Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted January 18, 2007.


In the last few years, Americans have seen the harm that results when political decisions are made in the name of religion. Now, the non-believers are fighting back.
011807story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

America's Frightening Alzheimer's Epidemic
Rebecca Hyman, AlterNet

CNN's Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
Tony Newman, AlterNet

U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal"
Karin Zeitvogel, Middle East Online

Election 08: Misogyny I Will Not Miss
Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?
Robert Parry, Consortium News

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
Huffington Post

Three Things That Won't Help End the Foreclosure Crisis
Dean Baker, Liz Chimienti, Center for Economic and Policy Research

More stories by Terrence McNally

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In the last few years, Americans have seen the dark side of religion. The events of 9/11 brought home the extremes to which some radical Muslims would go to defeat infidels and attain virgins. At home, we've seen assaults on the separation of Church and State and attacks on the teaching of evolution and the distribution of life-saving condoms. And now, it appears the godless are fighting back.

During the recent holiday season, there were prominent articles about atheism in The New York Times and the UK's Financial Times and Telegraph, and a segment on NPR's All Things Considered. Richard Dawkins debated the existence of God on the London chat show, The Sunday Edition. Dawkins' book, The God Delusion was a top 10 bestseller on the lists of both the New York Times and LA Times, number one at Amazon UK and Amazon Canada, and number two at Amazon.com. Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris was recently an equally successful bestseller.

A group calling itself "The Rational Response Squad," has launched The Blasphemy Challenge, a campaign to entice young people to publicly renounce belief in the God of Christianity. Participants who videotape their blasphemy and upload it to YouTube will receive a free DVD of The God Who Wasn't There, a number one bestselling independent documentary at Amazon.com.

Richard Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, popularized the gene-centered view of evolution and introduced the term "meme." In January 2006, Dawkins hosted on the UK's Channel 4 a two-part documentary on the dangers of religion, entitled (against his wishes, I might add) The Root of All Evil. His newest book, The God Delusion, is an international bestseller.

Below is a shortened version of Terrence McNally's recent interview with Richard Dawkins. You can also listen to the audio of the full interview.

Terrence McNally: When and how did you become an atheist?

Richard Dawkins: I suppose it was discovering Darwinism. I was confirmed into the Church of England at the age of thirteen. I then got pretty skeptical about it, but retained some respect for the argument from Design -- the argument that says living things look as though they've been designed, so they probably have been. I then learned the real scientific explanation for why they look as though they've been designed, and that was enough for me. I lost my religious faith pretty much then.

TM: What do you think explains the current interest in atheism?

RD: I would love to think that there really is something moving -- a shifting in the tectonic plates, and, at last, in America, atheism is becoming respectable; that one can now come out of the closet and proclaim one's self.

I got certain indications of that on my recent tour of the United States. I got packed houses everywhere I went. Of course, I was preaching to the choir, but I was impressed by how large the choir is and how enthusiastic. Over and over again people came up to me afterwards and said how grateful they were that I and Sam Harris and others were finally speaking out and saying the things that they wanted to say, but perhaps didn't feel able to.

TM: You compare the experience of atheists to that of gays in the fairly recent past. Do you think that's an apt comparison?

RD: I think the parallel is a valid one. Until recently nobody dared admit that they were gay. Now, they're rather proud to do so. Nowadays it's impossible to get elected to public office if you're an atheist, and I think that's got to change. The Gay Rights Movement raised consciousness. It initiated the idea of Gay Pride. I think we've got to have Atheist Pride, Atheist Consciousness. I think it's pretty clear that a fair number of members of Congress must be lying because not a single one of them admits to being an atheist. The probability that in a sample of over 500 well-educated members of American society, not a single one of them is an atheist, statistically, that is highly unlikely. So, some of them, at least, have got to be lying, and I think it's a tragedy that they have to.

TM: Could you address a couple of reactions that I see in the media, either to atheism, in general, or to you and your book? One, people ask why are atheists so angry?

RD: That's a very curious misperception. We get accused of being angry or of being intolerant, but, if you were to look at critiques of one political party by the other... when Democrats criticize Republicans, or Republicans criticize Democrats, nobody ever says, "You're being intolerant of Republicans, or angry." It's just normal, robust argument.

