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. )
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
My case, or part of it, is that Dawkins seems to work on the premise that faith is, by definition, unreasonable.

He also works on the assumption that a believer in God cannot, at the same time, believe in evolution.

I would want to posit the opposite.

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

I say believer in God because Dawkins is not just attacking Christians but people of all Faiths.

At which point it could be said that both areas have been discussed ad nauseum before. But Channel 4 has ignited the debate once again by a prime time programme.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

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?
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

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 by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

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.

---

Not sure about that. Intra-cranial pressure could do a lot of damage.

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 by seasick (# 48) on :
 
They're all freethinkers, Adeodatus, they just happen to agree!
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Adeodatus:

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.

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
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. 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 by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Well, to be honest, I think he is increasingly turning into a mirror image of what he hates. He claims to be the polar opposite of what he attacks, but in reality he is on a circle and it's only a very short jump between him and the thing he attacks now. I'm rather surprised that he doesn't see that. There is a problem too in the fact that he increasingly has a reliance on producing religious extremes to back up his arguments, which will int he long run backfire on him, as people discover (if they haven't already) that he is largely misrepresenting the religions he attacks (if this were anyone else they might be accused of hate crime).

I've always found his approach to any religion rather difficult. He 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. Maybe a world where things cannot be explained in a scientific and logical fashion scares him, which would certainly explain why he gravitates towards extremes. I feel rather sorry for him the more he goes on, as it becomes more and more clear that he has little sense of the transcendent in his life (in a secular sense). His only 'wonder' at existence is the in the cold, hard, scientific fact; where everything has an explanation and where every thought and action is boiled down to chemical processes.

If you were to plot a curve of his activities, he has certainly upped the ante in the last number of years. Maybe soon he will become a kind of tele evangelist for his new church of atheism and appear on sky tv making appeals for money with the promise of enlightenment.
 

---

Posted by follower (# 15597) on :
 
I often wonder if part of mr Dawkins attitude towards religion is regarding his scientific theories. He often usues the insult of creationist or sometimes Lamarkian to other biologists who have the audacity to disagree with sections of his own personal theories.

He gives a good impession of wanting to monopolise evolution to become synonymous with himself and his own theories. Aided by his own force of personality and lazy TV producers who can't think of anyone else to present programmes.

Imo he seems to have created a straw threat of creaping irrationality as a means of denouncing others who don't agree with him.
 

---

Posted by John P (# 15581) on :
 
Dawkins has a right to his opinion with the caveat it might be as informed as Ian Botham's tome "Quantum Physics for Swing Bowlers" (A cracking read incidentally).

For me Dawkins too often shoots down his own parodies of religious belief rather dealing with the real thing.

When he dies I intend to place intercessionary prayers in his celestial inbox. When they are answered I will begin the movement for his beatification. He can be the patron saint of stem cell researchers.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
I don't like Dawkins but I liked his latest book on evolution, well argued, even if it did have unnecessary digs at creationists (who, IMO, have no case whatever and should see sense and renounce such nonsense, thus doing Dawkins out of a job).

It is obvious that Dawkins will use Lourdes and Hagger from Christianity to illustrate his points (many of which rang true for me) because most of the church is so dull and boring. I think he leaves it to us, most of the time, to extrapolate from extremism to mundane.

First prize goes to Hagger for shouting 'arrogance' at Dawkins.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

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 by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

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 by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
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. Within the context of those arguments he may be right, but to the average Christian it feels like a succession of strawmen.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Yorick:

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.

---

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.)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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]

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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]

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

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

---

Is it a privilege to be allowed to say for oneself what one believes, rather than have somebody else put words in one's mouth? Well then, yes, it's a privilege that we want. I wonder that Dawkins doesn't want the same, however.

Twist and turn, you're just proving my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

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

---

Is it a privilege to be allowed to say for oneself what one believes, rather than have somebody else put words in one's mouth? Well then, yes, it's a privilege that we want. I wonder that Dawkins doesn't want the same, however.

Twist and turn, you're just proving my point.

---

I disagree with your formulation that this is an either/or situation. I suggest that both the "privilege to be allowed to say for oneself what one believes" and the privilege to say "the other guy's beliefs are a steaming load and here's why . . ." (what you call "somebody else put[ting] words in one's mouth") should be permitted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Then you differ from Dawkins. He doesn't believe that religious people should be permitted to say for themselves what they believe: he believes that religious people should be "educated" out of their beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You made a point earlier that religions come and go, and that education has reduced racism (which I would dispute: I'm not sure education has all that much to do with it, and racism is a very complex sociological phenomenon). But what do you think Dawkinsites would want to do with those few religious people who are really, really intransigent? Will they be forbidden to promulgate their views in public forums? Will they have their children taken into care so that they can't be "indoctrinated"? How, in Dawkinsworld, is that last little bit of rooting-out to be done?

---

quote:

---

quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Then you differ from Dawkins. He doesn't believe that religious people should be permitted to say for themselves what they believe: he believes that religious people should be "educated" out of their beliefs.

---

That seems at odds with his practice of participating in venues whose purpose is allowing religious people "to say for themselves what they believe".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I disagree with your formulation that this is an either/or situation. I suggest that both the "privilege to be allowed to say for oneself what one believes" and the privilege to say "the other guy's beliefs are a steaming load and here's why . . ." (what you call "somebody else put[ting] words in one's mouth") should be permitted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Croesus:

quote:

---

quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Then you differ from Dawkins. He doesn't believe that religious people should be permitted to say for themselves what they believe: he believes that religious people should be "educated" out of their beliefs.

---

That seems at odds with his practice of participating in venues whose purpose is allowing religious people "to say for themselves what they believe".

