OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Misotheist

Entry 788, on 2008-06-06 at 21:52:24 (Rating 5, Religion)

Today I came across a word that I don't think I have seen before. This is quite unusual because I do have a fairly good vocabulary. The word was misotheist and its not in the Oxford dictionary (although it has been around for at least 100 years according to Wikipedia) so I suspect it might be something that the religious crazies have sort of adopted to disguise the idiocy of their arguments.

The original context was in an evolution versus creationism debate I was involved in where an evolutionary scientist was labelled as a misotheist. It was clear what the word meant from its structure but I Googled it and found a few other places it was used. It seems to mean simply someone who hates God.

It does seem from the web search that religious freaks tend to use it quite a bit. The fundies who criticise people like Richard Dawkins accuse him of being a misotheist. Clearly this is ridiculous because how can someone who doesn't think there is a god hate him? I guess misotheist sounds sort of negative and ominous like related words: misogynist (someone who hates women), misogamist (someone who hates marriage), etc.

But if we called Dawkins a god hater the flaw in that accusation would be immediately obvious because we all know he doesn't believe there is a god. Its an example of how we should never underestimate religious freaks. They may believe total nonsense and they may demonstrate total lack of understanding and total inability to think in a reasonable way when it comes to their beliefs, but many of them are still intelligent people and very capable of devising clever ways of pushing their beliefs while disguising their inadequacies.

Actually, I think that if I did believe in a god I might be a misotheist because apart from creating the Universe what has he really done for us? Look at the big picture: wars, famine, disease, and general misery. The world isn't really all that great, is it? And yes, you can blame the inadequacies on people as much as you like but didn't god make us this way? If we see something good we praise god but everything bad is blamed on people. Well that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.

Yes, I think I would be a misotheist, especially if the god I believed in was the one most people say they think exists. He really does suck big time. If he wants the job of supreme creator, designer, and controller of the Universe he should get off his butt (if he has one) and get to work making the world a better place!

Comment 1 (2967) by Alex Gray on 2011-12-10 at 02:12:06:

You say that it is ridiculous to accuse Dawkins of being a misotheist, given that he is an atheist. Superficially I guess you have a point. But the reason why he is accused of "hating God" is due to his general attitude towards believers. If it is just a matter of academically believing that "there is no God" - a philosophical position and nothing more - then your point has validity. But then why can't Dawkins simply acknowledge that "the God explanation" is perfectly valid, but just one which he happens not to accept? After all, there is absolutely nothing irrational about assuming an intelligent cause behind the phenomenon of design, irrespective of what other explanations there may be for the existence of such complexity. But the problem with Dawkins is that he clearly cannot tolerate anyone drawing this perfectly rational conclusion (as many scientists do, in fact). This therefore leads many observers to surmise that actually he does have a personal issue with "God" - whether "God" is seen as real (but whose existence is deceitfully denied) or as merely a concept. So I don't think that your argument is really as watertight as you think. By the way... I can't help but notice that the tone of your post suggests to me that your opposition to what you term "religion" is more than merely philosophical!!!

Comment 2 (2968) by OJB on 2011-12-10 at 09:02:11:

You do have a point and it is a matter of debate in atheism whether we should have a strong response against religion (and look like bullies) or have a tolerant approach (and look weak). Clearly there is a middle position but where that is depends on who you ask! I think Dawkins thinks a lot of religion causes significant harm (I agree) so a strong approach is justified (I agree on that too).

I don't know if the "god explanation" is valid although it would depend on what the "god explanation" actually is. If someone can come up with a specific idea which can be tested then I think it deserves some respect but just some vague idea of a supernatural entity isn't really worthy of consideration.

There has been serious consideration given to the idea of intelligent design and it has been found lacking. We now need to accept that the naturalistic explanation is the correct one and move on, unless some strong new evidence for intelligence in design is discovered.

My opposition to religion is primarily philosophical but I do enjoy a good argument and sometimes get a bit emotional about it. I have no real emotional attachment (good or bad) regarding religion (not sure if that's what you were suggesting).

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.