Review of Dawkins by Terry Eagleton

I admit that in my time ive been opposed to Richard Dawkins analysis of religion and all things theological, viciously disagreeing with his 'misunderstanding' of the subject. It seemed very clear to me that he (Root of all Evil) and others such as Jonathon Miller (The athiest tapes)are very closed minded and have preconseived agenders as their motives. But according to the now known 'facts' about the organised religions, it does beg the question; ''are they wrong?''. After all they are only sporting a closed minded approach as religious enclined people do!

Ultimatly two things need to be considered;does this only causes devision, and do they have a point?

In my experience too much time is spent in religious circles high lighting their differences with others, how to draw their members to themselves and eventually defeat the other groups(whatever way possible). Meanwhile the real purpose and fundermental principles of their religion is over looked, compramised and/or forgotten. Also religion has a nasty habit of being a talking mans game, if you know what I mean!

Try Buddhism.

Except that evangelistic Buddhists are all but unheard of, their purpose is clear from the start, and continually reiterated up front, except for a notorious tendency to sit quietly to meditate.

--- RH.

The fundamental principles of all religions is to adhear to the conduct of its master such as peace, self sacrifice for anothers well-being and moral purity of righteousness, and I suppose that secondly is the 'promise' as a reward of that conduct. If the second is missing then it changes the insentive to do the first. My Dads advise is ''be true to yourself'', which in itself is an insentive.

But can human nature realy aspire to moral peaks that are expected. The Bible always emphsises the importance of being the 'light of the world' and 'ambassadors of Christ', but hippocracy is all I see. I dont see any evidence for reincarnation. When we die are we just shadows and dust? But what of the Spirit and Soul, or the conscience?

Buddhism specifically proposes the opposite:

Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.

( Dhammapada, s 166 )




and what a terribly divisive notion that is!

"This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

( Hamlet, Act I. Scene III )


Shakespeare's invention of the idea that people could think for themselves was revolutionary in its day, the sort of thinking to give rise directly to the English Civil War.



Buddhism recommends the Middle Way, which is rather the antithesis of the moral peaks and division.



There is a great deal of hypocrisy to be seen in Buddhism, and hypocrisy in general fascinates me more than anything else about the personalities encountered from day to day, but that is them, a personality issue rather than a religious issue. I don't see that the inconsistency derives from any religious premises per se, more in fact because of an endemic ignorance of them.



How far did you look, for the evidence?
Seeing that other people do see the evidence, that may be as good a place as any to begin the search.

Buddhism proposes re-birth rather than reincarnation, a difference which is not so easy to comprehend according to the presumptions of philosophies descended rather from the Greeks.

So as not to veer too far off the topic, has Dawkins had anything to say about Buddhism?

On occassion I have proposed that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion, and should be seen as such.

I have not yet though noticed the arrival of Siddhartha Gotama in the relevant section here.

-- RH.

Firstly, the 'be true to yourself' quote is in my oppinion the heart of true moral charactor defient of what other coruption others will sporn-the civil war was actually a good thing. Ive been 'searching' for evidence for years related to all religions, the situation with Buddhism is that though it is quite different to the common religions, and can be seen as a philosophy the crux is missing a qualified destination. There is 'evidence' to support the remarkable events of the old testiment, but on the whole it still has gaps, faith in something doesnt make it true!

I dont mean any offence, but Satanism and its off shoot religions have much the same basic doctrines as you've described. I recognise there is obviously more to it than ive seen, so I would firstly question its origins.

I cant recall anything said about Buddhism by Dawkins.

What is a "qualified destination"?

The trouble with destinations is what to do should you happen to get there, if not to start all over again.

A qualified destination is like a theological 'certanty' if you will, such as if God exists then so must heaven i.e. being in the presence of God, but the destnation of Buddhism semes to loosly depend on a supposed certanty. I mean, reasoned arguement can discount 're-birth' by known 'facts' for example and would need a larger leep of faith.

Against boredom even the gods struggle in vain.

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 48

In the biblical theological view, we would certainly know what to do when we get there because on one hand we are prepeared to go there, and the other, we was always ment to be there.

Oh dear, what a sorry misapprehension.

I suppose that the destination of Buddhism may reasonably be said to be the aleviation of human suffering which would this depend upon the supposed certainty of human suffering.

Buddhism otherwise advises not to waste time on imponderables, one of the imponderables especially cited as not to be pursued being the precise working of karma, hence rebirth, which would certainly not be a supposed certainty in view of Buddhism's ultimate objective of escaping from rebirth.

Nor did Buddhism ever pretend to rely upon reasoned argument. Much of it is unashamedly paradoxical and poetic.

--- RH.

