanging fruit" That's great!

:-)

As I understand it, Dawkins became an activist following 9-11 and decided that a major issue in today's world was that religions were given a free pass to say stupid things. They weren't being held to the same standards as any other field. And that this gave them a power and longevity they would not otherwise have earned.

Here is an article where he does attack Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

In 2006 he published The God Delusion - here is a description from Scientific American's review (copied from Amazon.com):

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, tells of his exasperation with colleagues who try to play both sides of the street: looking to science for justification of their religious convictions while evading the most difficult implications�the existence of a prime mover sophisticated enough to create and run the universe, "to say nothing of mind reading millions of humans simultaneously." Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates �through spiritons!�and where it resides. Dawkins is frequently dismissed as a bully, but he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand. No one who has witnessed the merciless dissection of a new paper in physics would describe the atmosphere as overly polite.

I like this active, hard-hitting, gloves off, approach. I want to see the day where political figures no longer say things like, "Let us pray." Or see countries make their women wear 'bee-keeper suits' - stoning them to death for adultry or see it as okay to throw wives on their husbands funeral pyres. If it we weren't so inured to it, we would see it as diagnosable - because it is crazy.

Post 2

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 11:09am

Thanks for the links (and links therefrom)! As you can see, I found a quotable quote for RoR's front page.

The Einstein-Bohr debates at the Solvay conferences demonstrate the social consequences of the scientific method. Einstein's supporters did not blow up the Carlsberg Brewery (http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-6/p12.html).

Einstein's greatest blunder lives on in 174,000 google hits -- but it was he who announced it. In fact, Dawkins tells the story of the old scientist who was proved wrong by a parvenu and immediately thanked him.

Alfred Wegener is a good example of a scientist whose correct ideas were rejected with some heated scorn. This, in the 20th century and over something literally as unemotional as a box of rocks. The most complete discussion was hosted by petroleum engineers because they had the most profitable use for a correct theory. Yet, despite lack of success with that idea, Wegener continued to teach and work as a meteorologist. He died conducting experiments in Greenland.

Overall, I believe that as interesting as it can be to erase the falsehoods of religion, more is to be gained by advancing the virtues of objectivism.

Post 3

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 10:32pm

Wiccans are not a big target these days, though they deserve to be tarred with the same brush we use on the Christians and Muslims and Jews. Dawkins make a big deal of the bronze age godfather in the sky, but the earth mother is not any better as a model of explanation and prediction. Wiccans do not like to admit that human sacrifice was as much a part of their religion as it was of the abrahamic cults.
Offical tallies ignore Wiccan -- though properly they belong under "indigenous."

Adherents.com estimates that there are one million Neopagans in the world today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism )

Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents. This listing includes both organized religions, which have unified belief codes and religious hierarchies, and informal religions, such as Chinese folk religions. For completeness, it also contains a category for the non-religious, although their views would not ordinarily be considered a religion.
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular 1.1 billion <-- atheist, agnostic, etc.
Hinduism: 1.0 billion
Chinese folk religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
Primal indigenous: 300 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Bah�'� Faith: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 200,000
Unitarian Universalism: 800,000
Rastafari: 600,000
Scientology: 500,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/24, 10:34pm)

Post 4

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 11:07pm

I agree. I think too many fellow atheists go after religious people just because they got a chip on their shoulder from feeling like they were 'lied' to, yet they don't realize it's not necessarily true that they were lied to, rather they were given bad data and made bad inferences from it. Ultimately, many atheists don't want to take responsibility for their own lack of reasoning and critical thinking earlier in their lives. Granted, a six year old kid doesn't have all the conceptual tools and experiences to make giant leaps in logic, but there's enough to question and to keep searching. So, blaming others for your own lack of searching makes you look weak in my opinion. That's why I stopped calling myself an atheist and more or less I just call myself a Naturalist when asked about the question of religion.

-- Bridget

Post 5

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 7:50am

I like languages and have learned several to some extent. I taught myself enough Tibetan to translate the inscriptions on Tibetan coins (http://www.coin-newbies.com/articles/tangka.pdf). I also studied ancient Greek. My first work was a new translation of The Treaty of Mytilene for Classical Numismatic Quarterly; and several of my articles for The Celator included my own translations of Plutarch, Aristophanes, etc. New Testament Greek is one route with alot of sign posts.