---

non sequitur.How is it at odds? It would be entirely consistent behaviour for, for example, a self-publicist. Or indeed anyone who, given that religious people tiresomely persist in existing, gets off on engaging with them.

AFAICS, all you're doing at the moment is asserting, and assuming that that suffices for argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I enjoyed it when Ted Haggard said Dawkins was arrogant and Dawkins was gracious enough not to mention Haggard's sex scandals. (Though I've seen bits of this programme before in other programmes and wonder whether this was recorded before the scandals.)

---

quote:

---

I'm rather surprised that he doesn't see that. There is a problem too in the fact that he increasingly has a reliance on producing religious extremes to back up his arguments, which will int he long run backfire on him, as people discover (if they haven't already) that he is largely misrepresenting the religions he attacks [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
derived.

---

Are they the only options? I don't think the Golden Rule can be logically derived,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb] I don't think the Golden Rule can be logically derived,

---

I think it's a logical recipe for a harmonious society, and we are social beings, who need to get on with others to survive and be reasonably happy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:
I think he tends to mainly attack religious fundamentalism because it is a clear target - by and large fundamentalists, or even religious conservatives, believe their religion says certain set things about how the universe works and the purposes behind it and what God wants us to do. Very liberal people tend to have somewhat vague, in comparison, views that are not that different from Humanism. For example, he says he is interested in arguing against the God described in the Bible, not one who is in impersonal ground of being etc.

He thinks liberal religion is too vague a target, and also that liberals on the whole are harmless people who are unlikely to start jihads, attack abortion clinics, try to deny rights to gays or deny the right to use contraception or deny findings of science, or preach a lot of hellfire sermons to kids or tell them not to associate with people of other beliefs (or none) or whatever else religiously fundamentalist people are said to do. They also tend to get on more easily with people who don't share their views and be more integrated with modern society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb] I don't think the Golden Rule can be logically derived,

---

I think it's a logical recipe for a harmonious society, and we are social beings, who need to get on with others to survive and be reasonably happy

---

ISTM that -

a. "Following the Golden Rule makes me happier" is an emotional, rather than a logical justification (and in some cases probably not even true);

b. "Following the Golden Rule makes other people happier" is not a logical justification either, unless you can derive logically why I ought to care about other people.

Again, I'm not saying that either a. or b. are irrational. I'm claiming them both as a kind of middle way that's neither logical nor irrational.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but while attacking religious fundamentalism he claims to be attacking "religion" -- as if the two were synonymous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.

---

And Croesos comes close to failing logic forever.

Not irrational does not imply derived using logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But criticize them for what they say and claim not what you want to believe they say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
How about its [the Golden Rule's] derivation from a Prisoner's Dilemma-like situation by game theorists? (Cartoon version.) Is that logical enough for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3M Matt:
[Dawkins] may be a very clever in his scientific field, but as soon as he starts talking about philosophy, or theology, or worse still, the New Testament, it is abundantly clear that he just simply doesn't know the literature.

His scholarship is uniformly abysmal on these subjects, yet he somehow carries across the weight of authority which is afforded him when he speaks on his own field of expertise, namely evolutionary biology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
How about its [the Golden Rule's] derivation from a Prisoner's Dilemma-like situation by game theorists? (Cartoon version.) Is that logical enough for you?

---

No, because most real-life situations can't be modelled in that way.

e.g. If I give £20 to flood relief in Pakistan the only possible outcome for me is that I'm £20 poorer. There is no possible outcome that corresponds to the Prisoner's Dilemma "I get out of jail."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Dawkins and the "New Atheists" might be annoying to some. But they are not against freedom of expression or religion. They are secularists, they want religion out of government and the Schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The perfect Courtier's Reply!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So I'm free to express my religion unless I'm in a school or in government, both of which places must entirely ignore God? There are valid points to be made on both sides of that argument, don't let's pretend that this version of secularism can't possibly have anything to do with restricting "freedom of expression of religion".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Have been watching Channel 4 and Dawkins evangelising on behalf of atheism.

Any two brained idiot can take the extremes of religion and build a case for atheism.

But there is another and equally reasonable case.

Methinks it is Dawkins who is deluded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
My case, or part of it, is that Dawkins seems to work on the premise that faith is, by definition, unreasonable.

He also works on the assumption that a believer in God cannot, at the same time, believe in evolution.

I would want to posit the opposite.

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

I say believer in God because Dawkins is not just attacking Christians but people of all Faiths.

At which point it could be said that both areas have been discussed ad nauseum before. But Channel 4 has ignited the debate once again by a prime time programme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
"rational" = "derived via reason"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Here's another posit - Anyone who believes in the supernatural [snip] and teaches others that their belief is founded [snip] upon a higher [snip -- this is tedious] way [snip] which [snip] is superior to science because [snip] it can't be explained [snip] is encouraging a lack of critical thought which augurs poorly for the individual, poorly for those who associate with them (particularly if they are dependant upon them) and poorly for the future of both mankind and the planet we live on.

---

quote:

---

That being the case, nice people who hold genuine but undemonstrable beliefs and never-harmed-anyone-in-their-life provide cover for [a bunch of bad people]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
You are entitled to think that Dawkins is deluded but, as I was always told in Maths, if you don't show your workings you get no marks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I think Solzhenitsyn's account of human good and evil is far more convincing than Dawkins'. But then Solzhenitsyn was a Christian so it doesn't count, being based on "faith" and all. Dawkins' is doubtless based on science. The good gene, the evil gene, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

You are entitled to think that Dawkins is deluded but, as I was always told in Maths, if you don't show your workings you get no marks.

---

He's deluded because he doesn't show his workings but claims to arrive at The Truth.

He can no more prove God doesn't exist than someone that believes in God can. End Of Story.

He's just another fundamentalist.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
As everyone seen Dawkins' latest evangelistic strategy? (Or has this been posted already?)

The Out Campaign!

My favourite bit comes from his introductory letter:

quote:

---

As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.

---

And Croesos comes close to failing logic forever.

Not irrational does not imply derived using logic.

---

Why is it that whenever you type "reason or logic", reason always gets ignored? If something is "irrational" it is, by definition, without reason.

Quick summary:
"not irrational" (double negative) = "rational"
"rational" = "derived via reason"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

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.

---

This is a fairly clear-cut example of the kind of privelege expected by religion in public life. If Richard Dawkins claims the Trinity is a self-contradictory and polytheistic notion such observations are the equivalent of sewage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
Rather ironic, that, since Dawkins shows virtually no 'workings' to support his sweeping conclusions such as 'without religion, good people would do good things, and evil people would do evil things, but it takes religion to make good people do evil things' as he claimed in the trailer for the Ch4 programme.

Indeed it could be assumed from the selective nature of the evidence he presents that he draws his conclusions first and then finds evidence to support it - which is not particularly scientific.

I'm intrigued by his rather stark division of humanity into people who are naturally 'good' or 'evil' and how he thinks this state of affairs might have arisen and what its purpose is in evolutionary terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3M Matt:
[Dawkins] may be a very clever in his scientific field, but as soon as he starts talking about philosophy, or theology, or worse still, the New Testament, it is abundantly clear that he just simply doesn't know the literature.

His scholarship is uniformly abysmal on these subjects, yet he somehow carries across the weight of authority which is afforded him when he speaks on his own field of expertise, namely evolutionary biology.

---

The perfect Courtier's Reply!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The perfect Courtier's Reply!

---

If Prof Dawkins had said "The Emperor can't be wearing clothes, because it's impossible to weave clothes out of glass", when the Emperor had never claimed to have made clothes from glass, then the Courtier's Reply is quite sensible, even if the Courtier is also wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but while attacking religious fundamentalism he claims to be attacking "religion" -- as if the two were synonymous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but while attacking religious fundamentalism he claims to be attacking "religion" -- as if the two were synonymous.

---

It’s fascinating to observe how theists feel so terribly attacked by Dawkins and, more generally, the rise of secularism. Because it’s not a literal ‘attack’, is it? Dawkins isn’t actually attacking anything- he’s simply arguing, discussing and debating, not attacking. Yes, his mode is certainly polemic, often scornful and arguably ignorant (though I doubt he’s as clueless about Abrahamic religion as most of you would prefer to think), but I see far more sinister and harmful hostility demonstrated between theists of opposing faiths and denominations, and this from people who are consummate theologians! Hell, you guys murder each other for the tiniest differences of belief.

I’ve often wondered, if Dawkins really hasn’t got a clue about Christianity, why Christians feel so aggrieved by his atheistic evangelism? If his ‘attack’ is misdirected at strawmen and nasty fundamentalists (as you often claim), what are you all feeling so ‘attacked’ for?

Insecure much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
If his ‘attack’ is misdirected at strawmen and nasty fundamentalists (as you often claim), what are you all feeling so ‘attacked’ for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
If his ‘attack’ is misdirected at strawmen and nasty fundamentalists (as you often claim), what are you all feeling so ‘attacked’ for?

---

I'm fairly sure that if I started spreading nasty and untrue things about What Yorick Believes, you'd be feeling a bit annoyed ...

---

quote:

---

One point I take from this is that there is a hard core there of "This is Christianity, so it's true, so all its implications are true. And these implications, because they are true, are good. And because it's Christianity, human fallibility can be eliminated by rigorously religious procedure, not just in the liturgy itself, but in all the human interactions and activities which will take place in a completely christianised society. Ultimately we will all agree, because we must, and you will all agree with me because I'm a Christian, and therefore I have possession of the truth-finding God-endorsed apparatus, and therefore already, in effect, of the truth. Resistance is futile."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
If his ‘attack’ is misdirected at strawmen and nasty fundamentalists (as you often claim), what are you all feeling so ‘attacked’ for?

---

I'm fairly sure that if I started spreading nasty and untrue things about What Yorick Believes, you'd be feeling a bit annoyed ...

---

A bit annoyed, yes, but not 'attacked'. I think if I actually felt attacked by it (when I obviously wasn't), I would seriously self-examine what my insecurity was telling me about the nature of What I Believe and how I believe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
If his ‘attack’ is misdirected at strawmen and nasty fundamentalists (as you often claim), what are you all feeling so ‘attacked’ for?

---

I'm fairly sure that if I started spreading nasty and untrue things about What Yorick Believes, you'd be feeling a bit annoyed ...

---

A bit annoyed, yes, but not 'attacked'. I think if I actually felt attacked by it (when I obviously wasn't), I would seriously self-examine what my insecurity was telling me about the nature of What I Believe and how I believe it.

---

Maybe it's no coincidence that it seems to be the same bunch of Christian shipmates who always turn up on these atheism threads...

---

...you mean the ones with a bit of intellectual rigour?
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
Are you wanting to emphasise "rigour" or "a bit"?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
If his ‘attack’ is misdirected at strawmen and nasty fundamentalists (as you often claim), what are you all feeling so ‘attacked’ for?

---

I'm fairly sure that if I started spreading nasty and untrue things about What Yorick Believes, you'd be feeling a bit annoyed ...

---

A bit annoyed, yes, but not 'attacked'. I think if I actually felt attacked by it (when I obviously wasn't), I would seriously self-examine what my insecurity was telling me about the nature of What I Believe and how I believe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Are you wanting to emphasise "rigour" or "a bit"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Are you wanting to emphasise "rigour" or "a bit"?

---

Are you wanting to emphasise "Christian" or "the same bunch"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Are you wanting to emphasise "rigour" or "a bit"?

