Dawkins’ Faith

The egalitarian religion finds the ways of the infidel difficult to understand.

ADDED: Harsh-but-fair comment on Dawkins by ‘aisaac’ (2013/10/31, 7:00 am): “Not only does he not dare to tell the truth, he doesn’t even keep his mouth shut about things he doesn’t dare to tell the truth about.”

April 18, 2014admin 26 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : ,

26 Responses to this entry

  • Handle Says:

    Well, to be fair, he is saying that he finds his noble-lying co-confessionists difficult to understand. He wrote a whole book claiming that he understood his infidels better than they understood themselves.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… he is saying that he finds his noble-lying co-confessionists difficult to understand” — if you take his atheism to be more religiously serious than his egalitarianism. This seems untenable to me.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 18th, 2014 at 12:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dawkins’ Faith | Reaction Times Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on April 18th, 2014 at 12:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bichard Says:

    It’s hard to sympathize with a total wuss who gets punked by ugly broads in elevators.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 18th, 2014 at 1:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • AWC Says:

    While not an atheist per se, Cicero certainly argued that religion was healthy for the masses. Hume makes a similar case. Dawkins suffers from projection where he thinks that the entire planet consists of upper-class, higher-IQ outbred NW Europeans.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    For whom the lack of religion doesn’t appear to be doing any favors either, though its hard to disentangle from the general Cathedral mess.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Dawkins doesn’t lack religion, his religion just has the same attitude Christianity has to other religions.
    It’s kind of ironic actually.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 18th, 2014 at 1:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    ‘Religion’ can’t really be so easily extricated from anything else in most ‘human’ cultures. The notions of theism & atheism are corollaries of consumerism, the proto-commodification of that which always exceeds any system: a game of ‘determinations’ enabling acceptance & rejection, positions & negations: such ‘delimitations of the divine’ are themselves at play, ‘belief’, ‘rejection’ & ‘scepticism’ being only figurations ensuing from another complicit determination, that of the ‘subjective’.

    The secular spaces of ‘worldly’ knowledge that opened up with the ‘Enlightenment’ are merely retreats into theological neutrality, religious irrelevance, the distillate of ‘worldly’ consensus & ‘universality’. Yet such notions of ‘world’ are themselves traversed by theology: all narratives of the ‘mundane’ are beset by anxieties of origin & conclusion, the return of constitutive forces out of which those ‘worlds’ occurred.
    The irony of selling the secular, or Modernity, is that its power is predicated on provisioning ‘mana’, as it were, it has to fulfill the earlier tasks of ‘religious administration’ as ‘bureaucratic administration’. Both are reliant on the exploitation of social structuration, the harnessing of the ‘masses’ to regimes of productivity, ‘in order’ to produce ‘surpluses’. They are different variations on the same game of provision, they both resort to rhetorics of ‘necessity’, ‘meaning’, whilst simultaneously parroting mantras of an unspecified ‘freedom’, all the while looking for enclaves of cartoon-like ‘authority’ & vestigial structures of injunction, the opposition to which seems to constitute the only content of their vague parrotings. It’s difficult to see any worthwhile understanding coming out of these historico-political surfaces.

    “It is the desperate moment when we discover that this empire, which had seemed to us the sum of all wonders, is an endless, formless ruin, that corruption’s gangrene has spread too far to be healed by our sceptre, that the triumph over enemy sovereigns has made us the heirs of their long undoing. Only in Marco Polo’s accounts was Kublai Khan able to discern, through the walls and towers destined to crumble, the tracery of a pattern so subtle it could escape the termites’ gnawing.” Italo Calvino

    It could be that ‘Modernity’, which was only ever an empirical twist or tactic on prior religious regimentations, perhaps even their continuing hegemony, has ‘run out of steam’? The social clubs of theocracy, technocracy, all the conclaves of mediocrity, have had their historical say.
    Time for the mystics, the indeterminate, indefinable Way?

    Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton A Quest Beyond the Limits of the Ordinary – YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXpndnjHvqw

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    I remember a very instructive thing that I saw when I was in college. I was taking a class taught by the head of the departments of both philosophy and religious studies, and somewhere near the start of it, she gave a lecture summarizing various definitions of the word ‘religion’, and the problems with each of them. The conclusion was that, although no one quite knows what the word means, people keep using it anyway.

    I was smart enough by then to ask why they hadn’t given up on it and gone on to something that actually cleaved reality at something even vaguely resembling one of its joints.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    “I was smart enough by then to ask why they hadn’t given up on it and gone on to something that actually cleaved reality at something even vaguely resembling one of its joints.”

    Was the answer, “Because History.”? How in the world does one discuss the wide expanse of European History without using something like the word ‘religion’? One might as well use the word they used themselves, and which generations of Historians have used.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    What is it they say about defining jazz? If one has to ask, then one doesn’t know, etc..
    Polysemia is a common feature of language, context & modality of use usually provide sufficient scope, specification and precision.
    As for ‘Reality’, I think it’s a bad word these days, the way it’s used, a basic, bog-standard mystification & reactive in the worst possible sense. Speculative Realism is a sad joke that can only index its own ignorance.

