homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: DawkinsWatch - 2007 (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: DawkinsWatch - 2007
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having only just caught up with Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion, I was interested to discover that the great meme man himself has recently chosen to answer his critics. He pens an article in The Times where he responds to many of his most popular diatribes railled against him. Perhaps this is no surpise given a man not given to humility, but he hasn't budged one micron. But a couple of his answers are especially revealing.

I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language.
Atheists who do not like Dawkins' particular hardline atheism are simply wrong and weak - they are affording religion with respect that it does not deserve. Faith cannot be appeased. The more I reflect on this, the more chilling I find it.

You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
His answer here is breathtaking:

quote:
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible.
If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole. This man is a respected scientist, he is at home with data analysis. He cannot be afforded the excuse of ignorance.

It's hard to avoid coming back to that word again... delusional.

[ 10. August 2007, 00:03: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007

 - Posted      Profile for Merchant Trader     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect

How many sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury are there? Are the majority of Christians like Bonhoeffer or the ABofC? Does subtle, nuanced religion predominate?

In his 'Letter to a Christian nation', Sam Harris attacks a Christianity that I barely recognise in what I believe. However, like Dawkins he argues that he is attacking the most popular face of Christianity at least in the US.

I do not know whether they are right or wrong in numbers. How can we verify or disprove the facts?

--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds

Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't sound as if they know whether they're right or wrong about numbers either. One might think scientists would know better than to make presumptions about such things.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
[Saying decent understated religion is numerically negligable] is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole.

I'm not sure about these numbers, so I'd be interested in your source. I'm assuming you have hard data to back up this somewhat uncompromising statement.

Whatever the individual numbers, I think it is fair to say that the official statements of belief of the mainstream churches (to which most of these individuals belong) will include the Nicene creed. This as written is not a subtle, nuanced statement of belief.

I'd welcome some kind of a broad-based distancing of Christian faith from these literal claims about virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection and judgement. Funny thing is, I'd be unquestionably deluded if I thought that was likely to happen any time soon.

Going by their official stated beliefs, then, Dawkins is not wrong. You appear to be hoisted on your own hyperbole.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I strongly recommend that you watch "Jesus Camp" the movie. In it you will get a nice cross section of what a lot of Christians in America actually believe, think, and act like. It is not subtle. It is not nuanced. And the fact of the matter is, they use politics like a cudgel to advance their religious beliefs, rolling over the subtle nuanced Christians that remain.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh come on, Geo. Having strong opinions is cool but some statements can get a bit silly. Do you have any evidence that Jesus Camp represents a cross section of American Christianity? I've lived in the south. I've lived in the Bible Belt. And never ever have I talked to anyone who has given me reason to think they would approve of that form of Christianity.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why yes, I Do.

quote:
The video game engages young gamers as the Tribulation Forces to fight the evil peacekeepers. In multiplayer mode, gamers play on both sides.

"It's ironic the game has been put out for Christmas, which honors the Prince of Peace who said, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God,' " says Mr. Elnes. "What this game says is 'Cursed are the peacekeepers, for they are children of the Antichrist.' "

More


Falwell's (leader of the Religious Right) greatest hits

Dobson and Giuliani

Old news.

Gingrich, He's Baaaack

42% of (American) poll respondents think people and animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.


And GW Said:

quote:
"I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution."
--Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, October 8, 2004

"I believe that God wants me to be president."
--According to Richard Land, as quoted in ""Understanding the President and his God"

"We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God,"
--As quoted in ""Understanding the President and his God"

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

And that was just a random sampling.

[ 21. May 2007, 02:41: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'd welcome some kind of a broad-based distancing of Christian faith from these literal claims about virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection and judgement. Funny thing is, I'd be unquestionably deluded if I thought that was likely to happen any time soon.

Then what you'd have is not Christianity in any shape or form: Jesus as simply a moral teacher? I'll take Buddhism then.

---

The Root of all Evil started screening here last night: and there's an article in the Sydney Morning Herald here. I didn't watch it, and probably won't -- he's far too shrill and broad in his sweepings for me. And rather pompous and condescending. Puts me offside, despite any wisdom he may have buried under the vitriol.

[ 21. May 2007, 03:07: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ecumaniac

Ship's whipping girl
# 376

 - Posted      Profile for ecumaniac   Author's homepage   Email ecumaniac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Times article is amusing because of the Google text ads that display down the side.

--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine

Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
His answer here is breathtaking:

quote:
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible.
If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG
I suspect that what Richard Dawkins would call "decent, understated religion" is very different from you are thinking of. It probably excludes miracles, moral judgments based on divine revelation, religious education for children and all sorts of other things which are characteristic of mainstream religion.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm absolutely staggered that anyone should try to defend the clearly indefensible (no hyperbole, just on fact).

The most obvious point to note is that Dawkins was talking about ALL "reasonable" religion being numerically negligable. The names he quotes are Christian theologians, however, and maybe we have a clue as to what sort of rare religious person he thinks is reasonable. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the Church of England, the largest protestant denomination in that country. Is it reasonable to assume that only a negligable number of those under his care agree with his considered views?

When Dawkins speaks of religions, he tends to mean fundamentalists (everyone else is simply not serious). But let's broaden the definition to include, in the case of Christianity, all evangelicals as being totally unreasonable (no slight intended, this is Dawkins we are talking about who interchanges the two terms anyway). According to a 2001 study of the self-described religious identification of the US adult population for 1990 and 2001 from the Graduate School and University Center at the City University of New York, 28.6% are Evangelical, 24.5% Roman Catholics and 13.9% are Mainline Protestant. So of all Christians, Evangelicals are in the minority. One could go on to look globally at Orthodox, Liberation theology etc, but why bother?

But what about other religions? You will find some fundamentalist Hindus, but not too many. If you look really hard, you can even find a few fundamentalist Budhists, incredible though that may seem. But as a percentage, these traditionally very tolerant faiths hold very few hardline followers. One could perhaps use the phrase "numerically insignificant".

How about Islam? Are there really 1.6bn wannabe suicide bombers? Well, no. According to this survey, the overwhelming majority of Muslims is most countries (including Pakistan and Indonesia) say that suicide bombing is "never" justified. Moderate Islam is very much alive and well, and there are no shortage of muslim theologians to vociferously defend their historic faith in these terms.

You can spin all this as much as you like, but it is impossible to honestly arrive at a "numerically insignificant" number. As I originally said, it is the fact that Dawkins has had many months to consider these words that is the most alarming. In response to reason when put to him, he appears to becoming ever-more militant and unreasonable, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his prejudices. In which light, this other Dawkins response from his Times article is grimly amusing:

quote:
You’re as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise.
No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.

Dawkins has seen plenty of evidence to counter his views, and his response has been to harden them. By his own definition, Dawkins is now a fundamentalist.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Most Moved Mover
Shipmate
# 11673

 - Posted      Profile for Most Moved Mover     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't really care what Dawkins thinks about religion. I can't see it as something worthy of getting excited about. I think we give him more space and time than he merits.

--------------------
www.HOPEHIV.org

Posts: 169 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Then what you'd have is not Christianity in any shape or form: Jesus as simply a moral teacher?

There is no universal, simple definition of Christianity. If you see it as one religion to be joined, with perhaps the historic creeds as statements of belief, that's one view. I'd argue that at best that describes a shell, that anything approaching a reflection of meaningful Christian faith is what goes on at the individual level. That includes as many variations as there are individuals.

Jesus was the man who inspired the birth of the Church and continues to inspire those who read his story. Including it seems Richard Dawkins (Atheists for Jesus).

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
You can spin all this as much as you like, but it is impossible to honestly arrive at a "numerically insignificant" number. As I originally said, it is the fact that Dawkins has had many months to consider these words that is the most alarming. In response to reason when put to him, he appears to becoming ever-more militant and unreasonable, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his prejudices.

If significant numbers of Christians were not militant and unreasonable, you might have a point. But that wasn't the case last time I looked. It seems unreasonable, even if some of us would prefer it without the spin, to condemn an atheist for responding in a similar way.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
By his own definition, Dawkins is now a fundamentalist.

No he isn't, by his own or any other reasonable definition. Dawkins is guilty of many things, but fundamentalism? I don't think so. I hate to defend the sour old fart, but you're wrong about this. Like he says in his interview, which you quote, his opinions (however fervently held, and however objectionable) are subject to change in the face of evidence, as per the scientific method. If your God appeared to Dawkins in a puff of smoke, his opinion of the non-existence of God would be refuted by the evidence. Like he said, fundamentalism is irrefutable by any evidence.

I have a suspicion you don't like him because his views differ from yours. When your church leaders take an equivalent uncompromising stance with their beliefs, do you consider them to be fundamentalists?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole.

quote:
I'm absolutely staggered that anyone should try to defend the clearly indefensible (no hyperbole, just on fact).
My italics. IMO this thread needs two things more clearly defined:

'subtle nuanced (snip) decent understated religion'

and

'hyperbole'

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The most obvious point to note is that Dawkins was talking about ALL "reasonable" religion being numerically negligable. The names he quotes are Christian theologians, however, and maybe we have a clue as to what sort of rare religious person he thinks is reasonable.

I suspect that Dawkins thinks a `decent, understated' religion -- inasmuch as he's thought it through at all -- is something along the lines of a religion that cannot readily be used to justify persecution or oppression.

I don't know this for sure; I'm just going by his frequent writings on how he thinks religion is used as a tool for such abuses.

If this is the kind of thing he means, it would indeed put most of mainstream religion outside his criteria for acceptability; the number of people inside would, indeed, be numerically negligible.

Of course it is not the fault of religious beliefs that they are so often cited as reasons to behave in discreditable ways. Nevertheless, they are used this way, and have been throughout history. I don't think any particular mainstream religion is any better or worse than any other: all have been used to justify violence or subjugation at some point.

Sticking my neck out a bit, I speculate that the kind of religion that has firm, dogmatic creeds is more likely to be (ab)used in an oppressive way. I think that any system of belief that has at its heart a set of beliefs that must be correct, and every contrary view must be incorrect does lend itself to such an abuse. If we know we're right, you must be wrong. I wish to repeat that I don't hold religion culpable for this -- it's just an unfortunate fact of human nature.

On the other hand, I would speculate that a system of religion that is intrinsically tolerant of differing viewpoints (Quakerism? Theosophy?) would be far less likely to be used satisfactorily in this way. I just can't see anyone raising a rabble of Quakers.

There is no way to get by logic from the premise that religion is used to support oppression to the conclusion that religion is false. All the same, the fact that Christianity seems to be used as a rallying point for bigots and homophobes, among others, does trouble me.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If significant numbers of Christians were not militant and unreasonable, you might have a point. But that wasn't the case last time I looked. It seems unreasonable, even if some of us would prefer it without the spin, to condemn an atheist for responding in a similar way.

Again, you provide no evidence that this is true - forgive, but is sounds like a vague unsubstantiated hunch. I have no doubt that there are numerically significant numbers of religous people who are dangerous. But that is not what Dawkins is saying - he says that the number NOT doing this is numerically insignificant. This, I maintain, is indefensible and is contrary to all available evidence. On a similar theme:

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I suspect that Dawkins thinks a `decent, understated' religion -- inasmuch as he's thought it through at all -- is something along the lines of a religion that cannot readily be used to justify persecution or oppression.

I don't know this for sure; I'm just going by his frequent writings on how he thinks religion is used as a tool for such abuses.

