|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: DawkinsWatch - 2007
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
On the Heaven and Earth show last year, Dawkins and McGrath shared a sofa for a few rare minutes. Dawkins said something to the effect that if we all believed the Bible, we should stone people we didn't like. Before McGrath could splutter, he continued "Now, of course, theologians will mutter 'oh, but we don't believe that any more'. Well my question is this - how do we know which bits to believe and which bits not to believe?" He looked patronisingly incredulous, as if he'd just pointed out the elephant in the room that no-one else had noticed.
Elephant? You mean the dead horse, no? Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth? Or is it this one? biblical inerrancy After nearly 2000 posts on both threads, I think "how do you know which bits to believe?" is a very reasonable question for an outsider to ask. OliviaG
I saw the same interview. It was his obvious belief that the question had simply not occured to any theologian that is the measure of the man, for me. Berk.
--------------------
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
What Elia and Olivia said.
It cracks me up that RD addresses many of the concerns being stated here clearly in the book, yet the most vociferous protestors are refusing to read it! It’s completely hilarious arguments to someone that has read the book! You are even playing into his arguments with theological arguments that fail the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” test, all the way down. It’s fucking hilarious.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Eagleton and others here simply see theology as an actual thing worthy of study. My read of his book says that Dawkins dismisses Theology completely out of hand.
Indeed he does. What makes his position untenable, therefore, is that he asks theological questions, and makes theological statements - but refuses to listen to theological answers. It's like me saying "electrons smell like cheese, and anyone who thinks otherwise is mad", then putting my fingers in my ears when a physicist kindly points out I am talking bollocks.
Except its NOT a physicist answering the bloody question! It’s a bloody Witchdoctor, ooglie-booglie, mad person that believes in Faeries. I am sorry I am trying to be clear as I fucking can be. When you metaphor a Theologian to a Physicist to Dawkins, you are likening an Astrologer to a Professor of Math. And Dawkins has a point. They are not equal inquiries into the state of the universe, IMO either.
If Dawkins put his fingers in his ears when a witch doctor told him that his bone jewelry and rattles will heal cancer I would applaud him!
quote:
On the Heaven and Earth show last year, Dawkins and McGrath shared a sofa for a few rare minutes. Dawkins said something to the effect that if we all believed the Bible, we should stone people we didn't like. Before McGrath could splutter, he continued "Now, of course, theologians will mutter 'oh, but we don't believe that any more'. Well my question is this - how do we know which bits to believe and which bits not to believe?" He looked patronisingly incredulous, as if he'd just pointed out the elephant in the room that no-one else had noticed.
As Olivia said “How do we know which bits to believe” is a very reasonable question. I have asked it repeatedly myself. I was told as a child that the whole bible (minus a few little arbitrarily determined sacrificial bits) was TRUTH. Later I learned to question these things a little. I saw the elephant’s nose. Later than that I saw the foot, the tail, and then Holy Shit! There’s a whole fucking elephant there!
Lot’s of people are being deluded by their particular form of religion, the question is, how do you inform them of the rest of the elephant? Dawkins is doing it his way. I have mine. Maybe you have yours. Different Christian religions or other religions for that matter lay claim to parts of the elephant, why is that? Which one is right? Are ANY of them right? quote:
This is why his method is so risible. He specifically asked a theological question. It is not enough for him to declare "there is no God" - he blunders right into deepest theology and falls flat on his arse.
Again. Theology is bullshit to Dawkins. See above. quote:
Theology is the study of belief - a reasoned examination into what isn't and what might be. He poses questions believing they are bear traps, but he doesn't even open his eyes to see the bears plodding right over them. Despite posing the questions in the first place, he simply isn't interested, just as he isn't interested in psychology, metaphysics or philosophy. He appears to have ended up with the bizarre belief that natural selection answers every form of question or experience that mankind might ever encounter.
I agree with your assessment that he thinks natural selection seems to answer most forms of questions he’s asked. I’m not sure I disagree with him. BTW, in the book he addresses Cosmology and presents the non-natural selection arguments as well as the natural selection argument for Cosmology (who knew there was one!).
As for the bears plodding over them. They seem to be unable to grasp that while they are plodding over the trap in question, they have two on each foot. They can answer the theological question at hand only if you allow them the belief that there theology has any point at all. To Dawkins, it doesn’t. quote:
He is utterly blind to the parts of the world that do not fit his world view. For example, he has this fantastical notion that the world would be a much better place if religion just vanished and the world was run by benign atheists - as if Pol Pot or Stalin had never existed. He beleives suicide terrorism would not exist, despite Robert Pape's definitive study which all-but proves otherwise. Yet again, he replaces evidence with unsubstantiated dogma - the fundamentalist blind to his own faith.
One form of suicide terrorism would cease to exist. And it’s the prevalent current form I might point out.
We are in Iraq, partially because GW thought God wanted it to be so. Think about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It cracks me up that RD addresses many of the concerns being stated here clearly in the book, yet the most vociferous protestors are refusing to read it! It’s completely hilarious arguments to someone that has read the book! You are even playing into his arguments with theological arguments that fail the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” test, all the way down. It’s fucking hilarious.
That about sums it up. I'd not be surprised if this Noiseboy and Papio show ends up linked to from RD's site as a classic example of the kind of sheer mindless daftness that clings to the superficial edges of religion. There's no reasoning with it.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I now call you out to provide examples of this.
I will use your own quote here as my example then. This is clearly not attempting to engage with what Christian theology has to say about God in the OT.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I can't believe you actually think someone with Saint in front of their name is any source at all in this debate.
Whatever is that supposed to mean? Most philosophers, Christian or not, would agree that Aquinas was one of the greatest philosophical minds ever, on par with the likes of Plato and Artistotle. The RCC has declared him a Doctor of the Church, one of only 33 theologians through the millennia whose work is considered to be normative for the by far largest Christian church. But you ignore whatever he may say because he lived a holy life?
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Scripture has no science above itself". What a fucking stupid statement on Aquinas part. "Scripture has no science" at all.