    “cleaved reality at something even vaguely resembling one of its joints.”

    You think carpentry accesses the ‘real’? Why not? lol

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Carpentry has nothing to do with it – the “joint” refers to a natural point of separation for use in defining subsets of things.

    peppermint Reply:

    this is a point also made by Carlyle in the eighth of the Latter-Day Pamphlets

    [Reply]

    RiverC Reply:

    As we often said, if ‘atheist’ is a meaningful category, then ‘theist’ is.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 18th, 2014 at 2:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Joël Cuerrier Says:

    Nietzsche also did conclude just that and he was a bit more serious about these things than Dawkins.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 18th, 2014 at 3:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    Because the hyper-protestant religion focuses so much on doctrinal statements in the forms of affirmations / negations, atheists tend to conflate ‘god belief’ with ‘single god belief’ on the one hand and ‘god belief’ with ‘religion’ on the other. When in college, I labored with difficulty to esplain this to the Secular Student Alliance members, many of whom took it as an article of faith that being an ‘atheist’ was merely a negation and as such was not a concrete thing of any kind and an automatic disentangler from all manners of faith, religion, belief, superstition, etc.

    Religion on the one hand seems to be a concrete part of all human societies, anthropologists recognize it as a sphere of human activity that is essential. Escaping it is no more possible than escaping kinship, which is to say, impossible but also eminently possible for the truly courageous. It is not merely enough to ‘stop believing in god(s)’ or ‘accepting that there is nothing metaphysical’; it requires a renunciation of human ties, from which arise all of the trappings of human society, religion included.

    What they really want, if they wanted what they wanted, is to be unbound, as ‘re-ligio’ seems to relate to binding whether in healing, by ritual, or in servitude.

    Free yourself, Dawkins, from your humanity! For that is the only way to escape God.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 19th, 2014 at 1:33 am Reply | Quote
  • The time is always now, and the time for mysticism is now | vulture of critique Says:

    […] http://www.xenosystems.net/dawkins-faith/ […]

    Posted on April 19th, 2014 at 8:01 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @Erik & nydwracu

    “Carpentry has nothing to do with it – the “joint” refers to a natural point of separation for use in defining subsets of things.”

    I knows, was a bit of levity.
    Was trying to hint that the hunt for micro-categorical precision might be misplaced when it comes to ‘religion’. Not that one shouldn’t try, but it’s unlikely to give clarity, but who knows, I can sense a route through that, that could work, but it’s not necessarily the best or easiest way, & would require detours through more general consideration, anyway, if it’s to work. Really, one shouldn’t neglect anything, but there are more efficient ways. We’re all different, though, different routes for different folks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 19th, 2014 at 9:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    Progressivism is demonic religion.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    … at best.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I laughed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 20th, 2014 at 12:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @RiverC

    “As we often said, if ‘atheist’ is a meaningful category, then ‘theist’ is.”

    The operative word there is ‘meaning’. It’s always the court of final appeal.
    What does ‘meaning’ signify?

    [“Derrida: I try to write (in) the space in which is posed the question of speech and meaning. I try to write the question: (what is) meaning to say? Therefore it is necessary in such a space, and guided by such a question, that writing literally mean nothing.” Derrida, Positions]

    The problem isn’t meaning in itself, but the evaluation of meaning.
    For instance, an atheist would agree with you, saying that ‘theism’ comes under the category of ‘nonsense’, ‘mythic fantasy’, the absurd’, etc..

    [“Not that it is absurd in the way that absurdity has always been in solidarity
    with metaphysical meaning. It simply tempts itself, tenders itself, attempts to keep itself at the point of the exhaustion of meaning.” Derrida, Positions]

    The ‘atheist’ grounds himself, essentially, in a structure of easily verifiable referentialities, ’empirical presences’ Derrida might say, & refuses to consider anything beyond what such a structure, & its logics, readily, & (demon)strably, suggest. Anything beyond his favourite (interpretative) structure, out of the purview of his ‘Reality’, he scornfully dismisses as meaningless, nothing.

    [“To risk meaning nothing is to start to play, and first to enter into the play of differance which prevents any word, any concept, any major enunciation from coming to summarize and to govern from the theological presence of a center the movement and textual spacing of differences.” Derrida, Positions]

    ‘Reality’ is just a selection of preferred or persuasive rubrics constituting a regime, a disciplinary litany configuring worship of that arcane god, BetterOff. Knowledge of this god, & application of said knowledge, is helled (sic) to lead to an apotheosis, an identification with BetterOff, an ecstatic business.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Correction: Knowledge of this ‘Reality’, through its disciplinary litany, & application of said knowledge, is helled (sic) to lead to an apotheosis, an identification with BetterOff, an ecstatic business.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 20th, 2014 at 10:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    ecce nova facio omnia

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 20th, 2014 at 7:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nicholas Pell Says:

    Some things are good for the rabble and other things are good for the… not rabble. Why is this so hard to understand? Neither egalitarians or proponents of “hierarchy” seem to grasp it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 24th, 2014 at 4:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    Britain is a ‘post-Christian’ country says former Archbishop…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27177265

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 27th, 2014 at 10:56 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment