Atheists For Jesus - Richard Dawkins

mavie

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

Rather enjoyable, especially the picture of Dawkins in the "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirt.

Ingenuous

I really enjoy his writing and listening to him speak. I've watched his movies on Google Video.

He's also in "The God Who Wasn't There," which is well done.

DanTheMan

Nice essay.

Jesus is just all right with me.*

*a reference to a Doobie Brothers song

brunnhilde

GReat link, Mavie! That is some funny sh**. My favorite line has to be, "evolution would vote Republican." ROFLMAO!!!

Narkissos

The motto is nice, and I have often dreamt of something like that. However, what Dawkins puts into it amusingly reminds me of Nietzsche's judgement over 110 years ago, in Twilight of the Idols:

They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency

This raises a number of questions, such as:

- does Jesus (even as a mere literary character) qualify as "super nice" by modern standards? Or, which Jesus does?

I suppose the popular image of a "super nice" Jesus (leaving aside belief in the supernatural, assuming that this makes sense) is mostly gathered from a partial reading of the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew, and from the anti-Torah controversies in Mark or Luke, which are mutually exclusive (since the Matthean Jesus advocates absolute submission to the Law, and the Markan Jesus doesn't preach love of the enemies and does not appear as such a nice character). All in all, the "super nice Jesus" seems to be more of a modern "Christ-like" figure like Dostoevsky's "Idiot".

More importantly, from a materialistic perspective, one can wonder if human society doesn't produce exactly the (small) ratio of "super nice" people it needs and can take at every stage of its development, religious or moral talk being part of the process. From this perspective, social evolution embraces its "perversions" and they are no exceptions. And, yes, that can include an "atheists for Jesus" fashion and others' scepticism about it.

Euphemism

Good point, Narkissos. I think that if you wanted to promote the sort of philosophy Dawkins is talking about, 'Atheists for Buddha' would be more accurate. But of course, it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

I also agree with you that too much niceness is unnatural. There's a reason why society always has its saints. Even secular society: our 'saints' are the people who toil in refugee camps, in war zones, or among the homeless. And while we all admire and respect what they do, most of us wouldn't try to be that way ourselves, or raise our kids to be that way. Spending weekends or a college summer volunteering--that's normal. Spending years abroad to the detriment of our own health or well-being--that's not something most of us would want to do, or want our families to do.

Even in normal, daily life, excessive niceness can often be a cover for codependency--focusing on others' needs as a way of suppressing one's own inner need. 'Turn the other cheek' is not a recipe for a happy and satisfying life.

That said, Buddhism and the Sermon on the Mount do have fundamental insights about human nature, and the way that our evolved instincts interfere with our long-term happiness. Approaching the world with compassion and an understanding of other people's needs, putting aside vengeance and resentment, treating others as we would like to be treated--those are all practices that make a person happier and more peaceful, without necessarily becoming a doormat.

So essentially, I agree with Dawkins. Being atheists doesn't mean that we brush aside the great moral teachings of all time. It doesn't necessarily mean objectivism (i.e. viewing selfishness as a virtue), or believing that just because the world is a naturally cruel place, it must always remain that way. Promoting humanism and compassion is far more important than promoting a particular view of metaphysics or philosophy. So in that sense, I guess I'm another 'Atheist for Jesus'.

Panda

objectivism (i.e. viewing selfishness as a virtue), or believing that just because the world is a naturally cruel place, it must always remain that way.

In Dawkins book The Selfish Gene, "selfish" is the way of evolution (punctuated equilibrium), selfishness is why we are driven to reproduce so that our DNA can continue. While there aren't any genes specifically for things like selfishness, avarice, greed etc., we are driven (physically)to continue existence. For humans, selfish replication involves hormones (estrogen and testosterone) we are driven to copulate and continue our line of modern humans. But what are we except big bags of water to carry DNA into the necessary chemical reactions for life?

I don't see Dawkins saying anything positive about religious morality. Morality is anathema to religious doctrine. It's all about control and forcing people to view superstition as the reason to do good. Humans had been cooperating for tens of thousands of years before the idea of commandments from the ether claimed THOU SHALT do this and such. Modern humans wouldn't exist without that early human cooperation and community. I believe this is the selfish virtue Dawkins talks about. Putting yourself in harms way is actually justification for the selfish virtue. We will continue to live because of anothers sacrifice. But, a sacrifice to wash away some man made god's fantasy of evil would not help any society to continue or thrive.

Recently Stanley Fish wrote" [that] The truth claims of a religion are not incidental to its identity, they are it's identity."

Euphemism

I don't think we disagree, Panda, but perhaps my point wasn't clear.

As I understand it, Dawkins' "selfish gene" refers to the fact that nothing ultimately matters for the fate of a gene other than reproduction; it either flourishes, or dies out. It has nothing to do with the idea of "selfishness" in human beings--i.e. a concern only for one's own interests, and disregard for those of others.

If you look at the link that started this whole thread, it's Dawkins himself saying that he admires the teachings of Jesus. Not Jesus' supernaturalism, but rather his calls for compassion and kindness. (Of course, as Narkissos pointed out, there are actually different literary Jesuses, and undoubtedly none of them match the historical Jesus, if there even was such a person.)

I agree with you that in this day and age, there is no need for morality to wrap itself in the cloak of religion. That is precisely my--and I believe, Dawkins'--point: contrary to some people's misconception of atheism, there is no conflict between being an atheist and promoting genuine (i.e. rational and compassionate, rather than arbitrary and divisive) morality.

mavie

I agree with you that in this day and age, there is no need for morality to wrap itself in the cloak of religion. That is precisely my--and I believe, Dawkins'--point: contrary to some people's misconception of atheism, there is no conflict between being an atheist and promoting genuine (i.e. rational and compassionate, rather than arbitrary and divisive) morality.

I agree Euphemism. Yet many can wonder, how can atheists have morals? Doesn't one need to believe in a God to live a moral life?

I heard this question answered one time in a way that has stuck with me. Take for example, stealing. Why should an atheist not steal? If God isn't watching and won't punish him for it later on, why shouldn't the atheist try to steal? Well, the reason has to do with the society a group of stealers would create. The atheist would not want to live in that type of society, so he acts in such a way as to avoid stealing himself.

Morals can exist independant of religion.

bernadette

Interesting article Mavie

From reading the article I am sort of seeing religion as the vehicle for superniceness - and wonder in our day if science will/has taken over that role.

I'm thinking of all the selfless doctors, nurses, vocational people who labour over and above the call of duty and who are mostly athiests.

Atheists For Jesus - Richard Dawkins

Share this