People have gotten so used to the idea that religion must be immune to criticism that even a very mild and gentle criticism of religion comes across as angry and intolerant. That's yet another piece of consciousness raising that we've got to undertake.

TM: You and others are accused of being arrogant, condescending. What would you say to that?

RD: Exactly the same thing. Nobody says that a Democrat who dismisses Republican ideas is arrogant. They just assume that's what politicians do. They attack each other's ideas with good, robust give and take. That's exactly what people like me and Sam Harris are doing with respect to religion. Once again, the accusation of arrogance comes about because religion has acquired this weird protection that you're not allowed to criticize.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: richard dawkins, god, atheism, religion, fundamentalism

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
religion as its commonly understood is evil
Posted by: wyldcyde on Jan 18, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Agreed that in so far as religion is defined as a system of beliefs and strict requirements, it manifests in all sorts of ugly ways. Christians no exception.
Mr Dawkins has generalized too much though since many christians including myself identify very little with the likes of Bush and Pat Robertson. I can be a radical christian but radical in my love and care and understanding, not in my anger, hate and judgemental mentality.
I'm sure he would dislike all atheists being mislabelled as angry and bitter at God letting them down since many simply feel atheism is the correct logical and rational choice.
I hope people listen to people like this though because he is speaking to a growing audience... more and more people are disillusioned with religion myself included and thats good because what is commonly known as religion is full of death whereas there is real life in Christ. Not to say people who dont believe in Christ have no life... all are made in the image of God, thankfully not in the image of religion or atheism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» BALONEY! Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: BALONEY! For real. Balogny!!! Posted by: justncase80
The new priests and the old priests
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 18, 2007 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Peter Freuchen's 1905 "Book of the Eskimos", he is talking to an Inuit native who has recently encountered a missionary, and who relates this tale to him:

"Now that I know of Your God and Your Savior, I must follow their rules or go to Hell, yes?", asks the Inuit.

"Yes, that is so," replies the missionary, "but eternal paradise awaits you".

"Yes," muses the Inuit, "but tell me, if I had never heard of them, would I still go to Hell?"

The missionary pauses, "Well...No, no if you had no knowledge of the glorious truth, you would not go to Hell."

The Inuit looks up, and asks, "Well, then why did you tell me of them!?"

....

The actual answer to that is to set up fear in the hearts of the Church's subjects; nothing like fear of eternal damnation and the promise of eternal salvation, all at the whim of the plantation owner, to keep the slaves in line. The word "Propaganda", by the way, was derived from a religious insitution dedicated to "the Propagation of the Faith"

Still, most people don't really examine what it means 'to believe'; questions like "do you believe in tables and chairs" are actually worth asking...grasshopper. I suppose it's an old notion, but your brain just recieves signals - so how do you know you're not a disconnected set of nerves floating in a tank somewhere - or a program in a computer, for that matter? How could you tell? You couldn't - but you could start doing experiments, for example, and you could compare the results of those experiments with others, couldn't you?

I wouldn't worry so much about the last vestiges of old and bloody religions. All now worship at the altar of material consumerism, spurred on by the high priests of Madison Avenue. Have faith in the Almighty dollar, and ye shall be saved! It is a religion - one that still relies on propaganda - and the crusaders are once again in the Middle East, seeking levereged advantage and control of commodities in lieu of fresh souls for the Church.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» another Inuit story Posted by: aaronfetty
On the Political Funtion of Religion
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jan 18, 2007 1:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion."
BERTRAND RUSSELL

I think there is fundamental and persistent confusion about the role of religion with respect to politics: that fundamentalism drives bad policy. If fact it seems to me it is bad policy (driven in fact by the pursuit of power) that causes leaders to act like fundamentalists. In the main, I believe, faith is exploited by those who seek power as a cheap way of getting “the mob” to acquiesce for what they otherwise wouldn’t. For example, US Middle East policy is quite rational -- if still subject to tactical errors – from the point of view of enhancing America’s hegemonic dominance over the globe (a goal stated explicitly in Project for a New American Century Literature). [NB- the business press is also very rational: cf. The Wall Street Journal, e.g. I.e. the powers that be whether political or corporate do not betray much sentiment or superstition; some, but only on a par with enlightened types generally.] The usefulness of the exploitation of superstition for arbitrary political ends has been consciously understood since Machiavelli wrote in praise of this method, and has been used in practice (perhaps unconsciously) at least since the Church was founded.