---

Are you wanting to emphasise "Christian" or "the same bunch"?

---

Well, I could say touché. But the pedantic response would be that I was asking about the relative importance of two substantives whereas you are asking about the relative importance of a substantive and an adjective so the two questions are not actually equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.

---

And Croesos comes close to failing logic forever.

Not irrational does not imply derived using logic.

---

Why is it that whenever you type "reason or logic", reason always gets ignored? If something is "irrational" it is, by definition, without reason.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Quick summary:
"not irrational" (double negative) = "rational"
"rational" = "derived via reason"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Yes, Sir! You have obviously appointed yourself to a role of determining appropriate debating behaviour on this thread, so I will judge myself to be suitably admonished by such a superior being.

However, if you looked at the context of my original comment you would see that it has an underlying point. It is not unusual for religious shipmates to claim that if an atheist is on the Ship it indicates that they actually have a closet yearning for god (although it hasn't yet been said on this thread). But the gander obviously gets touchy if the sauce is applied to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The perfect Courtier's Reply!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So I'm free to express my religion unless I'm in a school or in government, both of which places must entirely ignore God? There are valid points to be made on both sides of that argument, don't let's pretend that this version of secularism can't possibly have anything to do with restricting "freedom of expression of religion".

---

If you are a representative of the government you are free to express your views on religion. You are not allowed to express them, however, as a representative of the government. Just as you are not allowed to express them as a representative of the school, but you are allowed to do so as a private citizen. Just as I was not allowed to say whatever the heck I wanted when I was in my military uniform, but I could do so (essentially) as a private citizen.

No atheist that I've seen is looking to change this. It's a pretty black and white issue.

---

Plenty of secularists want to get rid of faith schools, arguing that a secular (by which they mean atheistic) environment is the only place in which to educate a child, which is a highly questionable and highly statist belief. I've also met and read plenty who who have a problem with Christians lobbying the government (like no other interest group ever lobbies those in power ).

"Wanting religion out of government and the schools" is portrayed as being in favour of equality. It isn't. Equality means that religious interests get as much influence a they're democratically due, which is more than zero. Zero is the amount many Dawkinsite secularists want it to get.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Pre-cambrian

quote:

---

No doubt much of your argument which leads to you lining up Dawkins alongside Hitler

---

quote:

---

could be applied to modern Christians derived from the companion book The Pure Society: from Christ to Torquemada.

---

quote:

---

As posted by Psyduck with amendments:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One point I take from this is that there is a hard core there of "This is Christianity, so it's true, so all its implications are true. And these implications, because they are true, are good. And because it's Christianity, human fallibility can be eliminated by rigorously religious procedure, not just in the liturgy itself, but in all the human interactions and activities which will take place in a completely christianised society. Ultimately we will all agree, because we must, and you will all agree with me because I'm a Christian, and therefore I have possession of the truth-finding God-endorsed apparatus, and therefore already, in effect, of the truth. Resistance is futile."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[In response to Psyduck, not Yorick]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
Arrietty in the Borrowers kept her diary in a pocket diary with a small pencil attached (such as this one)so I assume it's a small diary pencil

---

Thanks! I was thinking that featthers didn't usually come in that size

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly I was being sarcastic, Squibs. Dividing people into "good" and "evil" people is about as unscientific as anything any sky-fairy-believer ever did. Dawkins is very selective in his use of "reason".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:
I think he sees them as mainly in the more liberal side of things, as above, but also thinks their position has deviated a bit from the traditional internal logic of the Christian religion, so the fundamentalists are in a sense more representative of the religion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

You are entitled to think that Dawkins is deluded but, as I was always told in Maths, if you don't show your workings you get no marks.

---

He's deluded because he doesn't show his workings but claims to arrive at The Truth.

He can no more prove God doesn't exist than someone that believes in God can. End Of Story.

He's just another fundamentalist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:

---

No doubt much of your argument which leads to you lining up Dawkins alongside Hitler

---

Misreprsentation right off the bat! And on multiple levels. First of all, it's not my argument in the sense that it's not mine but Pichot's. Secondly, it's not my argument inasmuch as it's not what I said.

---

quote:

---

Dawkins' totalitarian biologism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So I'm free to express my religion unless I'm in a school or in government, both of which places must entirely ignore God? There are valid points to be made on both sides of that argument, don't let's pretend that this version of secularism can't possibly have anything to do with restricting "freedom of expression of religion".

---

If you are a representative of the government you are free to express your views on religion. You are not allowed to express them, however, as a representative of the government. Just as you are not allowed to express them as a representative of the school, but you are allowed to do so as a private citizen. Just as I was not allowed to say whatever the heck I wanted when I was in my military uniform, but I could do so (essentially) as a private citizen.

No atheist that I've seen is looking to change this. It's a pretty black and white issue.

---

Plenty of secularists want to get rid of faith schools

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
There is no more proof of God than there is of an invisible teapot orbiting the sun. And therefore claims about God should be taken no more seriously than those of invisible teapots, invisible pink unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
No atheist that I've seen is looking to change this. It's a pretty black and white issue.

---

Plenty of secularists want to get rid of faith schools

---

So do plenty of Christians, of which I am one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
There is no more proof of God than there is of an invisible teapot orbiting the sun. And therefore claims about God should be taken no more seriously than those of invisible teapots, invisible pink unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

---

Well, as it stands what you've written is a circular argument. Which is most unfair on Dawkins.

There's lots of purported evidence for God. What Dawkins lacks is any kind of systematic method by which claims can be evaluated and found wanting. He needs to say "Any evidence for God's existence must meet criterion X; this is because of Y; as no such evidence has been presented, there's no reason to believe in God."

---

quote:

---

Instead, Dawkins proceeds by trying to refute individually every single argument for God that's ever been raised. Inevitably he fails to do any of them justice - not because he's dishonest or stupid, but because it's an impossible task.