If this is the kind of thing he means, it would indeed put most of mainstream religion outside his criteria for acceptability; the number of people inside would, indeed, be numerically negligible.

Could you illustrate how all but a numerically negligable fist of faithful advocate abuse and opression? All those warmongering Budhists perhaps? Or that arch militants Desmond Tutu and his followers? etc etc

This is just silly. One can rattle off dozens of awful examples, but it proves or even suggests nothing. I could tell you awful stories of rapists, and it would say nothing about ordinary men (or sex for that matter). There is no evidence to support Dawkins ludicrous statement, and as I have shown the merest edges of the boundless evidence to prove it is, in fact, false.


quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Dawkins is guilty of many things, but fundamentalism? I don't think so. I hate to defend the sour old fart, but you're wrong about this. Like he says in his interview, which you quote, his opinions (however fervently held, and however objectionable) are subject to change in the face of evidence, as per the scientific method. If your God appeared to Dawkins in a puff of smoke, his opinion of the non-existence of God would be refuted by the evidence. Like he said, fundamentalism is irrefutable by any evidence.

I have a suspicion you don't like him because his views differ from yours. When your church leaders take an equivalent uncompromising stance with their beliefs, do you consider them to be fundamentalists?

But I have just quoted, by example, how his opinions (in this case on the number of reasonable religious people in the world) are factually innacurate. This is evidence, and yet here we are months later with Dawkins' response that these people simply do not exist. This is a perfect example of a fundamentalist mindset. This issue about existence of God is another far more complex matter, but is in this case beside the point. Dawkins has a wide variety of beliefs with regard to religion - God is but one of them. I have shown that another of his beliefs regarding religion reveals a fundamentalist view.

And by the way... I have church leaders?!!! How quick we are to make assumptions...

quote:
Originally posted by 206:
IMO this thread needs two things more clearly defined:

'subtle nuanced (snip) decent understated religion'

and

'hyperbole'

Fair points, I'll have a stab:

'subtle nuanced (snip) decent understated religion' - Dawkins' words. Since he uses Bonhoeffer and Rowan Williams as examples, I can only presume he means using intelligence and critical faculties in relation to faith. As indeed a huge percentage of religious people do.

Hyperbole - stretched beyond reality in order to make a wider point.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Birdseye

I can see my house from here!
# 5280

 - Posted      Profile for Birdseye   Author's homepage   Email Birdseye   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aw, scientists can be so funny -my dad's one (for the benefit of the following, he's not a biochemist, or nutritionist, he's a mathematician and physicist), and he doesn't like potato skins (in fact he mainly likes cheese on toast), but mum said 'they're nutritious' and he said 'that's nonsense' and I said -'no really - I think the minerals are stored nearer the skin of potatoes'- he got irate and insisted there was no nutrional value in leaving the skins on or eating them -then I did a netsearch and printed off a couple of independent government nutrition analyses(US and UK) of potatoes cooked in varying ways, with and without skins -and there were (of course huge differences -with loads more useful minerals in the ones with skin on.

He refused to look at the research tables and insisted that it was still nonsense and that he wouldn't believe it unless he himself had done the experiment (despite no-one having anything to gain or lose by the potato results)
I then asked him when he'd last circumnavigated the Earth and whether he still believed it was flat -but he works with satellites and said 'no of course not - but I could prove it's not flat with equations and a look at the horizon'- so then I said 'you say you've been to China, well I don't believe you, I think that China is in fact merely a PR stunt based on the deliberate dissemination of misinformation and mass hallucinations'

He stormed off...
Whenever I read any quote by Richard Dawkins I see my dad's grumpy chops in my minds eye and think, God bless Dicky-D for a sweet daft old representative of the 'science' loony fringe...

It also makes me kind of intrigued about the sort of mind that feels it is enquiring but in fact is about as enquiring as a crossbow bolt aiming at a strawman across a field of rare butterflies:
'What butterflies? I didn't see any butterflies... as I first astutely percieved when taking aim, I have now proven, this man is in fact made of straw! '

--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view

Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Again, you provide no evidence that this is true - forgive, but is sounds like a vague unsubstantiated hunch.

You missed it. I gave as evidence the fact that most mainstream churches use the historic creeds to outline their beliefs. That obviously says nothing about how stridently or militantly they express them, but does I suggest illustrate an underlying commitment to beliefs that are not subtle or nuanced.
quote:
I have no doubt that there are numerically significant numbers of religous people who are dangerous. But that is not what Dawkins is saying - he says that the number NOT doing this is numerically insignificant. This, I maintain, is indefensible and is contrary to all available evidence.
Using words and phrases like 'indefensible', 'contrary to all available evidence', and 'ludicrous' to refer to Richard Dawkins' views seems unwise. If you want to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, anyway.

Literal claims about a virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection and eternal judgement, made by the majority of Christians every time they take communion, looks like a clear illustration of a broad commitment to beliefs with negligable evidential support. Dawkins' regards these as dangerous. I'd say that's at least a defensible position.

[ 21. May 2007, 13:19: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
There is no evidence to support Dawkins ludicrous statement, and as I have shown the merest edges of the boundless evidence to prove it is, in fact, false.

There is no evidence to support Dawkins' statement as you interpret it. My point is that you are (perhaps) not reading it as he wrote it. I might be wrong, of course, as I have no particular insight into what goes on in what passes for this man's mind.

Whether people do, as a matter of fact, use people's religious beliefs to inspire them to do wicked things is only relevant if you read Dawkins as saying that this actually happens. But, as I read it, for Dawkins the only acceptable form of religious belief is one where this would be impossible, or at least extremely implausible.

Dawkins clearly thinks that mainstream religious belief, of all the mainstream religions, could potentially be used to inspire people to wickedness.