It is an article of faith among Roman Catholics that only the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts are the literal word of God. The Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome (Hieronymous), King James, NIV, Luther, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., are only GUIDES to the Holy Word for those who cannot read the original. (That is one reason why Catholics have always been told not to read the Bible themselves, but to rely on priests for guidance.) So, when a Protestant minister says that this or that is the "literal truth of the Bible" they are literally LYING.

Now, it might be said -- as some Fundamentalists do -- that the King James Version is the best English language translation. It may well be that, but it is not the original. How does a believer reconcile the many translations? Which ones might contain theological problems or simple errors. Catholics say, "Even the devil can quote scripture." Would it not be in the interests of the devil to create a false Bible, an erroneous translation? If so, which one would that have been? Political conservatives who are also religious fundamentalists warn of Bibles that call Mary "a young woman" as opposed to a "virgin." My sister and her husband are born again in Jesus and they are impervious to my warnings about the New International Version, claiming not to be able to understand KJV. Rather than chase Haggard around on evolution -- as Dawkins attempted to do -- I would have asked him how he decided which Bible his flock should read.

About translations of the Bible, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
Then treat yourself to this:
www.biblegateway.com/
and this:
www.ntgateway.com

And these are just ENGLISH translations... The so-called Old Testament itself was translated from the original Hebrew into Aramaic. Enjoying languages as I do, I have two different translations of Tao Te Ching and an "original" in facsimile. Everyone knows that the Qu'ran is not to be translated -- except that this is exactly the how that Holy Word of God came to be understood by the 190 million Muslims in Indonesia. It makes your head spin...

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/25, 7:52am)

Post 6

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 7:21pm

I read from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes at my Sister's funeral, held in a Catholic church. My Father pointed out that I could not use the King James Verison without the priest's permisssion. The Priest commented that you can't beat the KJV for style, and said he doubted I'd cause any doctrinal confusion.

As for diabolical scripture, m*slims claim that the Christian and Hebrew texts now existent are corrupt, even though we have texts older than the cutthroat's own words themselves. And has anyone heard of the Satanic Verses? Turns out old bloody-fingers Mo' was duped by Shaitan himself, and had to retract some "divinely" inspired verse. Mo' also let his scribe improvise when he suggested more poetic verbiage. When the scribe realized this meant he was making up God's words as he went along, the scribe abjured Mo' as a prophet. Can anyone guess what happened to the scribe?

Ted

(I have told Wiccans and Satanists that Objectivism is better, since it allows selfishness, but doesn't require all the funny get-up.)
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 2/25, 7:26pm)

Post 7

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 7:24pm

And Mike, my understanding is that the words of the holy texts are held by Catholics to be divinely inspired, not believed to be literally the words of God.

Post 8

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 9:39pm

I know someone who translates the original in Aramaic and tells me that there are many misconceptions as a result of the mis-translation - and of course he believes in his since he reads the Aramaic. I will say he made more sense than most religionists I have heard, which just shows that it probably was more reason based closer to its source than it became as translators added their own flourishes or biases.

I do like the idea of "Spiritons" -> I think I will use that one.

Post 9

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 8:17am

Yes - have the Lamsa translations myself, and prefer them to others.......

Post 10

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 8:18am

If some people are right, at least some of the "low-hanging fruit" just might fall off the tree on its own accord. Here is an article about a new Discovery Channel show. In it they claim that they may have found the burial site of Jesus, et al.

One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

I hope Geraldo Rivera isn't involved!

Post 11

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 7:35pm

Cancel Easter, they found the body.

Post 12

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 8:24pm

More likely, is where they buried him and some members of the family after his participation in the revolt and mass suicide at Masada......[assuming, of course, this all is legit ] ;-)

Post 13

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 12:04pm

Michael,

I agree with you on Dawkins. He is a bit of a trivialist.

I much, much, much prefer Sam Harris. THE END OF FAITH is the sort of stuff that really goes for the throat.

Post 14

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 8:34pm

Who, then, is buried in Grant's tomb?

I doubt the story of his family tomb is legitimate. They were Galileans, why would Joseph and Mary be buried in Jerusalem? Where are Jesus' siblings? Joseph is presumed to have died in Jesus' childhood. Did he buy a plot in Jerusalem, expecting Jesus one day to hit it big there? The ossuary story was shown to be a fraud quite rapidly. This story has been around, but under wraps for a long time. I will be very surprised if the evidence is at all convincing.

What I would like is a complete Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which could be authenticated much more easily, and which would be much more enlightening about the early movement.

Ted

Post 15

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 9:20pm

SOUR GRAPES

THIS IS NOT directed AT ANYONE !

