RICHARD DAWKINS' "The ROOT OF ALL EVIL"

Let's keep this debate pointed. (Also, see this.) And, very much like Gray, my interest lies solely in puncturing some of the claims of the New Atheists which, I think, betray more than a little wishful thinking.

kannannn wrote:

Belief without reason can either be personal or communal. While personal irrational belief (I think we can agree to call belief without reason that) is not a threat to society, it could nonetheless lead the individual to commit acts which might harm him economically, physically or mentally. It is irrational belief, common to a group of people, I am more concerned with. It doesn't take long for such beliefs to morph into harmful acts detrimental to society. Examples can be given for both kinds of beliefs, but I will not do so, for fear of instigating a mud-slinging match. Belief with reason leads one to question that belief in light of new evidence. That ability to change one's belief stems from rationality and courage. Of course, there is always an element of chance that might lead to dangerous situations, but such chances are natural and beyond our control. I don't think the same can be said of irrational belief.

kannannn,
Surely you would concede that phrases like "belief with reason" or "rational belief" imply two separate "moves?" One that involves "reason" and and another that involves "belief." A person reasons out certain things and then makes the leap to believe certain things. Would you agree with me if I say reason is quite "soulless?" I mean, reason is not out there to serve humanity, surely? In purely rational terms, there's no reason why one shouldn't end up his own life and that of others. Is Man's drive to live out of reason? I fail to understand how you associate Reason with all sorts of moral obligations (killing people etc.) you bring to this discussion. Why is a man driven by reason less likely to kill people? I'm not implying that he's more likely to. I'm asking this merely because you're upholding Reason and hence my question on how it "betters" one. What is at play here is a belief system of what's right and what's wrong (a system of ethics if you insist on distinguishing between ethics and morality) that makes one evaluate one's actions.

If you're talking about enquiry into the nature of self, the universe and suchlike, many religious traditions are also born out of the same, as anbu_kathir says. It's flippant to think otherwise. I seriously think Gray makes a terrific point linking today's atheists to various religious traditions. And even if one is to examine in the realms of "the present," there have always been reformers within various religious frameworks. Why wouldn't you concede that that is akin to "[changing] one's belief?" When he is making the sort of "promises" we've been discussing about, what Dawkins is doing is quite similar. And I don't mean to be dismissive of it at all.

Aside 1: I think it's incorrect to mix up atheism and rationalism, which I think are very different things. (Personally speaking, in abstract terms, if one's to understand atheism as merely the absence of belief in God, I'd qualify as an atheist. But I'd spectacularly fail the rationalist test any which way I imagine it!) Again "the pure rational" is a tricky thing and different people have different notions of it. It's often said that Kubrick had a fear of flying. But in his words, as he began to be aware of the unsafe aspects of flying, it got to him. In simple words, "why take the risk?" Now this is actually entirely logical (!), but can easily be dubbed as an irrational fear.

Aside 2: We would do well to understand why many theists have historically shown strong inclination to treat atheists with a sort of contempt. It is precisely the "absence of promise" (of a good life or a better world) that they find disconcerting more than anything else! So indeed it is no coincidence that atheism gains popularity when the atheists come around and make such promises!