Im sorry, I admit I have made some false assumptions of Buddhism based on the facts thats that know about it, being very few. I apologise, as I too realy dislike when people base their arguments on their flawed understanding of a subject, its the most aggrivating thing.

That does make sence, the 'aleviation of human suffering' which is polarised by the 'fact' of human suffering. May I ask that if the final destination is to 'alevate from suffering' where would that be, in your assumptions. A type of Nirvana probably.

Going back to the hypocricy part, most people define this as 'preaching one thing and doing another', and I suppose for worldly applications I would generally agree, but I see it in most religious circumstances as 'a paucity of exceptions, generally because of a lack of space that would otherwise fill several foot-high tomes'. The oxymoronic law of the world could be fit here; 'every thing has exceptions'.
And unless I'm misinterpreting what you said, pilgrimshost, did you say that the Bible states that reincarnation is real? It states the direct opposite.
And perplexity, what exactly is an 'imponderable'? If somethings truly are 'imponderable', we could not have the ability to wile away our time by pondering these, because they are 'imponderable', savvy? And pondering 'something that we would be able to comprehend but not understand', as I assume you mean, would not be wasting our time. We may at least get a more full understanding of this thing, even if it is not entire. So there would be at least some worth in doing so.

Sorry if theres any comfussion Ragnell, but could your quote me to show where I said that, I didnt mean to claim that.

That would be post... #4. But I think I did misinterpret you. Since you spoke of the Bible in one sentance and then (without changing paragraphs) went on about reincarnation, I thought you were still on the same thought. But were you really on a different one? I think you were...

Hello all,

This is a very interesting discussion but I am wondering if anyone has come to the same place as myself reguarding in particular the religions of the middle east.I see all three of these religions as rather toxic and they are all from one root.They all have a different name for the same biblical god and so they cannot get along.

These religions it seems to me are not examples of vehicles of virtue but perhaps vehicles of violence,look at their histories soaked in blood.Why some people can believe in something so contary to reason when underlined with hatred,violence and war is beyond me.Perhaps there is indeed no hope for mankind if he/she cannot identify the on coming truck which is about to run over them as a threat.

The scientific,intellectual community is trying to disarm these dangerous institutions, but only as a result of these said institution drawing first blood.These institutions wish access to the classroom to teach their childish tripe in the science classroom.Sorry,I have a bit of passion around the topic.I welcome all criticism of these faiths, it is long over due.The ill founded respect we have show them in the past,was a mistake, and only makes them more aggressive.


I am headed to the light on God's back porch!!

boagie:

You say that "These religions it seems to me are not examples of vehicles of virtue but perhaps vehicles of violence,look at their histories soaked in blood."

In my opinion boagie the history of violence is not a 'religious' history. Rather the history of violence is a human history. Biblical religion is something discovered or made by human beings and it was discovered long after human on human violence was invented.

There is no reason for me to believe that if or when religion disappears from the face of the earth violence will also disappear.

In fact there are many new superstitions arising out of post-Christian cultures. And these new superstitions will, I am sure, lead to fresh and perhaps very exciting motives to commit even more and more bloodshed of innocent little lambs.

In fact I would add, that the wars among nations that have spilled the largest quantities of innocent blood were wars that were begun by those who were against Christianity, eg. Jacobins, Bolshevics, Nazziss, et. al. These were secular blood-letting festivals i.e. WARS. Marxism was overtly "rational" and atheist and broke the Guiness book of records for the number of millions of innocents murdered.


It seems to me that whenever there comes into existence a set of "virtues" (such as the virtues of common sense rationalism) around which a group of people organize their 'society', their 'community', their 'nation-state', their 'city-state', their particular "-ism"

then once they are gathered around these their "virtues" they commence to assault, murder, and commit mass destruction and total blood letting in the name of their "rational-isms".

The real question seems to be: How can you organize human beings without also organizing their capacity to commit violence???

The answer is, of course, you can't. You must first turn them into space aliens and then into great gods and then finally into angels.

Thank you.

--Pythagorean

Pythagorean,

I give you that,religions do not have a monopoly on violence,but man has been killing his fellow man for not having the proper theology for a very long time.The mindlessness involved in accepting these belief systems frightens me,how could such mindlessness not prove deadly.

It is still politically incorrect to shout that the king has no clothes, but I believe numerous voices are now being heard which will encourage even the fainthearted to speakout.Christianity in American drew first blood,quite frankly I am glad they did,they wish to be a political force.Well,now they shall be treated as any other power hungry group serving its own self-interests. Amen/so be it!

I am headed for the light on God's back porch!!

Then the only logical conclusion regarding the American Christian is to slaughter 'em!?

Really! You must be a Muslim---------yes?A believer in or follower of Islam!