"Science" is here the translation of the Latin word scientia (Aquinas of course wrote in mediaeval Latin) and indicates a much more general concept than just modern natural science. It means something like "system of knowledge". In the same manner boxing is still being called the "sweet science". As Christian, Aquinas is of course convinced that there is no higher system of knowledge than God's revelation. You do not need to share that belief to appreciate the point he makes about arguing faith.
--------------------
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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It cracks me up that RD addresses many of the concerns being stated here clearly in the book, yet the most vociferous protestors are refusing to read it! It’s completely hilarious arguments to someone that has read the book! You are even playing into his arguments with theological arguments that fail the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” test, all the way down. It’s fucking hilarious.
That about sums it up. I'd not be surprised if this Noiseboy and Papio show ends up linked to from RD's site as a classic example of the kind of sheer mindless daftness that clings to the superficial edges of religion. There's no reasoning with it.
If Geo is stating the argument of Dawkins book accurately, and I think he probably is, then I have absolutely no interest whatever in reading it, because to ask theological questions and then refuse to listen to theological answers, and then to pretend that this is an honest method because "theology is all bunk" is not valid. It is bullshit and I'm not taken in by it.
If science disproved religion, Dawkins would have a point. It doesn't, so he doesn't.
And I hardly speak as a religious believer. Dawkins grasp of philosophy is utterly risible, and since I don't think theology is just a bunch of people trying to prove that the Bible is valid in the same way or to the same extent as science (mainly, because that isn't what theology is) then my interest in Dawkins rantings remains at zero.
If he links to this then good luck to him. I will neither know nor care.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Again. Theology is bullshit to Dawkins. See above.
So. Fucking. What? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Most of it is bullshit to me as well, that doesn't mean that I can't call Dawkins on his thorough-going dishonesty.
--------------------
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
Dave, yesiree. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yes IngoB, I know that you will keep invoking Flying Spaghetti Monsters and their representatives until the cows come home. That you don't see that IS Dawkins point, is the Point. He mocks that in his books, well done, you make him look prescient. I know, I'm listening to the book (did so today in fact thanks to this I started again).
That Aquinas was of a religious bent is beyond question. Unless of course you question religion, in which case his opinion is equal to that of a particularly brilliant witch doctor.
Interjection to Dave M.: How many times do you think I'll have to say this? And how many ways?
And to you Papio old boy (I think that's a complement on your side of the pond IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong).
I swear to Zeus if this was a debate on being Gay I'd be tempted to out you for protesting too much. For a proclaimed non-Christian, you sure can't walk away from this thread defending it. It's downright hillarious watching you flop around like a fish getting worked up defending that which you allegedly don't believe from it's biggest detractor. May want to have that position checked. It seems to be lacking some salt.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Mad Geo, please read the following from St Thomas Aquinas concerning argumentation about faith:
[QUOTE] Summa Theologiae Ia q1 a8:
Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?
Do people really still buy that stuff?
This is assertion by a bloke hundreds of years ago, not evidence of any kind. I saw the post about fingers in ears, well, poor old St Tommy is about that standard: - metaphysics above science? Yeah, right. Classical circular argument:
A - God is truth
B - The bible is the word of god
C - The bible is true
D - God exists
E - see "A"
Most of your own arguments are better than that standard; ever thought about a job in the RCC? You'd make a helluva press secretary (as long as you drop Tommy) The reason Dawkins won't argue that position is because it's a circular argument by assertion, nothing new there.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
There is an interesting debate at Christanity Today between Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens. The topic was orginally about whether or not Christanity has benefited the world but has evolved into a contest between the core beliefs of Christanity and Atheism. Well worth a look.
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That Aquinas was of a religious bent is beyond question. Unless of course you question religion, in which case his opinion is equal to that of a particularly brilliant witch doctor.
If you think you have a rational argument against witch-medicine, and a particularly brilliant witch-doctor defends against your objections with reasonable arguments, then you have to listen and to take that serious. Otherwise you, not the witch-doctor, are exposed as irrational believer. Nobody owns reason. Everybody can employ it, and the best argument shall win - in the end. It is a free for all, and if you take on the legendary heavyweights of the theology division you better be on your toes and have your guard up. Or your victory is just a dream you are having while lying KOed on the floor...
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
This is assertion by a bloke hundreds of years ago, not evidence of any kind. I saw the post about fingers in ears, well, poor old St Tommy is about that standard: - metaphysics above science? Yeah, right. Classical circular argument:
A - God is truth
B - The bible is the word of god
C - The bible is true
D - God exists
E - see "A"
I'm sorry, but discussions really do not work this way. It is not sufficient to skim for keywords and then invent what one thinks a person should say. That is getting damned close to lying for rhetorical effect. St Thomas Aquinas nowhere makes an argument like the above. In fact, what I've quoted from him says precisely that one cannot argue like the above with a non-believer, that this is pointless! Aquinas is no Heidegger, he's difficult because of a tendency to mathematical precision and an attention to minute detail, he's not difficult because he writes incomprehensibly. I've even highlighted the key sentences in the above. Kindly read them, if possible for comprehension.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I think Dawkins own position is one of "blind faith" just as much as the people he attacks.
I agree with you that it is blind, but not that it is faith. Dawkins really is blind to things that are self-evident to most believers. He can see no reason whatever for preferring the Christian God to the FSM, and no cognitive difference (insofar as it is a matter of pure faith) between a teenager's religion leading him to become an altar-server, and his religion leading him to become a suicide bomber.
It isn't a willful blindness - he really cannot see that one deity might be be plausible than another, and one set of human responses to belief might be more appropriate in religious terms than another.
His book is well worth a read, because notwithstanding this failure to see, he is an intellectually honest and powerful writer.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
If all faith is dumb, then why does he apprently praise "subtle, nuanced faith"?
He doesn't praise it. He says that it is so negligible that it isn't worth worrying about.
The quote means, in effect, that he will concede for the sake of argument that Rowan Williams is exceptional amongst believers in having solid reasons for everything he believes, and that if the churches were stuffed with little Williamses, then Christianity would very different and less objectionable. But since religion everywhere is based on faith, and the absurdities that faith-thinking can lead too (and on a statistical basis, inevitably leads to for some) are best exemplified by people like Haggard, that's where he has focussed his attention.
I don't think that he believes for a moment that Rowan Williams' religion is more intellectually respectable than anyone else's, but he can't be bothered to argue the point, because his target is faith as such, and it makes no difference to his thesis whether one eminent cleric more or less is an exception to the general rule.
If you see where Dawkins is coming from (and for that, you absolutely MUST read the book) it is an unsurprising and unobjectionable quote.
--------------------
"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
Mad Geo - I think (and this is incredible) that you may be even more of a bigoted extremist than Dawkins himself. Perhaps the clue is in your name? Yet again you repeat the same tired discredited arguments (which, amazing though it may seem to your dizzying intellect, we do understand but disagree with), only your latest attempt is to put the word "fucking" in front of them, in the hope that the nonsense you espouse will suddenly form coherance. Guess what? It fucking doesn't.
McGrath ably demonstrated that when Dawkins uses the word "faith", he (again) literally does not know what he is talking about. He uses a definition which I've only ever heard used otherwise in a joke - the childhood definition of faith (believing something you know isn't true). He talks about faith in terms of belief which flies in the face of evidence - indeed, in the teeth of evidence as he memorably put it. There isn't a theologian - and I hope a person of faith - in the world who would subscribe to this definition.
So the charges of global insanity are about as offensive as saying that black people descend from monkeys. They are supremely ignorant, falling at the first hurdle of comphrehension.
And again, you manage to further twist the words of Dawkins. Where as he himself says if people had Williams' sort of faith the world "would be a better place and I would have written a differnet book". But now it doesn't matter what sort of faith a person has, they are just mental (either considered and mental or just plain old mental). Again, its offensiveness is matched purely by its ignorance.
Perhaps one could appeal to the scores of eminient scientists and intellectuals who disagree with Dawkins? It does no use. Indeed, aware that their intellect must approximately equal his, he tells many of them that they simply do not mean what they say. These people are also mental - they do not know their own minds. His fundemantalism is so extreme that he cannot even enteratin the possibility of other possibilities. He declares with one breath that the universe contains things that may well be "too queer for us to understand", and with the next confindently declares all mysteries at the inevitably mercy of our standard tools of scientific enquiry (whether or not we ever get to answer every question, every question is potentially answerable using these techniques). On what evidence? None, except the hopeless argument that "well, we've learned a lot in the past, so we are bound to eventually learn everything else in the same way" - the same breathtaking logic that causes people lose fortunes on the Stock Exchange.
There is, of course, another view of faith and science that does not see them locked in a battle to the death. It is the mainstream view throughout history, that faith and reason can and should happily co-exist in harmony. But then again, anyone holding this view is mental, so what does the world know, anyway?
And by the way - we are in Iraq because the US neocons needed control of the oil.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
A - God is truth
B - The bible is the word of god
C - The bible is true
D - God exists
E - see "A"
There are far more important proofs of the existance of God. A friend of mine recently proposed this one:
quote:
If I believe in God, it will irritate Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins deserves to be irritated.
Therefore, God exists.
More like it here:
The God Delusion, part 4: "Who is this Dawkins person anyway".
(See also parts 1-3 and 5).
This is also outstanding:
Source criticism of the God delusion,
demontrating that the book is probably written by at least two people (A, H) plus a redactor (R).
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I can't believe you actually think someone with Saint in front of their name is any source at all in this debate.
Whatever is that supposed to mean? Most philosophers, Christian or not, would agree that Aquinas was one of the greatest philosophical minds ever, on par with the likes of Plato and Artistotle. The RCC has declared him a Doctor of the Church, one of only 33 theologians through the millennia whose work is considered to be normative for the by far largest Christian church. But you ignore whatever he may say because he lived a holy life?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It used to be the case that atheists objected to obscurantism. Not any more, it seems.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
[SlightTangent]I was pleased to see this.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Perhaps one could appeal to the scores of eminient scientists and intellectuals who disagree with Dawkins? It does no use. Indeed, aware that their intellect must approximately equal his, he tells many of them that they simply do not mean what they say. These people are also mental - they do not know their own minds. His fundemantalism ... cannot even enteratin the possibility of other possibilities. He declares with one breath that the universe contains things that may well be "too queer for us to understand", and with the next confindently declares all mysteries at the inevitably mercy of our standard tools of scientific enquiry (whether or not we ever get to answer every question, every question is potentially answerable using these techniques). On what evidence? None, except the hopeless argument that "well, we've learned a lot in the past, so we are bound to eventually learn everything else in the same way" - the same breathtaking logic that causes people lose fortunes on the Stock Exchange.[my emphasis]
When Callan said above
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Apropos of the whole fundamentalism thing, I think fundamentalism is about the relationship between believer and text. It is about believing that a given text is literally inerrant.
I wanted to say that it was a rather narrow definition of fundamentalism in its contemporary usage. Noiseboy, I think, comes closer here. The point about fundamentalism is that it makes an a priori exclusion of certain sources of knowledge or kinds of statements.[/Slight tangent]
IMHO it is this that makes Dawkins 'fundamentalist' - he is so committed to a belief about the nature of faith, and to its relation to reason and science that he is unable to hear any argument that says not all faith is like that and there are other possible ways in which faith and science might relate. He gives the impression of being personally threatened by the possibility that there could be some other rational discussion about other than on the inherently circular terms he proposes.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Bro James:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Apropos of the whole fundamentalism thing, I think fundamentalism is about the relationship between believer and text. It is about believing that a given text is literally inerrant.
I wanted to say that it was a rather narrow definition of fundamentalism in its contemporary usage. Noiseboy, I think, comes closer here. The point about fundamentalism is that it makes an a priori exclusion of certain sources of knowledge or kinds of statements.[/Slight tangent]
IMHO it is this that makes Dawkins 'fundamentalist' - he is so committed to a belief about the nature of faith, and to its relation to reason and science that he is unable to hear any argument that says not all faith is like that and there are other possible ways in which faith and science might relate. He gives the impression of being personally threatened by the possibility that there could be some other rational discussion about other than on the inherently circular terms he proposes.
I like narrow definitions. They are useful and precise. The term fundamentalist should no more be expanded to include everyone whose attitude to knowledge we disapprove of than the term fascist should be expanded to include people who vote Tory, read the Telegraph and believe that Zimbabwe was better off with Ian Smith at the helm. The word 'obscurantist' describes perfectly your objections to Dawkins and I heartily commend it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins explains his root premises in his book. That theologians and others simply can't believe that he invalidates their entire way of being with a pass of the hand is the funny thing to watch.
{waves hand}
I can believe it quite easily. I've just waved my hand and invalidated Dawkins' entire way of thinking. I can do it again. {waves hand}
See, I've made Dawkins' way of thinking invalid.
quote:
It's like watching Dawkins skewer the believers in Athena.
Believer: "Yes, but St. Whoever says that Athena is real!"
Dawkins: "Well, no, clearly Athena is not real and who the heck cares what St Whoever says about that which is not real".
Believer: My budgie is Athena, and my budgie is real, therefore Athena is real.
Dawkins: I wasn't talking about your budgie, I was talking about the Greek goddess.
Believer: What do you think the Greek goddess is like?
Dawkins: I don't care what Athena is like. Athena clearly doesn't exist.
Believer: Suppose I claim that Athena is small, green and eats bird seed?
Dawkins: I don't care what Athena is like. Athena doesn't exist.
Believer: Are you denying the existence of Athena, the budgie?
Dawkins: I am denying the existence of Athena the anything. Clearly Athena doesn't exist.
This argument would be laughable were it not so depressing to see some one intelligent using it. Essentially, it is a license to construct straw men.
Whenever someone comes back and says that your argument is a straw man, you can reply:
'I have showed from my straw man that your argument is made of straw, therefore it does not matter that I have constructed a straw man.'
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Interjection to Dave M.: How many times do you think I'll have to say this? And how many ways?
None so deaf as those who will not hear. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Mad Geo - I think (and this is incredible) that you may be even more of a bigoted extremist than Dawkins himself. Perhaps the clue is in your name?
Blimey. That's good from someone who calls himself Noise Boy.
quote:
McGrath ably demonstrated that when Dawkins uses the word "faith", he (again) literally does not know what he is talking about.
If you had an ounce of theological nouse you'd have noticed that McGrath is almost as limited in his perspective Dawkins. That his limitations fit within evangelical Christianity doesn't mean he has any special insight into Dawkins' thinking. As far as I can tell, he just happens to work in the same city and, as ex-principal of a theological college, has taken it on himself to oppose the local atheist.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
If you had an ounce of theological nouse you'd have noticed that McGrath is almost as limited in his perspective Dawkins. That his limitations fit within evangelical Christianity doesn't mean he has any special insight into Dawkins' thinking. As far as I can tell, he just happens to work in the same city and, as ex-principal of a theological college, has taken it on himself to oppose the local atheist.
Have you read McGrath's book on Dawkins? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Maybe instead of saying how wonderful Dawkins is and how we are blinded by our religion from appreciating his brilliance and intellectual honesty, maybe the Dawkins-fans would like to post some of Dawkins' actual arguments so that they can be assessed for logical rigour.
I've twice posted a logical analysis of Dawkins' argument that only religion causes suicide bombing on threads upon which Dave Marshall and Mad Geo were posting. My conclusion was that it was a piece of intellectually dishonest rhetoric. Did either of them take issue with my analysis on either occasion? No.
Every time I have seen a Dawkins argument about religion, it has been based on straw men, circular reasoning, or logical fallacy. I have seen sufficiently many of his arguments that I feel justified in asserting by induction that all of his arguments are so based.
At the moment, Mad Geo seems very pleased with Dawkins' 'My straw man is made of straw, so I don't need to bother with your man' argument. If that's the best Dawkins can do, all we can do is point out that this is an offence against all rational argument.
Dave Marshall's response has been that since some (but not all) religious apologists use bad arguments, Dawkins can use bad arguments too. Again, this is not a rationally acceptable attitude, and that needs to be pointed out too. One is never rationally justified in using irrational arguments.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Have you read McGrath's book on Dawkins?
Absolutely not. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm sorry, but discussions really do not work this way. It is not sufficient to skim for keywords and then invent what one thinks a person should say. That is getting damned close to lying for rhetorical effect. St Thomas Aquinas nowhere makes an argument like the above. In fact, what I've quoted from him says precisely that one cannot argue like the above with a non-believer, that this is pointless! Aquinas is no Heidegger, he's difficult because of a tendency to mathematical precision and an attention to minute detail, he's not difficult because he writes incomprehensibly. I've even highlighted the key sentences in the above. Kindly read them, if possible for comprehension.
I comprehend quite clearly what Tommy said, and have done for some time. I've quoted sections of the summa theologica myself, to fundies.
I'm not trying to argue dishonestly, I just think that the argument of Aquinas only makes any sense if you start from "god exists". The rest of it is simply assertion.
The simple way to tell is to use that stupid bloody FSM and it works just the same. The premise is wrong.
This is a ludicrous argument:
quote:
Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself
Says who?
Here:
quote:
only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation
Or, "you must accept god to believe any of this - after all, divine revelation can only happen through a god.
I honestly just think it's a very poor argument all round.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
You're still misunderstanding Aquinas' argument. Aquinas isn't attempting to convert non-Christians to Christianity at this point. He's attempting to explain to other Christians the extent, given that he believes Christianity is divinely revealed, to which Christianity can be a matter of argument.