---

quote:

---

The lack of method is most obvious in the section when he's refuting the "proof by personal experience". His counter-argument is, in essence, that people can be deluded. This is of course correct, but doesn't explain why we should favour "delusion" over "God" to account for purported personal experiences.

(Prima facie, if most people can see a cat in the window and a few people can't, we'd generally assume that the latter were myopic, not that the former were hallucinating.)

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt much of your argument which leads to you lining up Dawkins alongside Hitler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Misreprsentation right off the bat! And on multiple levels. First of all, it's not my argument in the sense that it's not mine but Pichot's. Secondly, it's not my argument inasmuch as it's not what I said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe not in as many words. But it was you who attacked Dawkins under the heading of a book about Hitler being a result of convinced Darwinism and it's pretty clear that was the connection you wanted to make. And it was your polemic, that I quoted back at you, that also deliberately raising a spectre of dictators and dawn knocks on the door.

But hey, you make it more explicit this time round:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins' totalitarian biologism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you weren't being misrepresented at all.

---

quote:

---

And Psyduck, from just your summary alone I don't need to read Pinchot. He's talking complete and utter bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Because Adolf Hitler did not believe in the Theory of Evolution. He was a creationist.. As for that matter was the writer of the "Gospel of the Nazi Movement". (At least according to the newspaper of the Nazi party.

---

quote:

---

So anyone trying to make a link between the Theory of Evolution and Adolf Hitler is peddling easily discredited lies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
So too with God. Even if one understanding of God theory is right, all the rest must be wrong (or God is incoherent).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
I said proof, not evidence.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The lack of method is most obvious in the section when he's refuting the "proof by personal experience". His counter-argument is, in essence, that people can be deluded. This is of course correct, but doesn't explain why we should favour "delusion" over "God" to account for purported personal experiences.

(Prima facie, if most people can see a cat in the window and a few people can't, we'd generally assume that the latter were myopic, not that the former were hallucinating.)

---

And if the people who could see the cat were arguing over whether the cat was a mangy tabby, a glossy black cat, a long haired white persian, or an entire basket of kittens (and couldn't even agree on the colour of the kittens) what would you then assume?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pjkirk:
No atheist that I've seen is looking to change this. It's a pretty black and white issue.

---

Plenty of secularists want to get rid of faith schools

---

So do plenty of Christians, of which I am one.

---

So it's possible to be a Christian and a secularist at the same time. This doesn't change anything that I, ikkyu or pjkirk said so I don't see how it's relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
I said proof, not evidence.

---

I never suggested otherwise. However, you need evidence before you can have proof. If all evidence is going to be summarily dismissed because "there's no proof", then we have a circular argument on our hands ...

However, Dawkins isn't saying that, so I don't understand why you're trying to claim he is? When Dawkins' supporters are attributing stupid positions to him, that doesn't say much for his ability to communicate.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if the people who could see the cat were arguing over whether the cat was a mangy tabby, a glossy black cat, a long haired white persian, or an entire basket of kittens (and couldn't even agree on the colour of the kittens) what would you then assume?

---

Well, we could now argue about whether the most reasonable assumption is "There's something in the window, but it's really strange", or whether it's better just to confess ignorance, or whether, granted that the cat(s) is/are a hallucination, those who can't see the cat(s) can be sure they're not hallucinating something else, or whether this whole situation (either in my version or yours) is really a true analogy of the situation with religion ...

... but Dawkins doesn't do any of this. Which is all I was saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Pichot laments that the only real sources of opposition to the rampant Darwinism that was one of the principal sources of the Third Reich were the Roman Catholic Church and Soviet Lysenkoist biology!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Justinian:

quote:

---

And Psyduck, from just your summary alone I don't need to read Pinchot. He's talking complete and utter bollocks.

---

I didn't provide a summary. I sketched a couple of trajectories, with no claim to accuracy. But that's a fascinating statement, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't need to read Pinchot. He's talking complete and utter bollocks.

---

Actually, you do need to read him, for at least two reasons. Firstly, because the "summary" you're going by is actually just the title. It's a complex book, and deserves to be read - as the "summary" of the author I gave should have indicated that he's not a numpty, but I note that that bit of my "summary" you conveniently left out.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because Adolf Hitler did not believe in the Theory of Evolution. He was a creationist.. As for that matter was the writer of the "Gospel of the Nazi Movement". (At least according to the newspaper of the Nazi party.

---

Well that settles it, of course. The whole of the Third Reich, and everything that happened to German, and indeed European culture for a century and more before 1945, is irrelevant, because Hitler was a creationist!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So anyone trying to make a link between the Theory of Evolution and Adolf Hitler is peddling easily discredited lies.

---

Try it and see. Unless the discomfort of being up against an actual intellectual opponent instead of a straw man is too uncomfortable, of course. Or just read somebody else's summary, not what you take to be mine. There's a few at Amazon...

---

quote:

---

Fascinating reaction, though, to an attempt to introduce a mere book into the debate! Fairly raised the temperature! Not quite to farenheit 451...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Read the book. See what he says.

---

quote:

---

The title belongs to a textbook dishonest creationist hatchet job - and a hatchet job I've rebutted going on for two dozen times.

---

quote:

---

Which is just a cheap way of saying "I don't want to be held accountable for anything I say".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
I accept Pichot's argument - as I see it that the cultural imperialism of scientistic thought stemming from nineteenth and twentieth century readings of Darwin are potentially dangerous to the human future, and that the scientism they represent is, however dressed up, and however benignly portrayed or believed to be by its proponents, is deeply implicated in some forms of totalitarian thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
ISTM that what Pichot is saying is that the vast expansion of "evolutionary" thinking into all sorts of areas of intellectual life after 1859 sported some spectacularly dangerous currents of thought. What is important in relation to the Third Reich is the whole of this development. I think Pichot makes a very good case. But then, I've read the book. (And by the way, I haven't anywhere here attempted to "summarize" it.)

