Posted                          

quote:

---

But there is another and equally reasonable case.

Methinks it is Dawkins who is deluded.

---

Well, maybe this is what the thread is all about. If an equally rationally plausible case can be made for atheism and its alternatives (whether collectively, grouped together as "religion" or individually, with special emphasis on the [mono]theisms) and Dawkins persists in hanging out with straw men and raving in a quasi-fundamentalist matter - maybe his disingenuous-to-the-point-of-eye-rollingly-crazy project is set to implode.

Maybe soon.

Maybe in the course of this series.

(Footnote: I didn't recognize Dawkins when he appeared suddenly in what turned out to be the trailer for the series. I thought it was some sort of religious maniac. And of course, I was right. )

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:

Methinks it is Dawkins who is deluded.

---

Alistair McGrath studied Molecular Biophsyics at the same University and at the same (similar?) time Dawkins was around.

He wrote a book I've started recently. The Dawkins Delusion.

He's a fantastic theologian. Very reasonable and insightful.

Maybe we could do it as a book club thingie?

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Any two brained idiot can take the extremes of religion and build a case for atheism.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:

Methinks it is Dawkins who is deluded.

---

Alistair McGrath studied Molecular Biophsyics at the same University and at the same (similar?) time Dawkins was around.

He wrote a book I've started recently. The Dawkins Delusion.

He's a fantastic theologian. Very reasonable and insightful.

Maybe we could do it as a book club thingie?

---

Thanks for the link just booked it thru the library

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Any two brained idiot can take the extremes of religion and build a case for atheism.

---

Actually, anyone with two brains would probably be jolly clever.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

For me, the Dawkins Problem is very basic. What he wants to do is to remove from people one of the most basic human rights - the right to be mistaken.

Now I'm aware that I'm in a glass house throwing stones: the Church does not exactly have a glowing record on how it deals with people it belives to be mistaken. But if Dawkins claims to be so much more enlightened, then he should be aware that this is what he's doing. And if he's aware of it, he should say so: "In Dawkinsworld, you will all think as Dawkins does. No-one will be allowed to persist in thinking any other way."

Then see where his hordes of supporters go.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Now I'm aware that I'm in a glass house throwing stones: the Church...

---

Dude, the Church is one glass house in which throwing stones is a high calling! Chuck mightily!

Actually, one of the noteworthy yet still underexamined things about Dawkins is that he is absolutely convinced that he has a basis on which to deprive people of the "right to be wrong." Science tells it [to him] the way it is. That, of course, isn't a scientific standpoint. It's a (religious) faith in science. And that's why it's so necessary for him to deny that any of the rest of us can assimilate scientific truth (which is shifting scientific consensus, but that's OK because it's what science is) into our religious faith. He owns it. So we can't have it. Because he's right, and we're wrong.

And that's why when some of us start saying that we have no problem working - and working religiously creatively - with what science is currently telling us, he starts talking about the "One True Scotsman" fallacy, and such like.

Because if we can take science seriously, we can't really be religious, can we?

Because true religious people are nutcases who talk in absolutes, claim to possess the truth exclusively, and hold people who disagree with them to be monumentally ignorant, stupid, culpable and ineligible to hold opinions.

Er... hang on.... remind you of anyone?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Alistair McGrath studied Molecular Biophsyics at the same University and at the same (similar?) time Dawkins was around.

He wrote a book I've started recently. The Dawkins Delusion.

He's a fantastic theologian. Very reasonable and insightful.

---

Actually I was really disappointed with this. I thought he was far too sarcastic and negative. (Yes, I know what that means coming from me. )

I don't think he engaged with Dawkins properly either.

(Although it is also true that he went down in my estimation straight after his 'real absence' description of Zwingli's Eucharistic theology.)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
For me, the Dawkins Problem is very basic. What he wants to do is to remove from people one of the most basic human rights - the right to be mistaken.

---

My guess is that he (or rather those he represents) would have been fairly happy to do this in the latter decades of the last century. In those days the approach to religion was that if clever people just ignored it then it would naturally die out.

The problem is that it didn't. In many ways religion has a greater impact on international public life now. So Richard feels he needs to give it a helping hand. (It's demise, not religion ... although he might well be doing the latter. Arg, I'm making a pig's ear of this but I hope you know what I mean.)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Personally, I can’t stand Dawkins, but some of you people are being quite silly about him. I do wonder whether you’ve actually read/seen his arguments for yourself.

Please cite where he reveals he wants to ‘deprive people of the right to be wrong’, and we'll go from there.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Faith is neither unreasonable or irrational and many a believer in God also combines evolution (and science generally) with that belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
[Dawkins] takes it all very much at face value and seems utterly incapable of understanding how it can point to something else within human existence that defies a cold logical approach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I say believer in God because Dawkins is not just attacking Christians but people of all Faiths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
For me, the Dawkins Problem is very basic. What he wants to do is to remove from people one of the most basic human rights - the right to be mistaken.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Faith is neither unreasonable or irrational and many a believer in God also combines evolution (and science generally) with that belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
[Dawkins] takes it all very much at face value and seems utterly incapable of understanding how it can point to something else within human existence that defies a cold logical approach.

---

These positions seem to be diametrically opposed. Shamwari posits that faith is neither unreasonable nor irrational, implying that it is in someway derived using reason or logic, whereas FC makes the claim that religious faith is something different and distinct from logic. So I guess the first question to be addressed should be whether Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other faith-based belief is in fact logically derived.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
These positions seem to be diametrically opposed. Shamwari posits that faith is neither unreasonable nor irrational, implying that it is in someway derived using reason or logic, whereas FC makes the claim that religious faith is something different and distinct from logic. So I guess the first question to be addressed should be whether Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other faith-based belief is in fact logically derived.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Dawkins' atheism feels to me very reactive. A lot of The God Delusion reads like Dawkins trying to carry on arguments he's had with other people...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

These positions seem to be diametrically opposed. Shamwari posits that faith is neither unreasonable nor irrational, implying that it is in someway derived using reason or logic, whereas FC makes the claim that religious faith is something different and distinct from logic. So I guess the first question to be addressed should be whether Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other faith-based belief is in fact logically derived.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's been my experience that when people complain about others infringing on their "right to be mistaken", they're usually complaining about their "right" to not be told they're mistaken, which is essentially insisting that others be obligated to play along with beliefs they disagree with. This seems less a right than an assertion of special privilege.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Volume 57, Number 1

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
No, Dawkins is calling for the abolition of our particular "delusion". In the current tv series he explicitly calls it "evil" and "dangerous". From this, I infer that he believes we should not be allowed to hold our point of view.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
No, Dawkins is calling for the abolition of our particular "delusion". In the current tv series he explicitly calls it "evil" and "dangerous". From this, I infer that he believes we should not be allowed to hold our point of view.

---

Which is akin to inferring that because someone considers racism to be "evil" and "dangerous" that they're calling for restrictions on the right to hold that opinion. It's a bit of a leap.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is akin to inferring that because someone considers racism to be "evil" and "dangerous" that they're calling for restrictions on the right to hold that opinion. It's a bit of a leap.

---

Did you not read my follow-up post? Dawkins likens religion to the smallpox virus and suggests its eradication. He says the same elsewhere, about eradicating religion by education and reason - but eradicating it nevertheless. I think, judging by his plain words, the conclusion is inescapable that he believes I do not have the right to view the world differently from him.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Croesos, I think your use of racism as a counter-example is as disingenuous as Dawkins's use of smallpox, but I'll gloss over that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The point is that "eradicate" is a precise word: it means to wipe out totally.

Even with something as obviously wicked as racism, I would be cautious about using the word "eradicate". What does one do to those who refuse to be "educated"? Send them, perhaps, to "education camps"? And what might that term become a euphemism for?

---

It's probably because you can't distinguish between eradicating or eliminating an idea and eradicating or eliminating people. That's the only way I can make sense of your "it's wrong to oppose racism because it might lead to death camps" argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(Notice I'm playing you at your own game here. You imply that religion is akin to racism: I imply that scientism is akin to totalitarianism.)

---

Thanks again for "glossing over" my example by referring to it twice without saying why it's wrong, other than that you find it offensive.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posted                          

quote:

---

This sort of stuff makes me empathetic to those decent Catholics who are put in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the (in)actions of their church’s hierarchy in dealing with priestly abuse.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Alistair McGrath studied Molecular Biophsyics at the same University and at the same (similar?) time Dawkins was around.