I am inclined to agree with this. I don't need to find evidence that this is happening now -- what is important for Dawkins, I think, is the potentiality. Since Christian, Moslem and, yes, even Bhuddist beliefs have been used in the past to justify violence, there is undoubtedly a potential that they can be so used. You can't argue that a thing which has actually happened has no potential to happen.

Now I could be quite wrong about what Dawkins is saying. Maybe he is saying that the vast majority of religious believers hold to dangerous, oppressive, or divisive beliefs. If he is saying that, then I think he is mistaken.

If he is saying that the vast majority of believers hold to beliefs that have the potential -- however small -- to be used in discreditable ways, then I am inclined to think he is right.

I think in interpretating Dawkins' statement, you have to bear in mind that he sees Christians as a pretty homogenous bunch, rightly or (undoubtedly) wrongly.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
But I have just quoted, by example, how his opinions (in this case on the number of reasonable religious people in the world) are factually innacurate.

This is not evidence that Dawkins is a fundamentalist.

You seem to be saying that, since there are large numbers of religious people who are 'reasonable' in your opinion, Dawkins' opinion that only a few of these people are reasonable is 'fundamentalist'.

Well, I think your opinion is rather unreasonable. Am I, therefore, a fundamentalist?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
But I have just quoted, by example, how his opinions (in this case on the number of reasonable religious people in the world) are factually innacurate.

This is not evidence that Dawkins is a fundamentalist.

You seem to be saying that, since there are large numbers of religious people who are 'reasonable' in your opinion, Dawkins' opinion that only a few of these people are reasonable is 'fundamentalist'.

Well, I think your opinion is rather unreasonable. Am I, therefore, a fundamentalist?

I think you (and Crooked Cucumber) have twisted Dawkins' words beyond what they bear. I suggest you read his words again, and here is the full Q&A:

quote:
You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate. Show me the survey that shows that, globally MOST muslims support Osama Bin Laden, or MOST Christians support Robertson or Falwell, let alone whatever fanatic he pretends that Hindus or Budhists MOSTLY support.

But of course, he goes further - it is not just a majority, but a majority so great that fundamentalism's opposite, "decent, understated religion" is "numerically negligible". To suggest that this is not, in fact, what he is saying seems ludicrous.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate. Show me the survey that shows that, globally MOST muslims support Osama Bin Laden, or MOST Christians support Robertson or Falwell, let alone whatever fanatic he pretends that Hindus or Budhists MOSTLY support.

But of course, he goes further - it is not just a majority, but a majority so great that fundamentalism's opposite, "decent, understated religion" is "numerically negligible". To suggest that this is not, in fact, what he is saying seems ludicrous.

I don't think there is a survey of Robertson, Falwell, or Haggards (RFH) believers. And I think that you are doing a form of Godwin when you compare even RFH to Osama and I despise RFH as much as the next guy.

If one does a google of "religious right" alone, you will see numerous articles similar to this.

In the article, it states things like:

quote:
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and 24 other Christian leaders this year tried to pressure the National Association of Evangelicals to silence its Washington director, the Rev. Rich Cizik, because Cizik is trying to convince evangelicals that global warming is real.

quote:
Conservative Christians are now veteran political operatives who can deliver votes in school board races and presidential campaigns. They fill leadership posts throughout the Republican Party and comprise more than one-third of the GOP base.
quote:
The organizational muscle of the movement -- once controlled by national groups linked to Falwell, Robertson and a few others -- now lies with local pastors, who were key to the 2004 re-election win of President George W. Bush.
And speaking of James Dobson, that guy has a radio show that delivers Fundamentalist garbage nationwide. I despise the man. He has a virtual empire with hate-filled rhetoric that commands mush attention from the Christian Fundies in America.

I really think that it may be hard for Christians in the UK to understand just how much crap we put up with from the "Religious Right" in America. And how pervasive and powerful they are. I'm not even sure moderate Christians in America get it sometimes because they are so used to it, and they may not be that far off from it.

One need only look at GW and what he has implemented and his rhetoric to see how pervasive it is. If you wonder why Dawkins is so shrill and over the top, I think he has seen enough of GW and his ilk, and "Intelligent Design" trial bullshit, and so on that he is responding to the American Right.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
One need only look at GW and what he has implemented and his rhetoric to see how pervasive it is. If you wonder why Dawkins is so shrill and over the top, I think he has seen enough of GW and his ilk, and "Intelligent Design" trial bullshit, and so on that he is responding to the American Right.

Possibly, only Dawkins is British and speaks out of a British University context.

I quite like having him on the scene as he is very good at pointing out the absolute rubbish that we Christians often churn out.

However, if you have a copy of 'The God Delusion' handy then have a flick through the footnotes. Look at how many are webpage addresses. Now I ask you, how can he pass his work off as at all academically credible if most of his 'research' was done via google?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I think you [dogwonderer] (and Crooked Cucumber) have twisted Dawkins' words beyond what they bear. I suggest you read his words again...

You're taking these quotes in isolation. If you drop them back in context, which if I'm reading The Times article correctly is an extract from a foreword or something to the new paperback edition of The God Delusion, it looks like an over-simplified statement that he expands on and qualifies in the book.

I don't see any point in demonising Richard Dawkins. He's playing up the role anyway. Yes, he has his limitations, just like the rest of us. He's also saying some things, as he's entitled to, that some Christians seem to find uncomfortable. So he overstates his case for effect. That doesn't mean the essence of what he's saying does not contain at least some pointers to truths to the Church might do well to acknowledge.

(For more context, you could have a look at Ruth Gledhill's write-up of an interview with him).

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
So he overstates his case for effect. That doesn't mean the essence of what he's saying does not contain at least some pointers to truths to the Church might do well to acknowledge.

I give him points for challenging the status quo. However, I think a criticism often rightfully levelled at televangelists may be applicable to him: follow the money.

'Subtle nuanced decent understated' atheists rarely have bestselling books or the kind of platform Dawkins has created for himself.