His point is that where premises are shared between two people, these shared premises can be used to expound the faith. Where premises are not shared the best one can do is to counter the objections raised by the other person. So, if both parties accept the authority of Scripture one can legitimately cite Scripture to make one's case. If the other party does not then this is a waste of effort. So, for example, I can cite scripture or quote Aquinas if I am arguing with Ingo but there would generally be little point in doing this when arguing with you. Nonetheless, I am still on some level able to meet your objections.
This post is, in a very minor way, an example of what Aquinas is talking about. You disagree with Aquinas (and I) about the existence of divine revelation. Nonetheless I have explained, I hope, that you have missed the point of his argument which is not a proof of the existence of God but an explication of the extent to which faith can be rationally defended. And note that I have done this by rational argument and not by appeals to authorities which you do not acknowledge.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Dave Marshall's response has been that since some (but not all) religious apologists use bad arguments, Dawkins can use bad arguments too. Again, this is not a rationally acceptable attitude, and that needs to be pointed out too. One is never rationally justified in using irrational arguments.
Without going back to the book, the impression it's left me with is that where Dawkins goes irrational is where he doesn't think reason is possible. It seems tied up with his conscious aim to ignore what he sees as the special status afforded to religion, to treat it like any other set of non-scientfic claims.
I can imagine Callan being right with his Voltaire reference; Dawkins is probably raging against a cultural system he feels totally disconnected from and antipatheic to. But as Eliab has pointed out, in his own terms he is not being irrational.
You and others seem to expect, perhaps require, him to argue on your terms. I think he'd see that as capitulation to all he's arguing against. The question for me is whether Dawkins is simply being rude and disrespectful to people of religion by dismissing their entire perspective, or usefully offering an alternative base from which to do metaphysics. I personally don't like the former, but suspect the latter is the more creative and constructive interpretation.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you think you have a rational argument against witch-medicine, and a particularly brilliant witch-doctor defends against your objections with reasonable arguments, then you have to listen and to take that serious. Otherwise you, not the witch-doctor, are exposed as irrational believer. Nobody owns reason. Everybody can employ it, and the best argument shall win - in the end. It is a free for all, and if you take on the legendary heavyweights of the theology division you better be on your toes and have your guard up. Or your victory is just a dream you are having while lying KOed on the floor...
I can’t see these reasonable or even clever arguments
I can see quite a bit of fluff, which amount to arguments for taking scripture as true.
Reading between the lines, Thomas Aquinas’ argument for taking scripture as truth seems to be that theology could not exist without that assumption.
He deals with the distinct and real possibility that scripture may be false with this -
“Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation”
This sidelines and avoids the, obvious to an average nine year old, objection that scripture may simply be untrue, just as anything written on a piece of paper may be untrue. In my view, the principle objection to theology is that its neccesary presuppositions conflict drastically most people’s common sense view of the world.
Incidentally, it seems to me that using tom's ideas, any ‘science’ that is capable of arguing scripture’s veracity, is a ‘higher’ science than theology.
[ 23. May 2007, 11:57: Message edited by: Stars ]
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stars:
He deals with the distinct and real possibility that scripture may be false with this -
“Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation”
This sidelines and avoids the, obvious to an average nine year old, objection that scripture may simply be untrue, just as anything written on a piece of paper may be untrue.
Actually Aquinas DOES answer that point.
He says: quote:
If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections---if he has any---against faith.
If x does not believe in Divine Revelation you cannot use Divine Revelation to prove the existence of the divine, what many people have pointed out without seemingly realising that they are agreeing with Aquinus in saying so.
You can use DR to discuss the nature of faith. E.G. If someone says that Christians believe in one type of God, a Christian is justified in using the bible to show that he believes in another kind of God. You can't use theology to prove to Dawkins that God exists, but you can use theology to demonstrate that he is setting up a strawman.
This is what appears to have wound people up: quote:
Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.
But this is not addressed to atheists, this is addressed to the faithful. It is encouraging them essentially saying that, since we are right, we can answer objections. If someone brings a point that appears to contradict our faith it is a "difficulty that can be answered". He doesn't expect this to convince anyone, but to encourage us. I would argue that this is what everyone thinks about their beliefs. If someone presented Dawkins with a reason to doubt Evolutionary Theory I have no doubt that he would treat it as a "difficulty that can be answered". Aquinus isn't advocating a cop-out, "we are right so we don't have to answer objections", he thinks we should engage with objections. Just as answering objections to a theory helps strengthen it, answering objections to faith should help strengthen it.
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
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.
Err.. Richard Dawkins compared Osama Bin Laden to RFH. Noiseboy was quoting him directly.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You and others seem to expect, perhaps require, him to argue on your terms. I think he'd see that as capitulation to all he's arguing against.
I had thought that avoiding circular arguments, avoiding logical fallacies, and avoiding setting up straw men were standards of reason accepted by all positions. I hadn't appreciated that they're peculiar to Nicene Christianity.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
quote:
Originally posted by Stars:
He deals with the distinct and real possibility that scripture may be false with this -
“Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation”
This sidelines and avoids the, obvious to an average nine year old, objection that scripture may simply be untrue, just as anything written on a piece of paper may be untrue.
Actually Aquinas DOES answer that point.
He says:
quote:
If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections---if he has any---against faith.
If x does not believe in Divine Revelation you cannot use Divine Revelation to prove the existence of the divine,
Well, I would rephrase the above as "you cannot prove scripture to be divinely inspired" or “you cannot prove there is divine revelation”
Btw, this isn’t answering the objection; so much as agreeing with it.
But your point is taken that my objection is shared by Tom
quote:
what many people have pointed out without seemingly realising that they are agreeing with Aquinus in saying so.
Perhaps, Ingob's blustery presentation gave me the impression that Tom was trying to say something a little less trivial; in this, Tom seems to agree with Mr Dawkins.
Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
I presume what IngoB was trying to point out, is that, although Dawkins does not accept Divine Revelation, there are circumstances when DR/Theology are appropriate in a debate with 'Dawkins'(and all other atheists). Specifically it is valid to use theology to deflate(unstuff?) Strawmen.
