Dawkins and civil discourse

[Tassman]

That sounds so much more like the Democratic party, and they have had the logo to prove it for a LONG time.

It may well to some, but the substance of the post is not concerned with political point scoring but the dangers of a rigid, absolutionist mind-set and refusal to compromise - such as we find among Tea Party members and ALL fundamentalist religious groups whether Muslim or Christian – or totalitarian quasi-religious organisations like Communism or Fascism.

[Cerebrum123]

It may well to some, but the substance of the post is not concerned with political point scoring but the dangers of a rigid, absolutionist mind-set and refusal to compromise - such as we find among Tea Party members and ALL fundamentalist religious groups whether Muslim or Christian – or totalitarian quasi-religious organisations like Communism or Fascism.

And there are no Democrats with a "rigid, absolusionist mind set, and a refusal to compromise"?

[rogue06]

NO, the rigid, absolutionist mind-set and refusal to compromise would NOT be just as accurate for Democrats as well – and nor would it have been accurate for Republicans before the advent of the Tea Party members. And this is the point. It is a new and dangerous phenomenon.

“…Tea Party, a political movement that didn't exist three years ago, continues to exert control over Republican legislators ………… "Right now the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives is the jackass kicking down the barn, but they have absolutely no idea how to rebuild one," Cal Jillson, a politics professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said Wednesday.

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Canada-...iling-crisis/1

IIRC Jillson has been an outspoken supporter of the Occupy movement so color me surprised that he doesn't like the Tea Party.





But, specific politics aside, it is the rigid non-compromising mindset which is of concern – it is essentially totalitarian. Such non-comprising rigidity is a characteristic of ALL brands of religious fundamentalism - including the Evangelical Right to which the Tea party members belong. And the agenda of the Evangelical Right is that of Christian Reconstructionism. I.e. it advocates the modern-day application of Old Testament law in ''reconstructing'' the Kingdom of God (lost with the Fall) on earth. Constructionism is advocated by individuals, groups, organizations, and churches collectively known as the ''Christian Right.''

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

Oh, and note the comment by Reconstructionist theologian Rev. Ray Sutton that “Reconstructed Biblical theocracies would be ''happy'' places, to which people would flock because ''capital punishment is one of the best evangelistic tools of a society.'' [/QUOTE]

[shunyadragon]

And there are no Democrats with a "rigid, absolusionist mind set, and a refusal to compromise"?

I am sure there are, but 'No Compromise' is front and center in the Tea Party agenda, which originated in an evangelist agenda.

[Tassman]

And there are no Democrats with a "rigid, absolusionist mind set, and a refusal to compromise"?

Undoubtedly there are members of ALL Parties and people in ALL walks of life with a rigid, absolutist mind-set and a persistent refusal to compromise, but it has never been institutionalized before in the way we saw with the Tea-Party when it hijacked the democratic process and took the USA to the brink in order to get its way.

The same applies to its rigid, uncomprising approach to the social agenda. They cannot compromise according to their absolutist world-view, because one doesn’t compromise over god’s perceived will. Thus they are dangerous and destructive in the same way Muslim extremists, or ANY social idealogues who seek to impose their will, are dangerous.

I am sure there are, but 'No Compromise' is front and center in the Tea Party agenda, which originated in an evangelist agenda.

And it is precisely this point which is not being addressed by the likes of Cerebrum123. The issue at stake is the non-compromising, ultimately destructive mindset, underlying the Tea-Party movement - not politics per se.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I hesitate to put this thread in the Apologetics section but I can't think where it would be any more appropriate. In a sense this is anti apologetics. Not, I hasten to add, anti-Christian apologetics, but anti that style of apologetics that comes from all corners where 'winning' the argument is the goal and if you can make your opponents look stupid in the process so much the better. This is my hobby horse: civil discourse. I suspect a lot of what style of communication we prefer comes from our personalities. For myself, I find that 'boots and all', 'take no prisoners', 'you're an idiot' style of 'debate' repellant. It's even repellant when I do it and I regret it for days afterward.

Now, we all know how many feel about Richard Dawkins on this predominately conservative Christian site. I'd like to offer up this conversation conducted by letter in 'The Guardian' newspaper between Richard Dawkins and Will Hutton who happens to be a practicing (and believing) Anglican. Rather than go into the specifics of what points of difference there may be between each man, if we focus on the tone of the letters and points of agreement and mutual respect I think there is much to admire here from both sides. It's possible there is a time and place for all kinds of communication but I wonder if there is surplus of 'debates' and a real shortage of civil discourse in the world?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...hutton-dawkins

In general, it would be extremely refreshing to be able to set ego aside, along with the attendant pride and fear and mutual disrespect that so often accompanies debates concerning religion and politics, so that questions could be faced openly and peacefully. I conducted my fair share of vitriolic discussions over the years, and I have been the recipient of the rage and ridicule of others. It's all pretty meaningless, and, before God, it will be little more than swirling chaff and ashes.