All I asked was "Has anyone else read it?" I do find it instructive that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to trash what the book's thesis is taken to be without even having read it.

ISTM that the response is (virtually explicitly) "It must be saying what we say it's saying, and it's wrong."

It isn't saying what you say it's saying. How could that be, when you haven't read it. But if, for a moment, the Dawkinsites could leave off telling us what religion really is and BTW it's wrong, and refrain from stating that "this is what Pichot must be saying and BTW it's rubbish," and actually read the book, that might actually advance the argument a bit, and maybe broaden it beyond the triangular trench-warfare it usually reduces to.

Or don't read it. Your choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Justinian:

quote:

---

The title belongs to a textbook dishonest creationist hatchet job - and a hatchet job I've rebutted going on for two dozen times.

---

I'm sorry - have you actually given up reading posts now before you answer them? A pupil of Canguilhem, researcher at the Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, "the largest governmental research organization in France and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe" (yes, Wikipedia - but I doubt it's wrong!) and published with the support of the French Culture Ministry, Andre Pichot is "a textbook dishonest creationist"? On which planet? Have you any idea how stupid that assertion is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
But I happen to believe that "the acknowledgement of God in Christ, accepted by your reason solves all prblems ........" ( Tennyson)

This proves nothing.

And nothing can be proved.

But I find that it meshes with experience as well as thought. It is no mere Theory.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that you, as is obvious from what you have posted here, do not know any of the fields involved. That of the creationists and their incessant attempts to tie Dawkins to Hitler (which is why it has positive reviews from Creationism

---

quote:

---

So reader beware, The Pure Society is both fascinating and infuriating, especially for those in biomedicine (often trying to forget their profession's involvement in the dark history of eugenics). But given the power and potential of genomics, Pichot's themes remain relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyduck:
He is offering a critique of the cultural ramifications of an uncritical application of Darwinian evolutionary theory to fields unrelated to the biological.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Your whole post is a load of bluster. All that's necessary to say by way of rebuttal is that Pichot isn't a creationist.

---

quote:

---

He is offering a critique of the cultural ramifications of an uncritical application of Darwinian evolutionary theory to fields unrelated to the biological.

---

quote:

---

You know nothing of my competence in any of the fields you cite, because I haven't expressed myself sufficiently for you to be able to gauge my competence. You impute views and positions to me, and for that matter to Pichot, which are not held. You are ranting in a vacuum, against straw men.

---

quote:

---

But better to trash the person than read and engage with the ideas.

---

quote:

---

Just in case you actually do have the inclination to assess Pichot in terms other than his CV, however, here's The New Humanist (long a bastion of crackpot creationism, I would imagine) review.

---

quote:

---

Your post is somewhere between guesswork and fabrication in most its assertions and overall a piece of downright intellectual dishonesty. That's what happens when you start believing that you can critique people's thinking without bothering to examine what they actually think, say or believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Missed edit window.

Read: Your post is somewhere between guesswork and fabrication in most of its assertions about me, and overall a piece of downright intellectual dishonesty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
For the above, Dawkins doesn't claim he has proof that there is no God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Yes, Sir! You have obviously appointed yourself to a role of determining appropriate debating behaviour on this thread, so I will judge myself to be suitably admonished by such a superior being.

However, if you looked at the context of my original comment you would see that it has an underlying point. It is not unusual for religious shipmates to claim that if an atheist is on the Ship it indicates that they actually have a closet yearning for god (although it hasn't yet been said on this thread). But the gander obviously gets touchy if the sauce is applied to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

There is also Dawkins' charming contention that liberal religious believers do nothing except make the fundamentalists more plausible.

For what it's worth, fundamentalism is not more true to the internal logic of the Christian religion than liberal religion. The internal logic does not favour Biblical literalism; nor does it think of God as the kind of causal agent that intelligent design needs God to be.
(Those of us who aren't fundamentalists find the unthinking statement otherwise offensive, although whether it's offensive is a bit beside the point.) [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

There is also Dawkins' charming contention that liberal religious believers do nothing except make the fundamentalists more plausible.

For what it's worth, fundamentalism is not more true to the internal logic of the Christian religion than liberal religion. The internal logic does not favour Biblical literalism; nor does it think of God as the kind of causal agent that intelligent design needs God to be.
(Those of us who aren't fundamentalists find the unthinking statement otherwise offensive, although whether it's offensive is a bit beside the point.)

---

I think the argument that liberals help give credibility to fundamentalists is more associated with Sam Harris than Dawkins, generally.

I personally do tend to think that fundamentalism is more internally consistent, even if I identify more with liberals - for example a belief that God created us and everything else with intention, rather than that things came about by chance and impersonal laws of nature, seems to me more consistent with the way his character is described in the Bible. Ditto for a God that intervenes and that listens to prayers and is a "person" etc as opposed to one that is some underlying ground of being. Also, Saint Paul clearly believed in a literal Adam when he said sin came into the world via one man and another man (Jesus) came to take it away. Believing in a literal Adam and Eve who literally sinned makes the idea of Jesus having to incarnate to deal with this more straightforward than the idea that at some point humans who evolved over billions of years came to be in a state of sin that was barring from from proper communion with God (so at which stage, in that interpretation, did they possess the proper relationship with him prior to the fall?). A literal belief in Jesus rising from the dead and ascending to Heaven and in the second Coming and resurrection of the dead etc are more consistent with what the New Testament says than are liberal, metaphorical interpretations. etc.