Sour grapes is the false denial of desire for something sought but not acquired; to denigrate and feign disdain for that which one could not attain. This metaphor originated from the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop, where the protagonist fox fails to reach some grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreats, and says that the grapes are sour anyway. The phenomenon has been seen as a challenge to the rational-actor view within the social sciences, with its significance debated by scholars such as Jon Elster and Steven Lukes.
The phrase is sometimes also used to refer to one expressing, in an unsportsmanlike or ungracious way, anger or frustration at having failed to acquire something (i.e. being a "sore loser"), regardless of whether the party denies their desire for the item. Not including the denial of desire is technically a slipshod extension of the metaphor because it is inconsistent with the phrase's origin in the fable and the notion of the grapes being "sour". ^[1]

^{I'm strange or some would say weird or odd!}

^{Some would say this has nothing do do with the topic.}

^{But if you refute everything you can't comprehend then ?}

Post 16

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 10:02pm

SGS: "Sour grapes is the false denial of desire for something sought but not acquired; to denigrate and feign disdain for that which one could not attain.

I cannot achieve salvation. Therefore, ...
(... or did I spoil it by stating the obvious?)

On the other hand, religion could be sour grapes. "I cannot understand science and I am not making any money, therefore, faith and poverty are superior." (See The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.)

Post 17

Friday, March 9, 2007 - 10:08pm

Handsome Ted Keer asked: "Where are Jesus' siblings?"

NASB: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (NASB �1995)

GWT: Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary? Aren't his brothers' names James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? (GOD'S WORD�)

KJV: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

ASV: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?

BBE: Is not this the woodworker's son? is not his mother named Mary? and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

DBY: Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?

WEY: Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah?

WBS: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

WEB: Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Mary, and his brothers, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?

YLT: is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

http://bible.cc/matthew/13-55.htm

Why pick on just Christians?

Ganesha: The Elephant-God

All About the Most Popular Zoomorphic Hindu Deity
Ganesha � the elephant-deity riding a mouse � has become one of the commonest mnemonics for anything associated with Hinduism. This not only suggests the importance of Ganesha, but also shows how popular and pervasive this deity is in the minds of the masses.
The Lord of Success
The son of Shiva and Parvati, Ganesha has an elephantine countenance with a curved trunk and big ears, and a huge pot-bellied body of a human being. He is the Lord of success and destroyer of evils and obstacles. He is also worshipped as the god of education, knowledge, wisdom and wealth. In fact, Ganesha is one of the five prime Hindu deities (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and Durga being the other four) whose idolatry is glorified as the panchayatana puja.
http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa083000a.htm

In Hinduism, Ganesha refers to the "lord of the hosts," also spelled as Ganesa and Ganesh, often also referred to as Ganapati) - and is one of the most well-known and venerated representations of God (Brahman). He is the first born son of Shiva and Parvati, and the husband of Bharati, Riddhi and Siddhi. He is also called Vinayaka in Marathi, Malayalam and Kannada, Vinayagar and Pillayar (in Tamil), and Vinayakudu in Telugu. 'Ga' symbolizes Buddhi (intellect) and 'Na' symbolizes Vijnana (wisdom). Ganesha is thus considered the master of intellect and wisdom. He is depicted as a big-bellied, yellow or red god with four arms and the head of a one-tusked elephant, riding on, or attended to by, a mouse. He is frequently represented sitting down, with one leg raised in the air and bent over the other. Typically, his name is prefixed with the Hindu title of respect, 'Shree' or Sri. The cult of Ganesha is widely diffused, even outside of India. His devotees are called Ganapatya.The ganapati festival is celebrated with great enthusiasm and devotion throughout India but in Mumbai, the financial capital of the Country, the festival assumes a special significance because of the scale at which it is performed.

(Hmmm.... god of wisdom and intellect, worshipped in the financial districts...)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/09, 10:22pm)

Post 18

Saturday, March 10, 2007 - 5:42pm

I have not seen the Discovery show. Did anyone find it plausible or interesting?

Geza Vermes speculates that Jesus' brother James led a Jewish messianic sect that would not have accepted the paganizing influences of what became Chritianity in the rest of the empire once James and the rest of the "jews for Jesus" (to use a term anachronistically) were killed in the revolts. That is, the sect under James would not have accepted the renunciation of the Torah (Mosaic Law) that Peter & Paul accepted in Rome.

Ted

Post 19

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 1:47pm