The distinction is, I can't use DR to prove there is a God.
But if Dawkins says I believe in a certain God, or that religion says a certain thing etc, it is valid to point to the theology and DR that contradict him. This is what Aquinus is saying in my opinion, DR can answer objections to faith.
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I had thought that avoiding circular arguments, avoiding logical fallacies, and avoiding setting up straw men were standards of reason accepted by all positions. I hadn't appreciated that they're peculiar to Nicene Christianity.
Even if some of Richard Dawkins arguments are less than rigorous (and I'm not defending him for that), I don't see that's good reason to dismiss what he's trying to do, or to not credit his appreciation of the universe as an authentic expression of human spirituality.
Nicene Christianity seems incapable of a level of self-awareness that will allow the rational, decent parts to avoid either disintegration or being drowned out by fundamentalism. Reacting against people like Dawkins misses their potential as catalysts for radical change. He's addressing the root of a terminal condition; yet it seems his pill is still too bitter to contemplate.
[ 23. May 2007, 14:28: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
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.
Err.. Richard Dawkins compared Osama Bin Laden to RFH. Noiseboy was quoting him directly.
Dafyd
Nice try. The actual quote is
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. 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.
He did not compare them, he paired them together as examples of fundementalist thought. I would even say that he did it as to show a spectrum of fundementalist religious thought, not necessarily to say they were all equal, but either way, nice try.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You and others seem to expect, perhaps require, him to argue on your terms. I think he'd see that as capitulation to all he's arguing against.
I had thought that avoiding circular arguments, avoiding logical fallacies, and avoiding setting up straw men were standards of reason accepted by all positions. I hadn't appreciated that they're peculiar to Nicene Christianity.
Dafyd
They certainly seem to be on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Mad Geo - I think (and this is incredible) that you may be even more of a bigoted extremist than Dawkins himself. Perhaps the clue is in your name?
As Dave so marvelously pointed out NOISE Boy, backatya. As for me being more extremist, you don't have a clue what my position is, so don't assume it. I am describing Dawkins position as I understand it, repeatedly to numerous people that seem to be coming back with the same ridiculous arguments that support his other positions that they 1) Don't read his positions and 2) Use circular reasoning and logical fallacies, on a good day, to support the unsuportable, ACCORDING TO RD.
Since only a few of us here have apparently even looked at his books, much less read them. I am having to be the sole voice of actual knowledge on the subject apparently which puts me in a rather sole position, with the exception and thanks to Dave M. and the Atheist. quote:
Yet again you repeat the same tired discredited arguments (which, amazing though it may seem to your dizzying intellect, we do understand but disagree with),
Discredited WHERE? SO far I've seen jack, and actual supporting arguments to Dawkins position on the lack of understanding on the part of belivers regarding his arguments. He's been amazingly brilliantly supported by these absurd positions and approaches so far.
Knock it off with the personal attacks on me btw. RIGHT NOW. quote:
only your latest attempt is to put the word "fucking" in front of them, in the hope that the nonsense you espouse will suddenly form coherance. Guess what? It fucking doesn't.
I already said I have tried every way I can think of to get it through that various people here are playing to RDs hand. That the irony is lost, isn't on me. quote:
McGrath ably demonstrated that when Dawkins uses the word "faith", he (again) literally does not know what he is talking about. He uses a definition which I've only ever heard used otherwise in a joke - the childhood definition of faith (believing something you know isn't true). He talks about faith in terms of belief which flies in the face of evidence - indeed, in the teeth of evidence as he memorably put it. There isn't a theologian - and I hope a person of faith - in the world who would subscribe to this definition.
Finally a meaty argument. This may be true. OTOH, RD may be doing what he does and starting from the root level of faith because he discredits anything that is based on that. Or maybe he simply doesn't believe that there is evidence or finds the evidence underwhelming (AS I DO, which I believe is the first position I have stated here that is one of mine and not RDs). quote:
So the charges of global insanity are about as offensive as saying that black people descend from monkeys. They are supremely ignorant, falling at the first hurdle of comphrehension.
We are all descended from Monkeys (or equivelant) so technically that is accurate, go figure, while being stupidly offensive.
Again, he says that you moderates are enabling the fundementalists. Living in a country where I see this nearly every day on the news, and often from my freak of a president, I call your black monkey analysis bunk. quote:
And again, you manage to further twist the words of Dawkins.
How would you know? You haven't even read the books. Nice try. quote:
Where as he himself says if people had Williams' sort of faith the world "would be a better place and I would have written a differnet book". But now it doesn't matter what sort of faith a person has, they are just mental (either considered and mental or just plain old mental). Again, its offensiveness is matched purely by its ignorance.
Again, possibly a valid argument (amazingly). He's got his opinion, you;ve got yours, I've got mine. Mine is probably between his and yours. I see a lot of naive believers out there. Some of them are my relatives. Many of them are here on the Ship. Are they the majority? Or are the the minority? Hard to say. quote:
Perhaps one could appeal to the scores of eminient scientists and intellectuals who disagree with Dawkins? It does no use.
Has it occured to you that scientists and intellectuals often disagree and that Dawkins (and I for that matter) understand and LIKE this. While he has scores that do, he also has scores that DON'T. And he really isn't writing to them anyway. He is writing to the "scores" of people that are hidden or debating atheists and wants to have them come out of the atheist closet. This seems neither unreasonable to me as they are a persecuted minority over here, nor unlikely at all, nor unreasonable. quote:
Indeed, aware that their intellect must approximately equal his, he tells many of them that they simply do not mean what they say. These people are also mental - they do not know their own minds. His fundemantalism is so extreme that he cannot even enteratin the possibility of other possibilities. He declares with one breath that the universe contains things that may well be "too queer for us to understand", and with the next confindently declares all mysteries at the inevitably mercy of our standard tools of scientific enquiry (whether or not we ever get to answer every question, every question is potentially answerable using these techniques).
