This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Dawkins disgraces himself again

4 posts in this topic

Posted

Richard Dawkins disgraces himself again.

No, Dickhead Dawkins, us "useful idiots" do not say that religion had nothing to do with this attack (though there are other factors); what we DO say is that you cannot indict 1.6 billion Muslims for the actions of a handful of crazy people. What part of that is so hard for dirtbags like you and Sam Harris to grok? :noidea:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, well is not just Dawkins that makes these rushed claims. Family members, acquaintances, and anyone I have met randomly in the street, especially in my daily work which is going from house to house asking for a sum of money that goes to a charity fundation, falls to this; in my job I get to interact with some curious people, they usually make uninformed, very sure and hasty judgments about something, of late, about arabs, muslims, etc. The other day I was mocked by one because my beard (just that day the news had shown the Pakistani school shooting) resembled "those mad terrorist arabs" (said the elderly woman talking to me). I could have said that arabs are not the same as muslims, or moors, or islamics, etc, and that they themselves suffer from terrorism (90% of arab countries actually), but who cares.

It seems it is a human limitation and predisposition to generalize, it is called economy of thought, I think, in cognitive psychology. Since reality is so complex and the information is just too much for our petty brains, we make this hasty judgments and affirmations, to get around the world, survive. We are just too "stupid" or too practical, even the educated and well read, those that engage in critical thinking and are sensible enough to recognize their own intellectual constraints, cannot avoid that much this error... Even after decades of study and deconstruction, we yet see the earth still and the sun moving so to speak. I myself get taken aback at times to see how complicated everything is, I keep unlearning as time goes on. Religion is one of those complex and deep topics that are almost impossible to grasp in all its variables and branches, subtleties. So yeah, perhaps religion is a factor in violence, but also politics, an innate bias in humans to segregate and form groups, differences, economics, ideology, etc. To the contrary, religion may predispose people to make great changes in their life and aid others, so the examples can go both ways.

John Gray, in a review of a recent book by Karen Armstrong, comments the following about religion and violence:

The Renaissance is just one of several secular icons that Armstrong demolishes. Nothing is more commonplace than to read that Renaissance thinkers introduced a novel understanding of universal humanity. But Renaissance humanists were actually less sympathetic to the plight of indigenous peoples such as the Mesoamericans who had been violently subjugated than churchmen such as the Dominicans, who condemned the predatory behaviour of the conquistadores. “The philosophy of human rights,” Armstrong notes, “did not apply to all human beings.” In some ways, modern conceptions of rights were more inhuman than medieval religion. One of the founders of liberalism, John Locke, found it intolerable that the “wild woods and uncultivated waste of America be left to nature, without any improvement, tillage and husbandry”. Involved in his own right in the colonisation of the Carolinas, Locke “argued that the native ‘kings’ of America had no legal jurisdiction or right of ownership of their land”.

Again, the Spanish Inquisition is a notorious example of the violence of religion. There can be no doubt that it entailed hideous cruelty, not least to Jews who had converted to Christianity, often in order to save their lives, but who were suspected of secretly practising their faith and consequently, in some cases, burnt. Yet in strictly quantitative terms, the Inquisition pales in comparison to later frenzies of secular violence. Recent estimates of the numbers who were executed during the first 20 years of the Inquisition – “the most violent period in its long history”, according to Armstrong – range from 1,500 to 2,000 people. By contrast, about a quarter of a million people were killed in the Vendée (out of a population of roughly 800,000) when a peasant rebellion against the French Revolution was put down by republican armies in 1794. And some 17,000 men, women and children were guillotined in the purge that ended in July that year, including the man who had designed the new revolutionary calendar. It is indisputable that this mass slaughter had a religious dimension. In 1793 a Goddess of Reason was enthroned on the high altar at Notre Dame Cathedral; revolutionary leaders made great use of terms such as “credo”, “sacrament” and “sermon” in their speeches. As Armstrong puts it, “No sooner had the revolutionaries rid themselves of one religion than they invented another.”

The article:

Is religion to blame for history’s bloodiest wars?

From the Inquisition to Isis, religion is blamed for brutality. But violence is a secular creed too.

http://www.newstates...lambs-slaughter

Violence is a difficult and intricate phenomenon, hand waving and scapegoating is just preposterous

Edited by Paulus
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To preempt an argument that some on the political right might be tempted to make:

Some might argue that leftists--who are wont to argue that certain widespread social phenomena (e.g. misogyny) have roles in violent behavior, even if all those directly influenced by these phenomena aren't violent--who take issue with anti-Islamic sentiments are hypocrites. The difference is that misogyny, for instance, is always bad and thus can be condemned whether it induces violence or not. The same isn't true of Islam.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Great post, :paulus:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0