My guess is that Bush is, like his father, an Atheist. But, manifestly, sane rational people aren’t going to buy into the provided rationalizations (and telling the truth is obviously a mistake). On the other hand, by offering to make homosexuality illegal (or something along those lines) it’s possible to capitalize on a significant minority who are pretty much guaranteed to lend support. Unfortunately, without a state religion, appealing exclusively to Christian Fundamentalists in a relatively diverse society may well backfire, doing harm both to the Christian Fundamentalists, but also the political program. That is, I believe, why so much energy is dedicated to creating a secular ideology – that’s why you say in school you have to recite “the Pledge” and told to care whether your team wins “state” etc. Hitherto ideology has served both parties well. Unfortunately Bush’s exclusive attention to Christian Fundamentalists and lack of respect for PR – i.e. by behaving like a fundamentalist and treating everyone with contempt -- he may well have done irreparable harm to this system – one may hope he has at any rate.

A final note: people in Brittan are quite smug about their lack of religious faith. One wonders, with all the advantages of atheism, why they tolerate a Christian Fundamentalist PM and why they support America’s crusade. Perhaps there’s more to transcending our political problems than slaying Bertrand Russell’s dragon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truth? Strewth!
Posted by: polyquat50 on Jan 18, 2007 1:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"RD: I care passionately about the truth. I believe that the truth about whether there is a God in the Universe is possibly the most important truth there is. I happen to think it's false, but I think it's a really important question."

I am a scientist. As I understand it, science is about doubt and probability: never about truth. Truth is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.

We haven't even worked out what truth is, let alone work out is truth.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. — Voltaire

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes truth Posted by: drblack
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: babs
» RE: Yes truth Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Truth? Strewth! Posted by: bornxeyed
» Nontheism? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Nontheism? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Nontheism? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Nontheism? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Nontheism? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Nontheism? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
To whom it may concern: Your god is much better than my god.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jan 18, 2007 2:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we just leave it at that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is this guy?
Posted by: gjames on Jan 18, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Richard Dawkins? Isn't that the dude who screwed Ms Garrison? Man, I sure wouldn't take advice from that guy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who is this guy? Posted by: geege
» RE: Who is this guy? Posted by: gjames
Terrence McNally interviews Richard Dawkins
Posted by: calm on Jan 18, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Terrence McNally interviews Richard Dawkins
(MP3 Format)
http://64.27.15.184/parchive/mp3/kpfk_061218
_170200bts_suzi.mp3

KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles
http://www.kpfk.org
http://www.temcnally.livedigital.com
http://richarddawkins.livedigital.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Challenge to Moderate Religion
Posted by: dbrown on Jan 18, 2007 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dawkins observes, following Sam Harris, that "moderate religion makes the world safe for extremist religion by teaching that religious faith is a virtue, and by the immunity to criticism that religion enjoys." I think that is true, and it is true also from a Christian point of view. Reinhold Niebuhr, the theologian, used to point out that in the biblical tradition the worst sins are religious in character and that religious dogmatism is demonic. What follows is not necessarily that all religion is to be rejected; it can also follow that progressive religion, if it is to be worthwhile, must be clear about its religious reasons for rejecting intolerance of other views and for absolutizing any point of view. The religious reason is expressed "confessionally" in the biblical statement that "God's ways are not our ways and God's thoughts are not our thoughts." But that confessional disposition, to be sustained, requires a compelling religious conceptuality. Until progressive religion in our time moves beyond its "identify by negation" (we are not "un"-believing atheists, and we are not "true" believing right-wingers), and until it can state in a comprehensive way what it believes and why and what these religious beliefs entail--until then, Dawkins and Harris are right to condemn it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Intolerance Posted by: oregoncharles
From a Buddhist point of view...
Posted by: jack alexander on Jan 18, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't force ourselves to believe in a supernatural 'god'. The way I see it is we can take god or not and still be Buddhists. The main aim is to live right, make the right decisions, not hurt anyone, and certainly not judge anyone but ourselves.

