Dawkins on Mormonism

[_Sethbag]

although he was writing in the 19th century, chose to write it [the Book of Mormon] in 17th century English

That's a pretty silly point in my opinion. I recently played Zelda: Ocarina of time and I noticed that used the Jacobean English too, but it was even less gramatical in the use of thee's and thou's than the Book of Mormon is.

Anyhow when it comes to Dawkins ranting against Mormonism, consider the source.

What is that supposed to mean? Dawkins is awesome. I've come to the point where although I don't think Dawkins is perfect or anything, he's far more interesting, far more knowledgable, and I'd place far more stock in what he says than, say, Boyd K. Packer, or Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young. Dawkins is a great intellect, and a great speaker, and I've come to agree with him in just about everything I hear him say.

And what he said in this talk was absolutely spot on. It is painfully obvious that Mormonism is false, and made up by Joseph Smith, about whom it is also painfully obvious that he was a charlatan. The only people who fail to see the obvious are those so steeped in Mormonism that it's coming out their ears. The blind spots take a long time in developing, but eventually, most TBMs really can't see it, or won't even listen to you if you start to discuss it.

Give even a book like Rough Stone Rolling, which most of us will admit is a desparate attempt to keep people in the church, to a non-member who doesn't know much of anything about the church, and probably 99.9% of the time they couldn't help from laughing at the end of it and saying "these Mormons actually believe this guy?" about Joseph Smith. Give them "Mormon Enigma", "In Sacred Loneliness", and "By His Hand Upon Papyrus" instead and anyone who isn't already neck deep in Mormonism cannot fail to come out with the notion that Joseph Smith was not only a fraud and a charlatan, but an asshole as well.

[_Sethbag]

Would Dawkin’s (and other critic’s) qualms disappear if the Book of Mormon was written solely in 19th Century Upstate New Yorkian dialect?

For some reason, I think that would provide additional fodder for the "frontier fiction" crowd.

No, the qualms wouldn't disappear. The primary qualm is that it isn't true. The style of language it's written in didn't make it true or untrue, they're just window dressing. So the qualms would be there no matter what style it was written in, though the particular style it was written in helps show it for what it was, ie: a Bible ripoff.

[_Sethbag]

The source is as credible as they come.

When the Dawkins speaks, the thinking has been done.

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

One thing is for sure. When Dawkins speaks, the thinking has been done by Dawkins. That is, Dawkins is an intense thinker, and doesn't believe anything that can't pass the "think about this deeply and tell me if it still makes sense" test. This is way more than I can say about most faithful LDS that I know, at least in areas involving their cosmology and view of mankind's origins, Joseph Smith's past and actions, etc. Most of them don't seem to want to think about it at all.

[_asbestosman]

What is that supposed to mean?

It means I think he's at least as biased about religion in general as you think those who believe the church is true to be.

I think Dawkins has some interesting ideas about how one could explain away much of religion. He's certainly intelligent and educated--certainly more than I am and in such a way that I can't really begin to address him at his level. That said, I don't find his comments on Mormonism to be much more than the result of a rather superficial consideration--which he understandably wouldn't give more consideration to given his worldview. I also think there are plenty of religious people who can indeed begin to address Dawkins--not that I think their remarks would be particularly persuasive to those who agree with Dawkins. I often feel that the God debate is nothing more than a futile preaching to the choir on both sides. Yes, occasionally people change sides, but it seems that life's circumstances tends to do it more than these kind of debates do.

I have to give Dawkins some credit though. I think his intent was more to mobilize atheists to see religion as dangerous than to convince theists that they're completely wrong. While he certainly spends plenty of time on the latter, his priority seemed to be the former.

[_The Nehor]

although he was writing in the 19th century, chose to write it [the Book of Mormon] in 17th century English

That's a pretty silly point in my opinion. I recently played Zelda: Ocarina of time and I noticed that used the Jacobean English too, but it was even less gramatical in the use of thee's and thou's than the Book of Mormon is.

Anyhow when it comes to Dawkins ranting against Mormonism, consider the source.

I looked at my secular Dead Sea Scrolls translation published in the good old 20th Century......King James English, what do you know? My Gospel of Thomas? Same thing. My book of Enoch? Same thing. I would contend that if God had brought forth the Book of Mormon today it would still be in King James English. Quick survey shows that out of 7 translated religious works I grabbed off the shelf behind me, 5 are in King James English, none published by the LDS Church. The two that weren't were the Koran and the Kabbalah.

[_Coggins7]

Dawkin's knowledge of comparative religion and allied subjects and is so abysmal, and his mind so occluded by his own god complex that as was previously said here, "consider the source".

While it isn't at all obvious that Mormonism is a fraud, it is quite obvious that Dawkins understands approximately zero about the Church and its history (just as his atrocious recent screed "The God Delusion" demonstrates quite nicely that there are a number of areas, outside of his own scientific specialty, within which it is sufficiently obvious he need not be taken seriously.

