I've never made a video before, so you'll have to excuse my editing.
Questions for my presentation:
How do you feel about religion's role in our society?
Is Dan Dana right with being so blunt in his distaste?
What do you know about Secular Humanism? Does his view reflect poorly on us?
What's your thought on the everlasting soul?
Let me know in the comments!
Patricia, I enjoyed your video. You're a natural--and the fact that you managed to use "yeet" in your presentation of Reason Revolution deserves a high-five.
ReplyDeleteDana's engagement of religion definitely seems like he's got a bone to pick with religion. And I'm not sure that I agree with his statement, "On a macro scale, however, we secular humanists believe the world would be a safer, saner, less violent, more humane, and all-round better place if religion were to somehow disappear."
Maybe I'd go so far as saying that the world would be better without religious fundamentalism. You know, the kind of religious orientation that explicitly and knowingly shuns science, presently exemplified by the folks who depend on supernatural protection from COVID-19 rather than on reliable medical advice. Would the world be better off if some people didn't the Lord's Supper as a literal panacea? Yes . . . yes, it would. Likewise, the world would indeed be better if fundamentalists didn't harm and/or kill other people for failing to conform, i.e. worship their god, practice their customs, etc.
But, of course, there's a lot of religious people who've found a way to harmonize their metaphysicalism with not only science but also other values secularists consider to be important. I can think of a number of communities whose religious ideology causes no problems for church/state separation, LGBTQ rights, and the other points you enumerated. Something in me wants to reserve space for these folks, rather than see them as--in a fundamental way--hampering human progress.
Then again, when I look at the publisher's blurb for Reason Revolution, which describes it as a book that "focuses squarely on the inherent irrationality of religion, and reveals its utter irreconcilability with science," I also feel that Dana is after something important, something that shouldn't be glossed over. I wonder, Is all religious orientation truly irrational and, if so, how might this undermine the desirable and worthwhile goal of cultivating scientifically-minded human beings? It's worth asking.
An interesting topic, Patricia!
I feel he comes off as a 'higher than thou' personality through his book which would definitely turn people away, especially in the case of the other side of the dialogue. It is his right to present his ideas in any way he deems fit, however I believe it would be taken better had he controlled his words better.
ReplyDeleteIf he is trying to change minds his delivery -in my opinion- would be more productive towards an open dialogue, but instead he seems to come off as trying to show off to the Atheist community how justified and right his ideas are in comparison to the ignorant culture founded on religion.
Well done, Patricia. I wasn't previously familiar with this book or author, thanks for educating me. He does strike me as someone who wants at least to pay lip-service to humanistic pluralism but also paints with a too-broad brush. The world would surely be better without murderous fundamentalism, but not without (say) Chartres Cathedral.
ReplyDeleteDana "reviewed" his own little book on goodreads, seems like his heart's in the right place (but secular humanists really ought to take the time to read the longer books too):
"I applaud Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Darrel Ray, and other atheist authors for their excellent contributions to what I call the Reason Revolution. My small book, only a 30-minute read, is intended for people who may not have the time or interest to undertake a multi-hundred-page book on atheism. It concisely poses nine science-based “reasons for skepticism” to stimulate readers’ thinking about the plausibility of their beliefs, and offers several “reconciliation theories” to help doubters attempt to bridge the gap between faith and fact. I hope it prompts every attentive reader to make a choice between empirically known reality and supernaturalism.
To the extent that I am an “activist” atheist, it is because I care about the wellbeing of people and am convinced that a life free of religion is more enjoyable and meaningful than one burdened by the confusing falsehoods of religious belief. I hope "The Reason Revolution" makes a positive difference for individuals who find meaning in the book, and perhaps makes some small contribution toward improvement of the collective human condition."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23455043-the-reason-revolution
My wife, who is a Motlow professor, weekly erupts at the computer when she sees another example of religious intrusion into public life in Tennessee. Perhaps because I grew up here in the bible belt, I recognize the inevitability of it. I think most of the people promoting the intrusions honestly don’t understand that they are doing anything wrong (illegal), or why it is problematic. After all, we are all Christians in a Christian country, aren’t we? A few years ago, our state representative put an article in the local paper to assure us that “God was alive and well at the state legislature.” He reported on the morning bible study session he attended in the basement of the capitol. At that same time, the legislature was denying expansion of federally funded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to 280,000 low-income, uninsured Tennesseans. I wondered then what Jesus would say if he attended the bible study session during this period. I could see Him saying, forcibly, like he did with the Pharisees, “did you people not read Matthew 35? How can you sit here and be so proud of yourselves for studying the bible and not help the poor”? What could they possibly say? How can they not see their hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteIt is nominal Christians like these that are a big problem for the image of Christianity, and for the rest of us who have to deal with them. Great video BTW; you have the makings for a YouTube star.
Is Dan Dana right with being so blunt in his distaste?
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of his approach. I think it reflects poorly on atheism as a whole. There are plenty of ways to discuss the god question in a perfectly respectful way. I also don't think it is fair to insult the intelligence of all religious people. There are plenty of smart religious people, and I have never felt comfortable with the implication that those who are religious are automatically fanatical, naive, or unintelligent. I don't think this kind of discourse gets us very far at all.
Doesn't it really depend on which theists are being targeted by such critiques? Reasonable and mutually-respectful disagreement over religious propositions is one thing... But I don't feel particularly obliged to attest an overt respect for extremists who condemn people like me as bound for eternal damnation or un-entitled to be considered "real Americans" (George H.W. Bush). That is, I don't feel obliged to respect their views or their brand of hostility. I do in fact feel inclined to repudiate them "bluntly." Frankly, I get tired of being asked to turn the other cheek just so religious bigots can take another swipe.
DeleteBut I haven't read this author myself yet, so I'll suspect judging whether his style is TOO blunt. I'd always heard that about Richard Dawkins, and sometimes he is (as when resorting to epithets like "faith-head")... but on balance his books are much less objectionable than critics allege.
*suspend" judging...
DeleteYou bring up a great point that atheists are typically told to be respectful even to theists who don’t return the favor. I agree, that isn’t fair and I get tired of it too.
DeleteBut, I do think that we can present strong and blunt arguments in a respectful way. I don’t necessarily mean that we must respect the person, or even their views. What I mean is that we should speak in a way that doesn’t resort to name calling, stereotyping, etc (particularly when referring to religious people in general). For example, I think it’s on the table to say that a view is “wrong” or even “ridiculous, and here’s why...” but I don’t think it serves us to call all religious people “unintelligent.” Maybe respectful isn’t the right word for it?
I think we shouldn’t be afraid to challenge religion. But when “they go low, we go high” I think we have a chance to make our points more clearly and convincingly. I’m not familiar with this author either, but it got me thinking about this dilemma that many atheists face. It is a tricky balance to strike. The double standard isn’t right... I think theists should be respectful in the way I described to us as well!
I forgot to add my itemized record! Here it is:
Delete1. March 13: Blog Post “For Those Of Us In Need Of Some Comfort: ‘The Consolations of Philosophy’”
2. March 23: Comment on “Sunlight Always Returns”
3. March 23: Blog Post: “Religion, Science, & Covid-19...What Do You Think?”
4. March 23: Comment on “Camus's Plague”
5. March 23: Blog Post: “Should Humans Live Forever?”
6. March 24: Comment reply: “Religion, Science, & Covid-19...What Do You Think?”
7. March 25: Comment on “Reason Revolution: Dan Dana”
8. March 26: Comment reply: “Reason Revolution: Dan Dana”
What about irrational, Heather? Do you think it's appropriate to call religious people that? Dan Dana does it, but, presently, I'm on the face about whether or not that's the right call.
DeleteI'm on the FENCE, not face . . . . -_-
DeleteJamil, that’s a tricky one. I guess I’m on the fence too. Religious beliefs are not based on reason, so I don’t think it is incorrect to say that it is irrational to believe in God, for example. While I prefer politeness, I don’t think we should tip toe around religious people’s feelings, so long as we present accurate, solid arguments. As in most communication dilemmas, I suppose it sometimes comes down to how you say something rather than simply what you say. I am starting to think, as Dr. Oliver mentioned above, who we are talking about/to may make a difference in what is appropriate. To me the ideal debate/discussion would be one where both sides stick to the facts of the argument in a way that is both unbiased and cordial (but it usually doesn’t go that way unfortunately). We can only do the best that we can.
DeleteJust like I don't believe it is fair to lump all atheists into -religion hating, going to hell, "insert whatever stereotype you dislike about atheists here"- types of people, I also am against lumping all religious people into stereotypes. I have met many devote christians and muslims - and one Hindu so far- Who are very tolerant and insightful people; people who will listen to what you have to say and not push religion into it, or are generally interested in having a conversation to understand your point of view.
DeleteWhile that's not to say that the hateful people exist, or are even an abundance of the population, but I have to agree with you, Heather, on your statement of it not being a good approach to the the topic, because those people that I know, will not bother to engage in conversation with someone who is attacking them, most of them will simply turn to something else to occupy their interest. (except for the Hindu lady, she would probably get offended and speak up, but that is her personality)
How do you feel about religion's role in our society?
ReplyDeleteReligion isn't perfect anything dealing with people isn't going to be perfect. Because we as people are in-perfect. So I believe religion gets a bad wrap because of that and how people force it on to people especially in history when one nation conquered another one they would force their religion onto them.
Religion is just one part of it though, there is also relationship that you get from it.
Great job on the video very interesting.
ReplyDelete1. March 23 Quiz questions
ReplyDelete2. March 23 DQ
3. March 23 DQ
4. March 23 DQ
5. march 23 peer response
6. March 26 Should scientist and religious leaders work together on the COVID 19
7. Presentation response Dan Dana
8. responded to take a walk it nice outside!
I total 2 runs for this week.
I do love that you guys have given this author's words so much thought. He really makes us reevaluate the divide between atheists and theists. I'm excited to continue this format in the future as an easy way to discuss the current(or not so current) debates between the two sides of faith. Faith, of course, being faith in ethereal beings or faith in the human beings.
ReplyDeleteThis being said,
DeleteI posted
Religious Ramble
Quote to Ponder
this presentation
And my comment just now
I believe that is 21?