The current god concepts of the other religions are for induction of fear in the masses and are basically political in nature.

On another note I find this link very interseting:
http://godisimaginary.com/
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

art form
Posted by: bluepilgrim on Jan 18, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Beethoven's 7th symphony and find it inspiring -- but I don't beleive it's "true". Religion should be an art form, not a true or false quiz or a belief system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: art form Posted by:
» RE: art form Posted by: Lauren
» Art? I think not! Posted by: Tatarize
» RE: Art? I think not! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Art? I think not! Posted by: Tatarize
Garry
Posted by: garry minor on Jan 18, 2007 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kaneh bosm!!!!!!!
The Word of God through revelation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Garry THC Ministry fan Posted by: Lauren
» ...down by the rivers of Babylon Posted by: thoughtcriminal
So moderate religion makes the world safe for fanatics?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 18, 2007 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't that like saying that science makes the world safe for Dr. Frankensteins? How about anatomy makes the world safe for serial murderers?

Just as science condemns such perversions, so moderate religion is an alternative to True Believers. Dawkins needs to get his head out of his test tubes.

Yes, we are in the midst of another American Religious Revival. We've been here before; at least three times in our history that I am aware of. It's like hula hoops; they'll never go away. Fashions come and go. Moderate religion is not a fashion. Aggressive atheism is now in fashion? Yawn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You do realize Posted by: ailiergauche
» It's not a personal attack Posted by: ailiergauche
» By the way Posted by: ailiergauche
BLOOD MONEY GOD
Posted by: Hal on Jan 18, 2007 4:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“In the last few years, Americans have seen the dark side of religion. The events of 9/11 brought home the extremes to which some radical Muslims would go to defeat infidels and attain virgins. At home, we've seen assaults on the separation of Church and State…”

Is that a fact? Gee…

But it so happens that evil genius and cave man Osama was a CIA asset (codename Tim Osman). Old Tim (Osama) was visited as recently as the summer of 2000 at an American hospital in Dubai by his CIA handlers. After all, al-Qaeda was a CIA creation funded to north of half a billion dollars by the House of Saud in bed with every top political snake from DC to London. And if old Bin Laden was a suspect CIA shill what of his alleged cave boys? (some of whom seem to be mysteriously very alive and well)…

We won’t get into a naked 911 “Commission” cover-up that more than 70% of Americans don’t buy.

Religion has often been used to inflame the gullible to do the most grotesque and immoral of acts on behalf of “God” and “divine right”.

“Through centuries of change, we have now reduced our natural tendency to kill each other…”

Is that so? What about near 200 million killed from the beginning of the 20th century due to corporate instigated world wars, coups and bogus revolutions?

Killing is a cash crop.

What McNally and Dawkins won’t touch is the fact that mindless jingo “patriotism” and sandbox nationalism that – for example – swept most of America post 911 is equal to the worst of violent blind faith religions. And this was sham faith deliberately pumped by a mockingbird circus MSM and its cathouse Washington complex. That kind of secular carny religion is responsible for bogus “war on terror” where more than half a million dead Iraqis and well over 3000 Americans (the statistics are cooked with everything else) were cut down for the usual blood soaked corporate cashbox motives.

Shall we talk delusion?

Delusion is blind trust that religious-psychological brainwash is different than what is sold out of lapdog Washington and MSM carnival barkers.