Indeed, like Chomsky and others, outside of his own small academic niche, one would be well advised to approach his views on various matters with judicious caution.

Dawkin's approach in this video, as with his book, is not an even, tempered, intellectually serious and measured critique but a self satisfied rant against something of which he knows precious little but nonetheless has a strong psychological and emotional animus.

Dawkins is as religious as I am, the core difference being that Dawkin's god is himself surreptitiously cast through the totemic masks of the natural sciences and the philosophical framework of Secular Humanism.

One may call this philosophy Secular Humanism, or metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever. I've just come to call it Anthropotheism; the worship of man by man, a fundamental affliction of the Gentiles in the Latter Days as mentioned extensively in the Book of Mormon.

Dawkin's ill considered ramblings need be taken, in an intellectual sense, no more seriously than the foaming rants of the late Miss O' Hair. Dawkins doesn't even make a pretense of any real knowledge of the history of the various religions he trashes or the provenance and implications of their ideas. His a priori animus toward religion qua religion makes him a poor substitute for a truly serious philosophical critic of religion as a phenomena. As LDS, the faithful among us would still take exception to a truly serious critic, but Dawkins can, for all intents, be dismissed as the bomb throwing anti-religious bigot that he is.

The real kicker for me in reading his slim tome on this subject is that Dawkins clearly doesn't even really care about his vast lack of basic knowledge regarding the origins, history, and development of the beliefs and religious systems he seeks to impugn. His gods, reason, science, and the species homo sapiens as a collective archetype, are jealous gods, and will tolerate no interference with their own self claimed prerogatives as the arbiters of all truth. As Terry Eagleton wrote in his review of The God Delusion for the London Review of Books, "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.".

For a better indication of just how deep seated Dawkin's hermetic glorification of his own intelligence and the intelligence of those who think like and hold the views he does (and yes, its that crass and that overt), is, see Dawkin's entry here: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bright/ ... index.html.

This is intellectual snobbery and human egocentrism raised to near infinity.

[_Some Schmo]

This is intellectual snobbery and human egocentrism raised to near infinity.

What? Your post? Yeah, I think so too.

I would take it seriously, however, if I thought you had the slightest clue of what you were talking about, and weren't so obviously brainwashed by Mormon rubbish.

Oh well.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is great. Does anything else really need to be said?

Clearly underwhelming. Did he make any points other then pontificate his own opinions which he clearly think highly of?

[_Some Schmo]

This is great. Does anything else really need to be said?

Clearly underwhelming. Did he make any points other then pontificate his own opinions which he clearly think highly of?

That's what was great. He didn't really need to. It's just so obvious to any rational human being, what can you say?

[_Jason Bourne]

although he was writing in the 19th century, chose to write it [the Book of Mormon] in 17th century English

That's a pretty silly point in my opinion. I recently played Zelda: Ocarina of time and I noticed that used the Jacobean English too, but it was even less gramatical in the use of thee's and thou's than the Book of Mormon is.

Anyhow when it comes to Dawkins ranting against Mormonism, consider the source.

What is that supposed to mean? Dawkins is awesome. I've come to the point where although I don't think Dawkins is perfect or anything, he's far more interesting, far more knowledgable, and I'd place far more stock in what he says than, say, Boyd K. Packer, or Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young. Dawkins is a great intellect, and a great speaker, and I've come to agree with him in just about everything I hear him say.

And what he said in this talk was absolutely spot on. It is painfully obvious that Mormonism is false, and made up by Joseph Smith, about whom it is also painfully obvious that he was a charlatan. The only people who fail to see the obvious are those so steeped in Mormonism that it's coming out their ears. The blind spots take a long time in developing, but eventually, most TBMs really can't see it, or won't even listen to you if you start to discuss it.

Give even a book like Rough Stone Rolling, which most of us will admit is a desparate attempt to keep people in the church, to a non-member who doesn't know much of anything about the church, and probably 99.9% of the time they couldn't help from laughing at the end of it and saying "these Mormons actually believe this guy?" about Joseph Smith. Give them "Mormon Enigma", "In Sacred Loneliness", and "By His Hand Upon Papyrus" instead and anyone who isn't already neck deep in Mormonism cannot fail to come out with the notion that Joseph Smith was not only a fraud and a charlatan, but an asshole as well.

I do not think Mormonism is any more obviously false and easily detected as such as is any and all religion. The only disadvantage Mormonism has is it is new and there is more documentation about it.

But for something so obviously false it has been and still is relatively successful in attracting converts and growing. The Church makes more converts per year then adding by babies and typically it always has. Most congregations outside of Utah and the west are made up in a large percentage of first generation LDS. My point is not that this makes it true but the simplistc approach that Dawkins take, and you and other parrot, is just not the case.

Bright people do find the LDS Church compelling and fullfilling and not so obviously false. They are not all deluded and bumbling idiots nor are they simply believers because they were born into it. Nor do all non LDS come to the conclusions about Smith and the Church that you think they do. It is just not so cut and dry.