I can't speak to his science or theology but his marketing is well above average.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
One need only look at GW and what he has implemented and his rhetoric to see how pervasive it is. If you wonder why Dawkins is so shrill and over the top, I think he has seen enough of GW and his ilk, and "Intelligent Design" trial bullshit, and so on that he is responding to the American Right.

Possibly, only Dawkins is British and speaks out of a British University context.

I quite like having him on the scene as he is very good at pointing out the absolute rubbish that we Christians often churn out.

However, if you have a copy of 'The God Delusion' handy then have a flick through the footnotes. Look at how many are webpage addresses. Now I ask you, how can he pass his work off as at all academically credible if most of his 'research' was done via google?

Actually I think Dawkins is speaking globally. He gets that the US has enormous influence and that we are ran by religious freaks at the moment. Not to imply that everyone that is religious is a freak, but that the ones in power in the US are.

I completely "get" Dawkins (I think). The problem with being the near-sole-voice in pointint out the flaws of the other side, is that you are immediately rendered into a caricature of yourself.

It is simply a fact that (at least in the US) the sole remaining groups that are perfectly okay to attack are overwieght people and atheists. Atheists are the most hated group in America, even after muslims and gays.

I think Dawkins makes excellent points a lot of the time. Points that some Christians can learn from. For example, by tolerating the freaks in your midst you empower them and diminish the impact of the "Good" message. The voice of moderation needs to be heard too.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
No he isn't, by his own or any other reasonable definition. Dawkins is guilty of many things, but fundamentalism? I don't think so. I hate to defend the sour old fart, but you're wrong about this. Like he says in his interview, which you quote, his opinions (however fervently held, and however objectionable) are subject to change in the face of evidence, as per the scientific method. If your God appeared to Dawkins in a puff of smoke, his opinion of the non-existence of God would be refuted by the evidence. Like he said, fundamentalism is irrefutable by any evidence.

Dawkins is clearly a fundamentalist, just about science rather than about (Christian) religion. The Christian fundamentalist is of course open to any sort of change in his opinions and behaviour, as drastic as it may be, if he judges that it is commanded by God. The evidence the Christian fundamentalist accepts as truly relevant is limited to "spiritual" evidence from God. If Christ Himself appeared and declared evolution to be true, they of course would believe it. It just so happens that the fundamentalists know, or think they know, that this will never ever happen. In fact their spirituality is restricted to certain sources, like the bible, and they know quite well what sort of thing can be found there. It is irrelevant to them if reasonable arguments for something exist, if they can construct counter-arguments from their "spiritual" evidence, no matter how flimsy. Their first instinct is to eliminate non-"spiritual" sources of truth, not to harmonize them with God's word.

The parallel to Dawkins' scientific fundamentalism is strict. Dawkins also is willing to change his opinions and behaviour, but only if forced to by science. For he only accepts scientific evidence as truly relevant. So if God appeared in a scientifically verifiable manner, then he would fall to his knees and worship Him. But in fact he knows, or thinks he knows, that this will never ever happen. For his science is restricted to certain sources, like physical experiments, and he knows quite well what sort of thing can be found there. Philosophical or theological arguments are irrelevant to him, if he can construct counter-arguments from his scientific evidence, no matter how flimsy. His first instinct is to eliminate non-scientific sources of truth, not to harmonize them with science.

Dawkins is just as blinkered as Christian fundamentalists. The only difference is what he is blinkered about. He's also well on the way of becoming just as boring and predictable as they are...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate.

I concede that, taken on its own, this statement is either a falsehood or hyperbole. Put alongside the way he usually expresses himself on this subject, I am inclined to think that Dawkins is indulging in hyperbole here, rather than telling a lie. But I could be wrong.

Nevertheless, I tend to think that his more general claim, that religious beliefs are capable of being used to inspire wickedness, is a true one. Sadly. Of course, that isn't a claim that can be made exclusively of religious belief and, as I've said before, it doesn't say anything about whether any religious belief is, in fact, true.

Anyway, I'm not sure how I've come to find myself defending Dawkins. I don't think that Dawkins would recognize `subtle, nuanced' religious belief if it hit him in the face. My feeling is that he would assume that anything that was `subtle' or `nuanced' was incapable of being associated with religion.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A thought...

The statement that "most religious people are not sufficiently educated and believe in delusions" seems a lot less vindictive when you consider the truth value of the observation that most people in general are not sufficiently educated and believe in delusions.

I mean, are most people in the general public that scientifically nuanced? I wonder...

It might just be a matter of sampling.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Literal claims about a virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection and eternal judgement, made by the majority of Christians every time they take communion, looks like a clear illustration of a broad commitment to beliefs with negligable evidential support. Dawkins' regards these as dangerous. I'd say that's at least a defensible position.

Hang on, you believe in God, don't you?

My view is that if God exists, then He is almost certainly the God described by traditional Christianity, because this is the only way I can reconcile His existence with human suffering. The question which requires the most faith on my part is whether He exists at all. Now, I am not asking you to agree with my reasoning but I would like you to acknowledge that, from my perspective, you are as fundamentalist as the rest of us, with the added drawback that your theology does not (to my eyes) seem to have any credible way round the Problem of Evil.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I think you (and Crooked Cucumber) have twisted Dawkins' words beyond what they bear. I suggest you read his words again, and here is the full Q&A:

quote:
You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.

Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate. Show me the survey that shows that, globally MOST muslims support Osama Bin Laden, or MOST Christians support Robertson or Falwell
You should read the God Delusion more carefully. Dawkins draws the dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable differently to you. He doesn't say that most believers support Bin Laden or Robertson, but that they are like them in that they have firm convictions on moral and factual matters which founded on no evidence. He acknowledges that there can be 'moderate' religion - religion which believes (on poor grounds) things which are relatively helpful or harmless - but he doesn't think this is reasonable. He thinks that the moderates, far from being a contrast to the extremists, give apparent legitimacy to the poor habits of thought that allow the extremists to exist at all.