He wrote a book I've started recently. The Dawkins Delusion.

He's a fantastic theologian. Very reasonable and insightful.

---

Actually I was really disappointed with this. I thought he was far too sarcastic and negative. (Yes, I know what that means coming from me. )

I don't think he engaged with Dawkins properly either.

(Although it is also true that he went down in my estimation straight after his 'real absence' description of Zwingli's Eucharistic theology.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't one of the primary attributes of monotheistic faiths like Christianity the premise that every other religion is wrong? Dawkins seems to differ only in his refusal to carve out an exception for some people's faith of choice.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
If you want look at religion as a black/ white issue then perhaps you are correct. But is life ever that simple? If we take a more nuanced look at the big three - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - we see that they agree on the fundamentals - that there is a God and he is one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Alistair McGrath studied Molecular Biophsyics at the same University and at the same (similar?) time Dawkins was around.

He wrote a book I've started recently. The Dawkins Delusion.

He's a fantastic theologian. Very reasonable and insightful.

---

Actually I was really disappointed with this. I thought he was far too sarcastic and negative. (Yes, I know what that means coming from me. )

I don't think he engaged with Dawkins properly either.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems like it would be hard to argue general agreement when there's controversy over a the fairly simple matter of the number of Gods in a supposedly monotheistic faith.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems like it would be hard to argue general agreement when there's controversy over a the fairly simple matter of the number of Gods in a supposedly monotheistic faith.

---

No Christian thinks there are 3 gods. Purposely twisting the representation of Christian belief doesn't help you win arguments, it makes you look like a prat. Kind of like Dawkins. You can say Trinitaranism is confused and doesn't work logically. But to say Christians believe in 3 gods just makes the intelligent skip over anything you have to say. It's either disingenuous or pig-ignorant.

Which is, not coincidentally perhaps, one of the most damning criticisms levelled at Dawkins: That his understading of Christianity is actually a caricature, and he is attacking a straw man.

Perhaps you were just taking the piss.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
If you want look at religion as a black/ white issue then perhaps you are correct. But is life ever that simple? If we take a more nuanced look at the big three - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - we see that they agree on the fundamentals - that there is a God and he is one.

---

Except for those times when He is three, which seems to make Christianity the "odd man out" of the so-called "Big Three" (a.k.a. the Abrahamic faiths). It seems like it would be hard to argue general agreement when there's controversy over a the fairly simple matter of the number of Gods in a supposedly monotheistic faith.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
Attempting to redefine "eradicate" by providing a Google link to a keyword search is weak shit, Crœsos. And you know it! I'll stick to the dictionary definition, thank you very much.

Sometimes you hit the nail on the head. On this occasion you're well wide of the mark.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Who's redefining? I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between eradicating racism and eradicating racists, just as there's a difference between eradicating religion and eradicating religious believers. I think it's fairly significant that this distinction seems to be lost on so many. [/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Who's redefining? I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between eradicating racism and eradicating racists, just as there's a difference between eradicating religion and eradicating religious believers. I think it's fairly significant that this distinction seems to be lost on so many.

---

And you obviously missed the point that was made earlier. It isn't going to be possible to eradicate religion independently of the religious. That has been tried that before, don't you know. The result wasn't always pretty. I wonder how you propose religious belief would be eliminated without damaging those who hold onto faith?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually I picked it because it's one of the more common critiques of Christianity by Judaism and Islam; that the doctrine of the Trinity is self-contradictory an vaguely polytheistic.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually I picked it because it's one of the more common critiques of Christianity by Judaism and Islam; that the doctrine of the Trinity is self-contradictory an vaguely polytheistic.

---

Then why didn't you say that? Saying that Christians believe in 3 gods is either a lie, or evidence of the kind of ignorance that makes anything you say on the subject of less worth than examining the scrapings of the inside of the London sewer system as a means of predicting pork belly futures. Using this kind of subterfuge just drives honest, thoughtful people away from Dawkins and the kind of hatemongers who think and talk like him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

Second, religions die all the time without anyone having to go in and directly kill all of their living followers.[/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is a fairly clear-cut example of the kind of privelege expected by religion in public life.

---