God is not an argument; he is not that fragile. The throne of heaven does not tremble when Richard Dawkins speaks, whether he is civil or not. But we human beings tend to be unstable and subject to emotional storms that reveal our inner weakness. It gives frightened people a sense of pseudo-calm when they can transfer their fright to their opponents and make the opposition seem inconsequential.

As an afterthought, though-one must allow for righteous indignation, humor, and a bit of venting.... ;)

[pancreasman]

In general, it would be extremely refreshing to be able to set ego aside, along with the attendant pride and fear and mutual disrespect that so often accompanies debates concerning religion and politics, so that questions could be faced openly and peacefully. I conducted my fair share of vitriolic discussions over the years, and I have been the recipient of the rage and ridicule of others. It's all pretty meaningless, and, before God, it will be little more than swirling chaff and ashes.

God is not an argument; he is not that fragile. The throne of heaven does not tremble when Richard Dawkins speaks, whether he is civil or not. But we human beings tend to be unstable and subject to emotional storms that reveal our inner weakness. It gives frightened people a sense of pseudo-calm when they can transfer their fright to their opponents and make the opposition seem inconsequential.

As an afterthought, though-one must allow for righteous indignation, humor, and a bit of venting.... ;)

Very nicely put although I'd venture to say everyone thinks their indignation is righteous. As a sarcastic person myself I'm all in favour of wit and humour. 8 year old insults like 'You're a moron' are neither witty nor humourous.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Very nicely put although I'd venture to say everyone thinks their indignation is righteous. As a sarcastic person myself I'm all in favour of wit and humour. 8 year old insults like 'You're a moron' are neither witty nor humourous.

True. Nevertheless, I tend to think that a lot of our self-perceived "indignation" is a mere habitual response thrown up by the naked ego to hide its vulnerability. We do become "indignant" when our ego is threatened, but that isn't most likely "righteous," IMHO. If we could cultivate a new honesty wherein we wouldn't have to hide from our fears and our pride, then maybe we could also cultivate novel habits and reactions to those with whom we disagree and become more open.

As to Dawkins, I appreciated his behavior with Rowan Williams in that, when Williams was thinking aloud concerning certain biological mechanisms that might buttress his own speculative case, Dawkins actually helped him along instead of dismissing him. There was another moment in the discussion where Dawkins was sort of "on the ropes" philosophically, but Williams and Anthony Kenny did not press the matter to Dawkins' disadvantage---as they might have done. On the whole, it seemed as if this was a constructive discussion in which each side attempted to help the other think more lucidly, criticizing, developing, and fine-tuning the possibilities of a dialogue between advocates of every point of view present.

I have also seen Dawkins act uncharitably in the past, however. I do wonder about what drives him---his own undisclosed "naked ego." Contrary to convention, I believe that the psychological make-up of the one who argues often becomes of central importance. This is what propels us to argument so many times. The seeming "objectivity" of our disputes is couterweighted by an unseen subjectivity that many of us are not even willing to acknowledge even to ourselves...

[Cerebrum123]

Perhaps it would be best if this was to be understood in this type of setting.

Proverbs 27:17
As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

If we worked on sharpening one another, then perhaps things would work out better, rather than trying so simply cut someone with a dull blade.

[pancreasman]

Perhaps it would be best if this was to be understood in this type of setting.

Proverbs 27:17
As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

If we worked on sharpening one another, then perhaps things would work out better, rather than trying so simply cut someone with a dull blade.

Civility is not dullness. It's possible to be insightful, challenging and thought provoking without being a jerk.

[Cerebrum123]

Civility is not dullness. It's possible to be insightful, challenging and thought provoking without being a jerk.

I was not saying that at all. I said that if we were more focused on "sharpening" each other, rather than simply tearing each other down, then things might end up being more civil. I was comparing unneeded insults to dull blades, and not civility.

[pancreasman]

I was not saying that at all. I said that if we were more focused on "sharpening" each other, rather than simply tearing each other down, then things might end up being more civil. I was comparing unneeded insults to dull blades, and not civility.

Gotcha. I agree.