Delusion is a fascist spider hole where the only God worshipped kills from the alter of oligarch rule that pretends to be democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BLOOD MONEY GOD Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: BLOOD MONEY GOD Posted by: Lauren
» RE: BLOOD MONEY GOD Posted by: geege
» RE: BLOOD MONEY GOD Posted by: Hal
» Osama's Epithets Posted by: LeaderofMen
Rather Unfortunate Article
Posted by: steveruff on Jan 18, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Richard Dawkins guy sounds like he's not completely secure in what he believes either. Or maybe he is secure, but he is completely unconvincing.He has stereotyped people of faith, mainly the Christian faith, and in the same article does exactly what he accuses others of doing. I am a Christian, and my life stems from my 'religious' beliefs, but I do not side with Robertson, Falwell, Dobson or Bush... ever! Mr. Dawkins has more understanding of religion, but obviously very little understanding of faith. Belief in a religious system, and faith in God are two seperate things entirely, and these days religion has little to do with God. Mr. Dawkins just seems too unconvincing. I love a good argument, or discourse, but this falls flat and short. He stereotypes too easily and does the exact thing that he is accusing the religious people of doing. Also, does anyone see the idiocy in criticizing God for what GW says? I know that GW is crazy, so when he opens his mouth and says that God told him anything, why attribute that to God? Robertson, Falwell, etc. are crazy... so why do people believe what they say about God? If atheists need a spokesman, then Mr. Dawkins falls incredibly short.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ather Unfortunate Article Posted by: mandiwrite
» RE: ather Unfortunate Article Posted by: steveruff
» RE: ather Unfortunate Article Posted by: MartianBachelor
Preachers of self-aggrandizement
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jan 18, 2007 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Organized religion is like any other organized thing, it becomes a cabal of insiders who proclaim that they alone possess “The Truth,” and use this as justification to judge all others as unrighteous.

Like all organizations, it is invariably hierarchal in nature with power and control in the hands of a few who empower and enrich themselves at the expense of their followers. There are hundreds of examples of this, Falwell, Robertson and Dobson, just to name three.

These guys aren’t preaching religion, they are preachers of their own self-aggrandizement

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Political exemption Posted by: grrrampop
Hallelujah!
Posted by: Scientz on Jan 18, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where was his guy ten to fifteen years ago when I was in high school?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Reformation: A Greater Awakening
Posted by: wawa on Jan 18, 2007 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Forget original sin; remember original blessing. There are two Christianities in our midst. One worships a punitive father and seeks obedience at all costs. It is patriarchal, demonizes woman, the earth, science, gays, lesbians, and deep thought. It builds on fear and it supports empire-builders. Its theology includes a punitive father in the sky and teaches original sin.

"The other Christianity recognizes the original blessing that all beings derive from. We recognize awe, not sin, not guilt, as the starting point of true religion. We recognize a divinity who is source of all things and is as much mother as father, as much female as male. We honor creation and diversity. When God created everything, He pronounced it all good.

"We are here to make love to life. Yes, we are here to make love to life. Delight in creation and take your dreams into our politics and institutions. We live in the midst of a suicidal economy, motivated by love of money.

"We have reached a dead end. What we need to turn it around are hearts in love with life. How do we do it? We first must move from domination to partnership, and we begin by educating our young in awe and wonder, not how to take tests. Awe leads to reverence, which leads to gratitude, which will reinvent our species. This is the task of our generation: to regain awe. The three Rs need to be balanced by the ten Cs: contemplation, creativity, chaos, compassion, courage, critical consciousness, community, celebration, ceremony, and character.

“In community, people remain united, despite everything that divides them. In capitalist society, people are isolated, separated, despite everything that should hold them together. We are in the midst of an epic struggle between community and capitalistic society. We need a new narrative. It is the economy of materialism; it is the virus of affluenza that has weakened family life.” -Matthew Fox, author A NEW REFORMATION

excerpted Chapter 12:
The Revolution Has Begun...
"KEEP HOPE ALIVE" page 128-129


http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RICHARD DAWKINS ONE FURPHY
Posted by: pommiedoug on Jan 18, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Richard Dawkins insists on implying that if it were not for Islam, the events of 9/11 would not have happened. This is absolutely absurd.

R.D. seems to assume that the people in the Middle East are quite happy with their dispossession of their homes and land of Palestine and the interference in their lives by the U.S. and have no quarrel in all of this.

Why cannot R.D. study the underlying reasons for their hostility to being plundered and raped. This blind spot of his spoils otherwise excellent work. Is it really necessary to include that nonsense to sell his books?