I certainly don't think however that it is pointless to try to come to new ways of living a faith based on the Christian tradition if you can't intellectually accept some of the traditional ideas, but I do think there is a more straightforward internal logic to taking the traditional ideas at face value (if you can manage to turn off the skeptical side of your brain and accept them all).

Of course definitions of "fundamentalist" and "liberal" are not hard and fast anyway, and there are degrees of each. Most Christians fall somewhere in-between extremes of eg. the Answers in Genesis people or Bishop Spong. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Whatever he is or isn't, he's certainly wrong. And producing textbook creationist garbage. If he isn't a creationist, he's a Useful Idiot. Or, more probably a smart garden variety troll.

---

quote:

---

quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is offering a critique of the cultural ramifications of an uncritical application of Darwinian evolutionary theory to fields unrelated to the biological.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bollocks! At best he's offering a critique of the theft of evolutionary biology by sociological idiots who didn't understand it. And then trying to twist it back to blame the biologists.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know nothing of my competence in any of the fields you cite, because I haven't expressed myself sufficiently for you to be able to gauge my competence. You impute views and positions to me, and for that matter to Pichot, which are not held. You are ranting in a vacuum, against straw men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:

OK. Do you have any credentials?

---

quote:

---

And do you take back the idiocy I've exposed at the top of the top of page 3?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But better to trash the person than read and engage with the ideas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine. Go engage with every biblical literalist out there. Come back when you get fed up of seeing the same case for the 70th time. And then I'll criticise you for not engaging with the ideas. His ideas are not new. It's just that you are seeing them for the first time. This is standard Creationist playbook (I don't know whether he himself is one, whether he's reading from it, whether he's trolling, or whether he's just mistaken. But it's a textbook play done well).

---

quote:

---

It's just that you are seeing them for the first time.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just in case you actually do have the inclination to assess Pichot in terms other than his CV, however, here's The New Humanist (long a bastion of crackpot creationism, I would imagine) review.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, you are the one that brought up his CV. And when I pointed out it was crap, you mysteriously don't try to defend it - you're trying to now in a piece of sleight of hand claim it as irrelevant. As for The Lancet, depends on the reviewer. They let Dr Wakefield publish. And I never said he wasn't extremely good and plausible. (Even peer review is flawed, although the alternatives are worse. Book reviews - he just needs to catch the right person to get a good review.)

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post is somewhere between guesswork and fabrication in most its assertions and overall a piece of downright intellectual dishonesty. That's what happens when you start believing that you can critique people's thinking without bothering to examine what they actually think, say or believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that it's crap to start with (confusing evolution with eugenics)...

---

quote:

---

...it's a crap premise secondly (science is responsible for the distortions it is used for) and it's a commonly used line then there's no point.

I know from just your comments and the reviews a number of places he's plain wrong. I know what line he's taking. I've seen it about a dozen times before. Yes, this iteration sounds like a skilled one. And might be worth reading to see his examples and that argument run well. But it doesn't make it other than fundamentally wrong. And wrong in a well known way that I have no desire to read for a 25th time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Missed edit window.

Read: Your post is somewhere between guesswork and fabrication in most of its assertions about me, and overall a piece of downright intellectual dishonesty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you care to demonstrate that? Demonstrate one place where I am being dishonest? Because you've made a set of allegations with absolutely no supporting evidence that you will not stand by.

---

quote:

---

And you are dancing every time a point of yours is disproved

---

quote:

---

without ever defending much except that we should read a book that contains a case I've seen two dozen times before.

Or are insinuations, direct accusations of intellectual dishonesty, and appeals to irrelevant authority all you have? Well, that and recycled Creationist arguments that you are presenting as (a) new, and (b) interesting when in practice they aren't even first year undergraduate stuff.

---

quote:

---

I've pointed out a fundamental historical flaw in the case (Hitler despised the theory of Darwinian evolution - complete with a link containing quotes). I've pointed out a fundamental history of science flaw (Eugenics does not have its roots in Biology. It has them in Statistics.) I've pointed out a fundamental scientific flaw. (If you actually look at what evolutionary biology has to say then it points out that the result of eugenics is going to be massive inbreeding, limited genetic diversity, and the whole host of problems and lack of adaptability associated with this). I've pointed out a fundamental sociological floor (that people have always misappropriated whatever authority they can for their own ends - see the Prosperity Gospel or the Divine Right of Kings for examples). Bullfrog has just pointed out a fundamental epistemological flaw ("No True Scientist would ever uncritically apply anything." It moves it outside the realm of science.)

Any of the above are enough to leave the case on the scrapheap. All of them together make it look more like a swiss cheese than a theory. And while I have no doubt that when you put the wax on the outside of the cheese it looks nice and pretty, the best thing to do with it is make fondue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I never suggested otherwise. However, you need evidence before you can have proof. If all evidence is going to be summarily dismissed because "there's no proof", then we have a circular argument on our hands ...

---

I said proof because the person I was replying to said proof and I quoted and replied to him on the terms he was using. Now you are coming in and objecting that I am not using your standards for communication when I was directly and explicitely replying to someone else.

---

quote:

---

What Dawkins does is says "Here are the roots of what people are seeing in the window" - he's a bit didactic. But he's a scientist. Rather than just saying "but it's really strange" and giving up, he tries to work out what's actually in the window and why people would be seeing such different things. And then tell everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
All that's necessary to say by way of rebuttal is that Pichot isn't a creationist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Darwin != Social Darwinism.

---

quote:

---

And people love taking whatever justification they can to feel superior and grab a bigger slice of the pie for themselves - science, religion, whatever is to hand.