It is potentially answerable using these techniques. Have you missed the last 200+ years somehow? quote:
On what evidence? None, except the hopeless argument that "well, we've learned a lot in the past, so we are bound to eventually learn everything else in the same way" -
Oh, ye of little faith. quote:
the same breathtaking logic that causes people lose fortunes on the Stock Exchange.
Wow, no logical leap there. quote:
There is, of course, another view of faith and science that does not see them locked in a battle to the death. It is the mainstream view throughout history, that faith and reason can and should happily co-exist in harmony. But then again, anyone holding this view is mental, so what does the world know, anyway?
They sure don't seem to be coexisit in harmony in the world at the moment, or the last 100 years, oh wait, make that all of history..... quote:
And by the way - we are in Iraq because the US neocons needed control of the oil.
Nice try.
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job."-- George W Bush
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." -- George W Bush
"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."
-- George W Bush
The freaks are in your tent too. May want to do something about them before you criticize others.
--------------------
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
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
I am curious about Dawkins' reaction to all things relgious. His vitriol is such that I suspect he may be in the closet ...
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Wow, if someone is a rabid atheist, he must be gay. There's a new one. If I decide to embrace atheism in the future, be sure to warn my wife.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I am curious about Dawkins' reaction to all things relgious. His vitriol is such that I suspect he may be in the closet ...
Perhaps an unwise thing to do, but I'll guess you weren't talking about the gay closet.
In which case, assuming ( ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ) you meant the religious closet, he's always seemed very open about his appreciation of what usually gets referred to as "the spiritual" or something like. He does, though, insist on not describing it in religious terms, I think because he doesn't want it tainted by association with what he objects to in religion. I can understand that.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mad Geo on the Death of Darwinism thread:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
....I have always darkly suspected that a certain type of militant atheist was really a closet believer who was angry with God. I'm not sure if this represents vindication of this theory or not.
It vindicates your theory, for me. I had noticed that tendency in Atheists as well.
I hope Mrs Geo can live with the disappointment.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'I have showed from my straw man that your argument is made of straw, therefore it does not matter that I have constructed a straw man.'
Does Dawkins seriously imagine that him going "goddoesnotexist!goddoesnotexist!goddoesnotexist!goddoesnotexist!goddoesnotexist!" proves anything at all?
Dawkins does not exist! Dawkins does not exist!Dawkins does not exist!Dawkins does not exist!Dawkins does not exist!Dawkins does not exist!
[ 23. May 2007, 18:06: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Wow, if someone is a rabid atheist, he must be gay. There's a new one. If I decide to embrace atheism in the future, be sure to warn my wife.
Well. Obviously I wasn't talking about being gay! Duh. I was using the term generically, as Mr Marshall so rightly guessed.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
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.
Err.. Richard Dawkins compared Osama Bin Laden to RFH. Noiseboy was quoting him directly.
Nice try. The actual quote is
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. 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.
He did not compare them, he paired them together as examples of fundementalist thought. I would even say that he did it as to show a spectrum of fundementalist religious thought, not necessarily to say they were all equal, but either way, nice try.
Whilst Mrs Geo is containing her disappointment perhaps you could try reading for comprehension. Dawkins gives a list of fundamentalists who he argues predominate in contemporary religious discourse and whose predominance make it necessary for him to go for the jugular and ignore subtle nuanced religion. That list in full:
Robertson. Falwell. Haggard. Khomeni. Bin Laden. He explicitly identifies the five of them as exemplars as to why his hostility to religion is justified. No distinctions. No attempt to say that the first three are right wing Americans and believers in the unfettered free market and therefore less culpable. No attempt to uncouple the American sheep from the Muslim goats. Just five names. Robertson. Falwell. Haggard. Khomeni. Bin Laden.
To do him justice, whilst I disagree with his assessment as to the extent of subtle, nuanced religion as opposed to that of Robertson, Falwell, Haggard, Khomeni and Bin Laden type religion I think he has a point. The US is a reasonably successful constitutional polity which despite the occasional rigged election and civil war has generally functioned pretty well since its inception. If it had been the Muslims who had first cracked the trick of constitutional government and who were now deeming that the US had a need to 'Easternise' we would probably now be complaining about Bin Laden and Khomeni as irresponsible right wing demagogues whilst reserving our real concern for the tyrant Falwell and the guerilla Robertson. The difference between Robertson, Falwell, Haggard, Khomeni and Bin Laden is the nature of the polity in which they operate (or operated) rather than the nature of the religion they profess. Robertson. Falwell. Haggard. Khomeni. Bin Laden. I agree with Dawkins entirely that they are not straw men and that they need to be fought. The difference is I don't think one has to be an atheist to do that.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Mad Geo - time precludes a proper reply. I was horribly underhand a couple of times in my last post, for which I apologise. Although, to be fair, jumping up and down and saying how hilarious all us thick theists are is not likely to win you vast numbers of warm responses.
(as a side issue, I really must change my name on these forums. It's a hangover from another forum relating to my job...)
One point in the meantime that lept out:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Has it occured to you that scientists and intellectuals often disagree and that Dawkins (and I for that matter) understand and LIKE this. While he has scores that do, he also has scores that DON'T. And he really isn't writing to them anyway. He is writing to the "scores" of people that are hidden or debating atheists and wants to have them come out of the atheist closet. This seems neither unreasonable to me as they are a persecuted minority over here, nor unlikely at all, nor unreasonable.
Er, no actually (though, as you would say, "nice try"). As you may remember from the book you keep reminding us that you have read and we haven't, his avowed intent is to convert theists - "if this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Pretty unambiguous evengelical statement of intent, unless you have another wild interpretation to magic away the obvious meaning of the words?
Furthermore he is on record (again in The Other Bible, The God Delusion), as I have already pointed out, as saying:
quote:
I simply do not believe that [Stephen Jay] Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rock Of Ages.