The quote seems to me to summarise an argument made in the book in greater detail, that it is the mode of thinking, not the specific conclusion reached, that is the problem, and that if you have millions of people believing (for example) that the best reason to forgive others their trespasses is because it says so in some old book, then you will inevitably have some thousands of those also thinking that it is right to stone people to death for working on a Saturday when the same old book says it is. Dawkins would agree that the people who believe in forgiveness are 'moderates' in some sense, but they aren't practising a religion which he would call reasonable.

Religious people whom Dawkins thinks are wholly reasonable ARE numerically insignificant. I'm not sure that even Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury make it (Mother Teresa, for example, certainly does not) - I detect an unspoken "for the sake of argument" assumption that a case could be made for some people, but not many.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
A thought...

The statement that "most religious people are not sufficiently educated and believe in delusions" seems a lot less vindictive when you consider the truth value of the observation that most people in general are not sufficiently educated and believe in delusions.

I mean, are most people in the general public that scientifically nuanced? I wonder...

An excellent point.

I think part of the problem is that Christians are expected to defend the whole paraphernalia of Christian beliefs - Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, eternal life - while atheists are merely defending the proposition that God does not exist, which is quite easy to do (unsheath Occam's Razor). But most atheists are also secular humanists, and I bet that if you asked the average secular humanist to defend their secular humanism, they would struggle.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067

 - Posted      Profile for The Atheist   Author's homepage   Email The Atheist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
His answer here is breathtaking:

quote:
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible.
If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole. This man is a respected scientist, he is at home with data analysis. He cannot be afforded the excuse of ignorance.
Ok, and let me kick off by saying that Dorkins is the second to last Pom I'd stick up for - Blair being last.

I understand where you're coming from - you're clearly not one of the raving nutters, nor are the majority of posters on this site.

Take NZ as a great example - especially since we have 2006 census statistics:

Anglican 554,925

Catholic 508,437

Presbyterian, Congregational and Reformed 431,139

Christian not further defined 192,165

Methodist 120,546

quote:
...affiliation with Evangelical, Born Again and Fundamentalist religions increased by 25.6 percent, and affiliation with Pentecostal religions increased by 17.8 percent.

According to those base statistics, I could reasonably expect to find similar numbers of churches and churchgoers of all three of Anglican, Catholic and P,C&R branches in Auckland.

The truth is that in Auckland, the ratio of fundamental churches to mainstream churches is between two and three fundie churches to one mainstream church - yes, there are over twice as many fundie churches as all other churches combined.

And NZ's a highly secular country, for chrissakes!

People may wear the badge of sane christianity when the census taker calls, but the facts about people who attend church show a vastly different picture. Fundamental christianity is the growth area of christianity and it seems to me that Dawkins has the right target.

He isn't after you, just the crazies.

Rather than thinking Dawkins is deluded, maybe it's actually you kidding yourself that you and your sane mates are still the majority? I got the impression from your post that you'd be less pissed off at Dawkins if you agreed that fundies were everywhere. What if he is right, then?

Plus, the obvious attraction that they're a hell of a lot easier targets than Rowan Williams. I have no doubt that Rowan and Dorkins would provide a highly stimulating debate - but apart from some of us on this board, who would watch it? They'd be so far above the majority that it wouldn't rate, there'd be no histrionics and it would be like a Vicar's tea party - there's no mileage in it for Dawkins and as he says, why would he want to battle something he doesn't dislike?

I agree that while fundies may be numerically the major sect worldwide, that calling thoughtful christians "negligible" is certainly tarnishing the truth. A minority, sure, negligible, no.

Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Dawkins is just as blinkered as Christian fundamentalists. The only difference is what he is blinkered about.

You present the contrast as if it were symmetrical. That would only be the case if your "spiritual evidence" and scientific evidence are equally falsifiable. You're playing word games there.

Dawkins may be a fundamentalist. My reading is he's probably not, that he really is committed to a search for truth, but that his ability to focus on a problem to the exclusion of anything else has meant that religion has only ever been for him a truth-diluting distraction. For now he's focusing on promoting his book. When he's given that his best shot, who knows where his search will take him, what he'll choose the focus on?
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My view is that if God exists, then He is almost certainly the God described by traditional Christianity, because this is the only way I can reconcile His existence with human suffering.

I don't how you've arrived at that. As far as traditional Christianity speaks with a single voice on suffering, I've not seen it offer any reconciliation with a loving God that I found convincing.
quote:
The question which requires the most faith on my part is whether He exists at all. Now, I am not asking you to agree with my reasoning but I would like you to acknowledge that, from my perspective, you are as fundamentalist as the rest of us, with the added drawback that your theology does not (to my eyes) seem to have any credible way round the Problem of Evil.
I've no idea how you've arrived at that either. I can say with Dawkins that my faith is evidence-based, although I probably include more of the personal than he does. However, I don't have a book to sell, and I was a convinced evangelical Christian for many years. So I probably have a less one-sided take on the evidence.

For what it's worth, my theology has no problem of evil to get round. Whether you find it credible would I suspect depend on how far you were willing to step back from traditonal Christianity in order to consider it.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[ETA x-posted with Dave Marshall]

I suspect RD's interpretation of "reasonable" religion is one that few outside the Sea of Faith would support - after all, he's a reductionist materialist. Defining "reasonable" to mean something like "not giving credence to sources of information other than empiricism and logic" makes his statements true.

Of course, this Queen of Hearts behaviour with regards to words like "reason" is unhelpful in the extreme, and make a reasonable (ha!) debate next to impossible, because you're using the same language to mean different things.