---

quote:

---

And people love taking whatever justification they can to feel superior and grab a bigger slice of the pie for themselves - science, religion, whatever is to hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
His strictly academic career is curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
2) Are you saying that everyone who offers a critique of the - what are we actually talking about here? - the Selfish Gene, or the cultural influence of an evolutionary sociobiology reinforced by a scientism that won't brook challenge (what I'm talking about) or whatever - is either a covert creationist, a troll or a useful idiot?

---

quote:

---

Well that might actually further discussion on this thread, because, however smooth his presentation at times, I think that that's actually Dawkins' default position. And apparently yours.

---

quote:

---

Or do you have a specific animus in this area against Pichot? In which case I say again: substantiate it. And again: have you read the book?

---

quote:

---

Excuse me? I forbear to answer that, because this is still the Ship of Fools. We are allowed to debate here, and the question itself is offensive. But entirely typical. Just out of interest, what credentials do you think people should have before they should arrogantly claim the privilege of debating with you?

---

quote:

---

I've just looked through your posts, and can't find what you are talking about. Restate it, and I'll address it.

---

quote:

---

Would a fair translation of this be "I know what these people think, they're all the same, anyone who disagrees with me is either a creationist, a fellow traveller, or a stooge/dupe, and they all bloody hack me off, and won't oblige me by shutting the hell up, after announcking their conversion to my position and, annoyingly, they won't acknowledge the complete and crushing adequacy of my bog-standard rebuttal. But they're all the same anyway, so I have to say something every time one of them appears on my radar, so thank God - oops, unintentional irony! - that I don't actually have to find out what the irrelevant fine distinctions among them - like being conservative, creationist, liberal, enthusiastic but critical endorsers of a dialogue between science and religion, etc. etc. are.

"These people are all alike..."

---

quote:

---

Unbelievable! You really think that? More importantly, you really think that you have the right to make that assertion?

---

quote:

---

Most of the elements in Pichot's book I have known for ages. Their assembly and articulation is new to me because, er... oh yes! I read Pichot's book! I felt I had to, you know, with not being omniscient and that.

---

quote:

---

I note that you are answering me very selectively. Nothing on when the New Humanist became a fan of creationism, for example! Oh - and how about this. No actual critique of the Lancet review, no engagement with it - just a slur on the Lancet as publishing crap reviews and bad science from time to time, and the observation that peer review is dodgy occasionally also. Why? Well, apparently because it lets through stuff you disagree with... (And yes, I do know something about the fallibility of peer review from time to time, and it's not that.)

---

quote:

---

Ah, I confuse evolution with eugenics. Actually, I don't; my original post was about the influence of scientism on Victorian and early twentieth-century receptions of evolution.

---

quote:

---

But it's interesting that you actually got that suggestion from an observation made in one of the reviews I cite about Pichot's book. So you do read some things. Albeit that you then deploy them somewhat mechanically and irrelevantly.

---

quote:

---

Precisely where? Specify! I said I'd read a book which I thought was an interesting contribution to a debate on the claims of a particular understanding of science - not evolutionary biology, which I accept as a valid, indeed the only valid, scientific approach to its field - to social influence.

---

quote:

---

I suggested that Dawkins naively mirrors this assumption that science has a particular kind of purchase on truth such that it disables all other approaches, and proclaims their invalidity.

---

quote:

---

I differentiated between such a set of beliefs, which I labelled scientism, and the practice of science itself, which I unhesitatingly endorse.

---

quote:

---

I noted that Pichot isn't a creationist - I have no reason to think that he's a theist - and that that much of what he says (with appropriate caveats about his maybe overstating his case) is commended by humanist, secularist and even marxist reviewers.

---

quote:

---

You want to turn him into a creationist stooge, me into a covert creationalist,

---

quote:

---

and everyone who disagrees with you into a mob who tiresomely, say the same thing over and over again,

---

quote:

---

and arrogantly expect you to engage with the speciifics of what they say, rather than just shut up at the self-proclaiming correctness of what you say - based of course on your scientific pedigree and training.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

WHich, by the way, is a pretty good definition of scientism.

---

quote:

---

I think that is hugely intellectually dishonest, and it's there in your posts.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And you are dancing every time a point of yours is disproved

---

You wish!

But again, that's a standard Dawkinsite response. You won't stand still and let me punch you! You don't understand that nuance and qualification are just manifestations of the One True Scotsman fallacy.

---

quote:

---

So why are you even posting here? Why are you not, like Aristotle's God, just luxuriating in the contemplation of your own perfections, and waiting for the cosmos to be drawn towards you by that eros against which "resistance is futile"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
I don't think that his peer-reviewed research on its own would have won him a professorship, let alone an FRS, but I may be mis-reading the record.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orlando098:
I think the argument that liberals help give credibility to fundamentalists is more associated with Sam Harris than Dawkins, generally.

---

quote:

---

I personally do tend to think that fundamentalism is more internally consistent, even if I identify more with liberals - for example a belief that God created us and everything else with intention, rather than that things came about by chance and impersonal laws of nature, seems to me more consistent with the way his character is described in the Bible. Ditto for a God that intervenes and that listens to prayers and is a "person" etc as opposed to one that is some underlying ground of being.

---

quote:

---

Also, Saint Paul clearly believed in a literal Adam when he said sin came into the world via one man and another man (Jesus) came to take it away. Believing in a literal Adam and Eve who literally sinned makes the idea of Jesus having to incarnate to deal with this more straightforward than the idea that at some point humans who evolved over billions of years came to be in a state of sin that was barring from from proper communion with God (so at which stage, in that interpretation, did they possess the proper relationship with him prior to the fall?).

---

quote:

---

A literal belief in Jesus rising from the dead and ascending to Heaven and in the second Coming and resurrection of the dead etc are more consistent with what the New Testament says than are liberal, metaphorical interpretations. etc.

---

quote:

---

I do think there is a more straightforward logic to taking the traditional ideas at face value.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0