Stephen Jay Gould was a brilliant evolutionary biologist, but his crime was to deduce that his science did not necessarily lead to atheism. This quote is classic Dawkins all the way - he literally cannot comprehend intelligent views that are contrary to his own. Tragically, Stephen Jay Gould does not have the luxury of life with which to correct Dawkins.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
X-post with Noiseboy
Mrs. Geo (the Teutonic Goddess) can rest comfortably in my Kinsey 0 arms. Sorry to disappoint my gay friends!
Little Lady, couldn't resist and I genuinely wasn't sure what you were saying exactly.....
Kinda like Callan's read (or mine) of what RD meant by that. I see it as a reasonable continuum of radical religious freaks. His Mileage May Vary. Given some of the nasty rhethoric from the religous right I see in this country on a way too regular basis and having heard it from various other religous entities, I see his point quite well and think it is well made. But no, Robertson isn't Osama, not even Khomeini is Osama. But they sure as hell indirectly empower them. Very indirectly, but it's still there.
RD's point is that moderates believers empower radical believers. That is an unfortunate truth. RD thinks that means you believers should simply go away. I think you believers should vociferouly distance yourself and marginilize them, and no, as a matter of fact I don't think you believers do enough of that. Quite the contrary, in this country Robertson, Falwell and Haggard command enough attention that they get their own TV shows. Don't try to tell me that is marginal. That IS mainstream.
[ 23. May 2007, 19:34: 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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
NB,
Fair enough, however the "warmth" of the Christian community to atheists and their defenders (me) is certainly palpable. Not.
For the bulk of this thread, I have been merely pointing out the disparities between what Dawkins says, and what people are saying he says. That pisses people off because they hate Dawkins so much (that's certainly clear).
If his avowed intent is to ALSO convert thiests, fine, I don't recall that but I grant you that for now since you have a quote. Can't say as I see that as any different than what any religious types do. Stones in Glass Churches, ironically.
As for Stephen Jay Gould, I hardly think he needs to be alive to "defend" anything. From the one book of his I have read, his work stands on its own. And stands fairly well.
That Dawkins was disappointed with his perspective is more or less within the realm of reasonable disagreement in scientific opinion as I said before. I saw that SJG had been proven wrong anatomically on at least one of his interpretations of a creature in the Burgess Shale a while back. That didn't withstand the test of time (or his death) and he can't defend that either, but I doubt any scientist would blame him for that, while disagreeing completely based on the new evidence.
That is of course, also a fairly conistent thing with Dawkins. He actually thinks that religion and religious types say things about the nature of the Universe (and it/they do) that are scientifically verifiable, or more importantly that fail when scientifically verified. Of course religious types try to dispute that they are, buit the fact of the matter is that many Christians dabble in proving YEC, or miracles, or archaelogy that matches the bible record, and can't or worse, are proved wrong.
[ 23. May 2007, 19:49: 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
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Given some of the nasty rhethoric from the religous right I see in this country on a way too regular basis and having heard it from various other religous entities, I see his point quite well and think it is well made.
Thing is, tho, from the quotes I've seen and heard from Dawkins on things religious he sounds so similar to those he is trashing (just speaking from the other side of the fence). Which sort of undermines his credibility, IMO.
And, of course, leads me to think that he is in the religious closet ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Has it occured to you that scientists and intellectuals often disagree and that Dawkins (and I for that matter) understand and LIKE this. While he has scores that do, he also has scores that DON'T. And he really isn't writing to them anyway. He is writing to the "scores" of people that are hidden or debating atheists and wants to have them come out of the atheist closet. This seems neither unreasonable to me as they are a persecuted minority over here, nor unlikely at all, nor unreasonable.
Er, no actually (though, as you would say, "nice try"). As you may remember from the book you keep reminding us that you have read and we haven't, his avowed intent is to convert theists - "if this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Pretty unambiguous evengelical statement of intent, unless you have another wild interpretation to magic away the obvious meaning of the words?
There was an interesting article posted on the Ship a while back, by an Atheist, which suggested that evangelical atheism was really aimed at galvanising agnostics and "well-I-don't-believe-in-God-but-I-respect-those-who -do" atheists. I must try and find it.
I find it hard to believe that Dawkins really thinks that theists are going to give the whole thing up as a bad job on the grounds of the straw men he puts up. If you want to really undermine someone's faith, I suggest Anthony Kenny's 'What I Believe', which is courteous and deadly. Or Flew's essay on Falsification which is still a classic notwithstanding Flew's regrettable conversion to Deism. Or even Russell's "'Why I Am Not A Christian" (although I think Copelston got the better of the debate). I think these ought to be obligatory reading for Christian ministers. Dawkins, OTOH, ought to stick to what he is very good at.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Article.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originall yposted by Noiseboy:
As you [MG] may remember from the book you keep reminding us that you have read and we haven't, his avowed intent is to convert theists - "if this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Pretty unambiguous evengelical statement of intent, unless you have another wild interpretation to magic away the obvious meaning of the words?
You misrepresent Dawkins - again. If I remember correctly, the sentence after the one you quote says something to the effect that "of course that's not going to happen". He doesn't say anything that can reasonably be understood to mean it is his avowed intent is to convert theists.
Again if my memory is not too far out, I think he says his main hope for the book is that it encourages atheists to come out the closet. That's an entirely different and it seems to me valid aim.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You misrepresent Dawkins - again. If I remember correctly, the sentence after the one you quote says something to the effect that "of course that's not going to happen". He doesn't say anything that can reasonably be understood to mean it is his avowed intent is to convert theists.
Spectacular!!!! Bravo.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
From Callans article:
quote:
"I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism," Dawkins says, ....."The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million," he says. "That's more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."
I disagree with this position of his though FWIW:
quote:
"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"
I draw the line at not letting parents raise their kids to believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and gods, if they so wish. Not necessarily in that order.
[ 23. May 2007, 20:30: 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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
And, of course, leads me to think that he is in the religious closet ...
So what do you mean by religious? Like I said, he seems to me openly religious in the sense that many Christians would recognise and identify with what he values. He just refuses to use their concepts and terminology to describe what that means to him.
You think he secretly wants to be a priest or something?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