It has been pointed out elsewhere that RD's views are hardly "reasonable and nuanced". The problem remains that he not only wishes to target the fundies but also to lump just about every thinking Christian in with them (Williams, Bonhoeffer et al). That this annoys people is hardly surprising.

Oh well. I started writing to defend RD against some of the more OTT criticisms, but the words just won't come [Frown]

- Chris.

[ 21. May 2007, 22:44: Message edited by: sanityman ]

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dawkins is simply knowingly intellectualy dishonest when it comes to theology.

The implication that most Christians are like Falwell and Phelps is absurd.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Religious people whom Dawkins thinks are wholly reasonable ARE numerically insignificant.

Indeed, I strongly suspect that the number of people, religious or otherwise, who are always wholly reasonable is 0. Dawkins certainly isn't.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Dawkins is simply knowingly intellectualy dishonest when it comes to theology.

The implication that most Christians are like Falwell and Phelps is absurd.

The implication that most Chirstians in the UK are like Falwell (he didn't say Phelps IIRC) is absurd. The notion that most Christians in the US are like Falwell, is NOT.

And you cannot be knowingly intellectually dishonest about a "belief system" such as Christianity. You can be knowingly intellectually dishonest about data and maybe theories, which he is not.

He correctly makes this point repeatedly to his detractors. Not that any of them pay attention to it or bother to read his argument.

If Christians cannot agree amongst themselves on theology, how the hell can you expect him to be "intellectually honest" on something that isn't even intellectually honest amongst yourselves? Theology varies WILDLY.

Does the wine turn to the ACTUAL meat of Christ or not?

Did miracles in old times happen when all we see of miracle makers now are fakes and liars?

The dead are dead. End of discussion. That theology says otherwise does not make it so under critical observation and analysis.

You either believe, or its all bullshit. Dawkins is in the latter camp, so if he calls theology on its bullshit, he can hardly be called a bad theologian. He thinks it's bullshit. His detractors are arguing whether he knows how to argue with their bullshit better than they know their own bullshit. It's all bullshit to him.

It's as if you said "Dawkins is simply knowingly intellectualy dishonest when it comes to [bullshit]." Well, yeah!

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You should read the God Delusion more carefully. Dawkins draws the dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable differently to you. He doesn't say that most believers support Bin Laden or Robertson, but that they are like them in that they have firm convictions on moral and factual matters which founded on no evidence. He acknowledges that there can be 'moderate' religion - religion which believes (on poor grounds) things which are relatively helpful or harmless - but he doesn't think this is reasonable. He thinks that the moderates, far from being a contrast to the extremists, give apparent legitimacy to the poor habits of thought that allow the extremists to exist at all.

The quote seems to me to summarise an argument made in the book in greater detail, that it is the mode of thinking, not the specific conclusion reached, that is the problem, and that if you have millions of people believing (for example) that the best reason to forgive others their trespasses is because it says so in some old book, then you will inevitably have some thousands of those also thinking that it is right to stone people to death for working on a Saturday when the same old book says it is. Dawkins would agree that the people who believe in forgiveness are 'moderates' in some sense, but they aren't practising a religion which he would call reasonable.

Re-reading this, I see the error in my above post. Sorry. However, I still think Dawkins is mistaken and that he himselves believes things which can't be proven. Epistemologically, very few things can be proven. I suspect that the line between "can't be proven but rationally defensible" and "not reasonable" is more blurred than Dawkins allows for, and neither do I think, for example, that the Bible's injunction against murder falls into the latter catergory, although it does possibly fall into the first.

He appears to have missed the possibility that some people agree with the ethics of the Bible because their experiences and prior knowledge leads them to similar conclusions, rather than vice versa. Christians who think murder is wrong, to continue the example, do not nec think that "just because the Bible says so" and their reasons for believing it may not be as poor as Dawkins imagines.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And you cannot be knowingly intellectually dishonest about a "belief system" such as Christianity.

Yes, you can. He repeatedly misrepresents and distorts the opinions and beliefs of other people. Whether or not those opinions are valid is completely and utterly 100& irrelavent. He either makes sweeping pronouncements about all or most belivers without making any effort to prove or even research his alligations or else he is simply a liar.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If i spent ten minutes googling for the most whacked-out bizaros I could possibly find on the net who call themselves "libertarians" and then repeatedly implied that all libertarians were like that, even in the limited sense that Dawkins uses, then that would be knowingly intellectually dishonest.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And you cannot be knowingly intellectually dishonest about a "belief system" such as Christianity.

Yes, you can. He repeatedly misrepresents and distorts the opinions and beliefs of other people. Whether or not those opinions are valid is completely and utterly 100& irrelavent. He either makes sweeping pronouncements about all or most belivers without making any effort to prove or even research his alligations or else he is simply a liar.
Whether those beliefs and opinions are "Valid" is not relevant? Say again? [Killing me]

There in lies the rub, doens't it? This is not about reason or validity, so it's not unreasonable for Dawkins to be pilloried for not being valid about that which is NOT valid!

Besides, Libertarians points are within the realm of the real. Those points can be reasonably debated. As can socialists or communists or whatever. I do not know of any truly political system that requires you to validate the invalidatable in order to discuss it. Let me know if you can think of one.

Validate the validatable, yes. I can say "Libertarianism is better!" and you can say "Prove it!" and I could come back with lots of case studies and systems that worked with Libertarianism, or socialism for that matter (ironically).

You on the other hand could say "Miracles actually happened" and I could say "prove it!" and all you can say is "Because the bible/koran/whatever said so!" and I go "Prove it! It doesn't happen NOW" and we go round and round. Not validatable. A belief system.