What is the difference from being blown to pieces from a great height from a high tech aircraft? or being blown to pieces in a face to face encounter with a suicide bomber ?

Peter Ustinov stated the "Terrorism is the poor mans method of waging war. War is the rich mans method of waging terror.

Most of the present conflicts have at their core Imperialist expansion and world hegemony, fight this first and the excesses of religion will be more easily dealt with.

Doug Adam

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ICHARD DAWKINS ONE FURPHY Posted by: Tatarize
" THE SPIRITUALITY OF IMPERFECTION "
Posted by: KarlaElisa on Jan 18, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MY TITLE IS A FANTASTIC BOOK THAT ALL SHOULD READ.
The PRINCIPLES of ALL monotheistic religions teach PEACE, LOVE, COMPASSION, GRATITUDE, HUMILITY, FORGIVENESS, DISCIPLINE and the profound truth that a Higher Power greater than ourselves exists. It really helps to NOT believe YOU are God.
PEOPLE WARP THESE PRINICIPLES. That makes PEOPLE the real evil.
I believe that the way to heaven is through Jesus Christ and I am filled with his holy spirit and this guides me be a better person. You want to tell the difference between the REAL Christian and the FAKE Christian look at whether they are following the teachings of Christ. If you live like Jesus did himself you are walking the walk. Period. I find it remarkable that anyone would take issue with this approach to life. A friend of mine just recently said to me "We are to SERVE the Church, NOT be led by it". This makes perfect sense as 'The Church' itself has PLENTY of problems and only by following JESUS do we keep it as pure as humanly possible.
Bush is a FAKE CHRISTIAN and it angers me that he is not being called on this. While religious fanaticism has long existed it was OUR BANKS, CORPORATIONS AND ELITISTS THAT ORCHESTRATED 9-11 AND THE SUBSEQUENT WARS. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
The Nation of Islam is simply the scapegoat. But they HAVE been provoked thru war and occupational atrocites that are clearly intensifying a division between the sane and truly desperate thanks to the good ole policies of the USA.
It is was a predictable manifestation and Bush counted on it.
I stand against him and all the phony Christians.
It is my greatest hope, that the inner peace I feel will shine thru and inspire others to seek Jesus. I would never dream of pushing this on anyone...you must come to the table of your own volition or it's not real.
So I adhere to each one, reach one, teach one.
Having said that I hope that more people will take a better look at the real problem: THEMSELVES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Logical propositions
Posted by: mdharold on Jan 18, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Dawkins,

The first rule of logic is simple. If a logical proposition is true, its opposite is false. If a proposition, let us call it A, is true, then the proposition NOT A is false. If the proposition A is false, then the proposition NOT A is true. Although it is easy to see how a statement cannot be true and false at the same time, it is another thing to prove that a statement is true or false, or even worse, partly true and partly false. An example is the statement, "Meaning exists." If the statement, "Meaning exists," is true, then the statement, "Meaning does not exist," is false. (For the word Meaning, please feel free to substitute any subject: god, gravity, love, art, dinosaurs, free will, a red wheelbarrow, etc.) Conversely, if the statement, "Meaning does not exist," is true, then the statement, "Meaning exists," is false. Understanding the relationship of these logical “truth values” to one another does not tell us whether or not a proposition is actually true. What it does tell us is that whatever logic applies to a proposition applies in equal amount to its opposite expression. Logic cannot tell us whether or not meaning exists. It can tell us that, if it is provable that "Meaning exists" is true, then it is equally provable that "Meaning does not exist" is false and that if it is provable that "Meaning does not exist" is true, then it is equally provable that "Meaning exists" is false. But what of the statement, "It is provable that meaning does not exist." How can we say, "It is provable that meaning does not exist," and expect anyone to believe that we have any more right to the truth than the person who says, "It is not provable that Meaning does not exist"? This is not just another, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” situation. This is not about one form of logic preceding another. It is about belief preceding logic. Logic begins as an act of belief, a belief in logic if in nothing else. Belief precedes action. Action precedes thought. Not just once in a while. Every time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: wildeyes
» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: mdharold
» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: mdharold
» RE: Logical propositions Posted by: hms2004