Dawkins is not required to validate religious bullshit with the correct form of religious bullshit. Bullshit is bullshit.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Whether those beliefs and opinions are "Valid" is not relevant? Say again? [Killing me]

Dawkins is rightly pillioried because he undermines the very thing which he is attempting to champion. Any reasonably bright theology undergrad knows that Dawkins arguments about theology are simply wrong. He is wrong about the sort of questions theology asks. He is wrong about the sort of language it employs. He is wrong about where theologians get their ideas. He is wrong about the history of theology. He is wrong about what theology actually is, and most of all he is wrong to assert that religious faith and blind, unquestioning certainty are the same thing.

Whether religious ideas are accurate or not is not even slightly relavent in the sense that his prior assumption that all religious ideas are wrong does not excuse him from that tedious chor of actually knowing something about them - and it is painfully obvious that he does not. The accuracy or otherwise of religious ideas is pertinent if he is doing to discuss them intelligently, even to reject them. That is not what Dawkins does, however.

I don't understand why defenders of Dawkins say that he is not obliged to know anything about the subject he is critiquing because he thinks it is rot. Or he is entitled to tell lies about religious believers because they are all stupid anyway! What special pleading! As an example, I think libertarianism is rot, but that doesn't mean I am entitled to write a book in which I repeatedly misqoute and misrepresent libertarians, assign beliefs to them that they don't actually hold, make innacurate statements about the evolution of libertarian ideas, tell lies about what libertarianism attempts to do, knock down strawlibertarians and then say this is a serious academic study which "refutes" libertarianism!!!!

If Dawkins wants to masturbate in public then that is up to him, I suppose, but it doesn't further the debate. Anyone, rligious believer or not, who knows much about theology or religion knows that Dawkins knows very little about it indeed and that Dawkins actually undermines athiests. He makes athiests look dumb, to be frank. Which is why many athiests do not seek to defend him.

And before you say that he is a brilliant scientist so he must be right about religion, please ponder the fact that the greatest linguist who has ever lived is a certain Mr. Noam Chomsky.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You on the other hand could say "Miracles actually happened" and I could say "prove it!" and all you can say is "Because the bible/koran/whatever said so!" and I go "Prove it! It doesn't happen NOW" and we go round and round. Not validatable. A belief system.

I think you have misunderstood the objection to Dawkins. In a certain sense, whether miracles happen or not is relavent, but that is not the sense in which the objection operates.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
- Richard Dawkins

Yup, looks like his read of the theology is spot on to me.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You present the contrast as if it were symmetrical. That would only be the case if your "spiritual evidence" and scientific evidence are equally falsifiable. You're playing word games there.

No, I'm not. I simply reject the notion that empirical falsifiability is the be all and end all of determining truth values. That reduces the human intellect to much less than it is and it is as a matter of fact self-contradictory (for the detection of regularities in empirical data, which is after all what the data is for, is not itself empirical). The scientific method is the equivalent to an error correction algorithm, it serves to suppress the most common mistakes made in certain types of questions. That's all. The claim that it must be possible to receive all important insights through this error correction algorithm is nothing short of extraordinary. Extraordinary proof for that is not available, and indeed it is impossible to obtain it through the error correction algorithm itself (yet another self-contradiction).

What Dawkins has done is the classic mistake of the prideful scientist: to assume that because he knows something well, he must know everything. He is trying to occupy foreign intellectual territory with the limited tools he has at his ready disposal. It is not working well. But instead of bowing out, he employs a smokescreen of offensive rhetorics in the hope that people get too upset to think clearly about what he actually says. That may be enough for some more or less entertaining rounds of intellectual fisticuffs in Purgatory, but it is not enough for a professional scientist posturing globally as the atheist Messiah.

Dawkins is a failure. I'm very happy if he continues his crusade though. As far as I'm concerned, the best he can do is make atheism look like an idiotic option, the worst he can do is to separate Christian chaff from wheat. So his worst is not so bad at all for Christianity.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:

quote:
...affiliation with Evangelical, Born Again and Fundamentalist religions increased by 25.6 percent, and affiliation with Pentecostal religions increased by 17.8 percent.

...

The truth is that in Auckland, the ratio of fundamental churches to mainstream churches is between two and three fundie churches to one mainstream church - yes, there are over twice as many fundie churches as all other churches combined.

I can't help thinking that this debate would be improved if people used their terms with more precision. That's noy you, TheAtheist, I'm talking about in particular -- the census-takers are clearly in a muddle too.

What, exactly, are `evangelical, born-again, and fundamentalist religions'? More to the point, why are they considered similar enough to lump together?

`Evangelical' broadly refers to an movement based on Luther's sola scriptura, sola fide and, as a movement (and a technical term), predates protestantism. (Christian) fundamentalism is a movement from the early 20th century which emphasises conservatism and scriptural inerrancy.

Most (Christian) fundamentalists are evangelical, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists, or even have much sympathy with fundamentalism.

I have no bloody clue what a `born again religion' is supposed to be. I would guess that it's referring to the Pentecostal churches, which tend to make a big deal of this rebirth thing. Again, there is no direct correspondence between this and evangelicalism, properly defined, or fundamentalism, properly defined.

I don't know if many commentators really do think that terms like `evangelical' and `fundamentalist' mean essentially the same thing (which they don't). More likely they are all used, along with the appalling `fundie', to mean `people we are scared of'.

If you put evangelicals, properly so-called, in the `people we are scared of' category, then of course there are a lot of people to be scared of. But this is just silly.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067

 - Posted      Profile for The Atheist   Author's homepage   Email The Atheist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What, exactly, are `evangelical, born-again, and fundamentalist religions'? More to the point, why are they considered similar enough to lump together?

Fair point. The trouble is that the "fundy" churches have no structure as such. It's very easy to count Catholic and Anglican churches and know that they are the same as the one down the road, but how can I tell the difference between the Elim Christian Church, the International Baptist Church and the Evangelical Church of Christ?

We are probably a bit too liberal with terms, but it's more of an occupational risk than something which is going to muddy the waters too much.

Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools