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 5)

 - 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
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 Mad Geo:
Santa Claus is outside the universe. Says who?

In the case of God (rather than Santa Claus): the religion I care to defend, and Dawkins cares most to attack, says so.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I hereby posit that Faerie are outside the known universe too (Santa Claus lives at the North Pole of course, so I had to switch back to the Faeries). By your “logic” Faerie therefore actually exist.

No, by my logic you cannot then construct a probabilistic likelihood for the existence of this "extra-fairy".

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Science hasn’t figured out how gravity works either. This suggest that gravity is at least partly non-material. It must be produced by faeries.

Certainly no contradiction with known facts results if one claims (in a careful manner) that gravity is produced by fairies. This claim will have to compete with other claims for our belief though. The Christian claims about God certainly lead to a much more coherent and interesting worldview. What do you believe produces gravity, by the way? And please don't answer "mass" or something like that, that's not the level at which I'm asking the question. That gravity is proportional to mass is a natural law, but what produces this proportionality? God? Fairies? Randomness?

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
“Human experience” tells me that if I take a little bit of a certain mushroom, I can actually see Faeries and possibly even god. Doesn’t mean it’s so.

Indeed. But I was not talking about any special mental state, e.g., "talking to God". I was talking about the completely normal mental life we all experience all the time - that can be argued to be at odds with known neuroscience and physics.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
“does not lead to any contradictions with known facts” Rubbish squared. All manner of claims are made for god that contradict with known facts. Creation, Miracles, Virgin Births, Walking on water, etc. etc. The entire bible or any other religious text of your choosing contradicts with known facts.

Miracles do not contradict natural law, they affirm it: exceptions prove the rule. A miracle is a miracle because the ordinary working of nature does not produce it. You cannot use a rule to prove that there are no exceptions to it: that is an assumption about the rule, not the rule itself. A singular event in history which is claimed to be a miracle cannot be dismissed by pointing out that it does not follow the natural law derived from repeated observations. That's like saying that black cannot exist because it is not white. The bible is a complicated text. A literalistic reading of it may lead to contradictions, but that only shows that one has to do better than that.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You don't seriously actually believe you can prove anything about god without a great big irrational/illogical Faith component do you? Faith is not based on logical analysis or material evidence, by definition.

The faith component of my religion is neither irrational nor illogical. It is simply not something I can reason from knowledge. If you tell me that you are a geologists by training, I can choose to believe you, even though I have no external evidence for that. It is neither irrational not illogical to assume that Mad Geo is a geologist, it is simply something I believe but do not know. And conclusions I draw from that, like that you should know something about minerals, can be entirely reasonable. Just as it is for my Christian faith.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If you would simply give up the idea that you have any kind of actual proof, even if derived by metaphysical mental masturbation, and say "I have simply, faith", you win. Dawkins loses.

Dawkins does not lose in this scenario, he simply cannot win. But Dawkins refuses to admit that he cannot win. That's why we slag him here.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Sometimes what God is alleged to say is reasonable (by a logical or ethical measure) and sometimes it isn't - but illogic and immorality, as a matter of actual fact, are no necessary discouragement to faith positions.

Unfortunately for Dawkins, his main target happens to be just that one religion which has claimed that what God says cannot possibly be illogical or immoral, and that we as humans can validly judge the logic and morality of what is claimed about God. See B16's Regensburg address...

quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Dawkins' attacks have drawn criticism because he hasn't the theological knowledge to attack it, instead using axiomatic truths - as we know them. To attack the foundation of the church - faith - Dawkins (or me, or any atheist) would have to accept the revelation of the scripture.

WTF? To attack the foundation of faith, Dawkins simply has to say "I do not believe." That's all there is to that. Dawkins' attacks have drawn criticism because he doesn't leave it at that, but pretends that he has some other argument X, so that X will make any reasonable person say "I do not believe." Which is simply not the case.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
His argument for saying that God almost certainly does not exist is based on the human need to explain

Thus he simply uses Bulverism, but as C.S. Lewis explains:
quote:
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant - but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.



--------------------
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
PeteB
Shipmate
# 2357

 - Posted      Profile for PeteB   Author's homepage   Email PeteB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sanityman asked:
quote:
Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response?
I would not dream - dream I everso would not - of claiming to speak for 'everyone else' on this list: however, as an individual with a Dawkins lodged up his nostril might I volunteer my quibbles:

1) He has a closed mind and a following even more extreme, vocal and aggressive than he. They have a platform, credibility and influence with the powerful in the media. This is dangerous.
2) Like your goodself Sanityman I dislike his reductionist approach and take your analogy. It's like trying to discuss music with someone who dismisses all talk of the music as music as emotional nonsense and insists on talking about dimensions of instruments relative velocities of sounds in air and so on. Absolutely correct. Totally irrelevant.
3) He repeatedly and stridently insists that religion is uniquely responsible for evil. This is wrong (IMHO). It distracts from and excuses the real cause of evil - human beings. Again this is dangerous.
4) If Cristina Odona's reporting is accurate, he has finally flipped and, waving his arms about and shouting, stepped backwards off the planet.

Briefly, RD began a conversation:

"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?"

Like the well brought-up Catholic girl she is, CO paused only for a brief prayer for accuracy before dropping the elephant dead with a single icy stare. RD is horrified, blood draining from his face and quivering with horror he proclaims:

" ... man, beast, they [are] all the same ... and the priority must be to protect the endangered species.

The only possible mitigating circumstances are that the context was a dinner-party - so it's possible he was suffering from ethyl dementia.


CO's article here

Man's a bounder Sir.

--------------------
Believe in the ethics. Can't accept the mumbo jumbo.
Clem Attlee on Christianity

Posts: 211 | From: Swindon, UK | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave Marshall

Shipmate
# 7533

 - Posted      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think when you start assessing people by what's written about them in the gossip columns, you've probably lost the plot. But you wouldn't be alone.
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 have never seen anyone try to head off Dawkins by using an "art" argument, or comparable (somebody let me know if this was tried on Dawkins). I have only seen the same bored arguments that are being used here, arguments which I see ass absurd. Like postulating that some metaphysical or existential hoo-ha equals any kind of logical or reason based answer.

Your religion IS unreasonable. Wear it. It's unreasonable to believe in that which you can't see, measure, hear, touch, know. It's unreasonable to turn the other cheek. It's unreasonable to love thy enemy. To argue otherwise is absurd.

Many people do not give a flying fuck about the matephysical and intellectual pathetic arguments that are put out defending the indefensible (faith). Just as many probably don't give a flying fuck about Dawkins putting out his rebuttal to the pathetic arguments supporting faith. But the two together create a controversy of absurdity. Christians losing their minds, and Dawkins mocking them for trying to intellectually defend the indefensible.

I challenge you to try to use any argument you have put here without some self-referential part to god. Don't bother looking, every time you rebut one of my points so far, the dragon eats its tail.

Everything you have said assumes something about god. No belief No argument.

As Eliab so eloquently put it:

quote:

Dawkins thinks that any faith position ultimately reduces to "God says...". Sometimes what God is alleged to say is reasonable (by a logical or ethical measure) and sometimes it isn't - but illogic and immorality, as a matter of actual fact, are no necessary discouragement to faith positions. "All apostates should be killed" might be challenged on ethical grounds, but a very large number of people will still believe it, regardless of the ethics, if they can be induced as a matter of faith to think that it is a commandment of God.

Which is why Dawkins thinks that faith is an inherently bad way to reach conclusions. It will lead to real-world decisions of utmost gravity being made on criteria which simply cannot be challenged outside the context of particular beliefs, and which (outside that context) appear absurd. He is well aware that most believers do not think that God is telling them to kill anyone - that's not the point. They are still thinking in the same way as those that do - believing things to be true which they would reject if they were not convinced that God had said it.

I don't think he's right. I also don't think it is a weak, dishonest or lazy objection to faith. It seems to me to be a weighty argument deserving of serious consideration.



--------------------
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
aunt jane
Shipmate
# 10139

 - Posted      Profile for aunt jane         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
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?



Posts: 97 | From: South East of England | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
aunt jane
Shipmate
# 10139

 - Posted      Profile for aunt jane         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
why do you need to "tell the difference" between these churches? What sort of differences are you looking for? What sort do you believe Dawkins would look for?
Posts: 97 | From: South East of England | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
David
Complete Bastard
# 3

 - Posted      Profile for David     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteB:

"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?"

Like the well brought-up Catholic girl she is, CO paused only for a brief prayer for accuracy before dropping the elephant dead with a single icy stare. RD is horrified, blood draining from his face and quivering with horror he proclaims:

" ... man, beast, they [are] all the same ... and the priority must be to protect the endangered species.


If there's only one elephant left then it's already extinct.

Duh.

Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Your religion IS unreasonable. Wear it. It's unreasonable to believe in that which you can't see, measure, hear, touch, know. It's unreasonable to turn the other cheek. It's unreasonable to love thy enemy. To argue otherwise is absurd.

Ok, here's the problem.
  • To "Reason" is to infer by inductive or deductive methods
  • A "Reasonable" man has common sense
  • "Unreasonable" people are illogical or inconsistent
  • an "Unreasonable" hope is not grounded in evidence
Reason can be a lot of different things, and using the word in ways which exclude several commonly-used meanings is a fertile ground for misunderstanding.

Listening to music is not illogical. Asking philosophical or metaphysical questions is not irrational. Dealing with reality on the high level that our minds operate rather than reducing everything to cosmic clockwork is not invalid merely because it moves beyond strict empiricism (which, as Pokinghorne points out, ignores the role that creativity and human imagination have in the scientific process!).

So saying that art is "unreasonable" imho misses the point. People who like music or art haven't taken leave of their senses.

- Chris.

--------------------
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
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 
Oh I don't know, I am an artist and I think a lot of my art completely unreasonable. But I digress.

--------------------
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
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In a world where logic and consistancy are preferred, I'd rather be an emotional learner that hears people like Dawkins, then says, "Interesting if, unoriginal, opinion, but I believe in spite of what you say. Now, how do we make sure people we both dislike don't get access to nucleur bombs, Richard?"

If Mr. Dawkins thinks I can't be involved in reducing the chances of that happening because I believe in God, then what good are his writings?

I thought the point was to save the world, not simply save a cheerleader who might save the world.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know what on Earth posessed me to start this thread appealing to reason and logic. We are talking about fundamentalism here, which pretty much by definition cannot comprehend any attack, no matter how reasonable.

I started by postulating that Dawkins' original quote was factually innacurate. We have had various attempts by his fundamentalist followers to suggest that, actually, what he said isn't what he meant. Variously he thinks "subtle, nuanced" faith is no better than the unsubtle violent sort, or that he was only talking about eminent theologians, not oridinary men and women. I can see neither of these interpretations satisfactorially explaining the words he used - at the very least he is an appalling communicator.

A lot of the subsequent discussion has centred around faith. None of the fundamentalist supporters here have engaged this issue, central to the collapse of Dawkins' argument. I would slighly take issue with IngoB here, in that in our gravity analogy, what was postulated was a caricature of the "God of the Gaps" argument, which is hardly a robust defence of God. That said, I think there is something useful to be found in God of the Gaps, but it is a rather different point.

The problem with God of the Gaps, as is well known, is that the gaps get filled. ID is a classic stupid argument, which has no intellectual, scientific or theological merit. However, there is a broader truth that emerges from this subject. The history of science reveals not that the gaps keep getting filled while the expanse of knowlege keeps getting smaller. Instead, the gaps get filled... and new, bigger gaps emerge.

Newtonian physics was supposed to explain pretty much everything, with a few gaps here and there, sure, but God was certainly no longer needed to push planets and stars about. But as physics developed, entire new concepts appeared, themselves leading to other new concepts - electromagnetism, radiation, genetics, quantum mechanics, chaos and so on.

The current position of physics is that we are further away from a complete, classical definition of the universe and reality than ever before. Current popular theories postulate infinite numbers of universes and multiple dimensions, while we still cannot begin to understand 94% of the matter in the ordinary universe we do have. Quantum Mechanics is still a myriad of impossibilities.

Does God live here? Who knows. Maybe he lives somewhere that these sciences will lead us to in another 10,000 years. Maybe he is nowhere. What is absolutely crystal clear, and beyond debate, is that our human knowledge of our universe is extremely limited, and we cannot say with any degree of certainty what REALLY is going on. Dawkins may have his pet theories, but they are not accepted by the wider scientific community. None are.

Stephen Jay Gould (not a theist as I understand it) could see this obvious point, and was in Dawkins' exact same field (a point thus far conveniantly ignored by the Dawkins-worshippers, since it is an extremely inconvenient one). Or how about Francis Collins? Paul Davis? John Polkinghorne?

Maybe these names are too small-fry. How about Einstein, Schroedinger, Planck, Heisenberg, De Broglie, Jeans, Pauli or Eddington? Each of these, probably the greatest physicists of the 20th Century, had a mystical world view (an excellent compendium on their writings on the subject is Quantum Questions .

Ah, but I can hear the uncontained mirth of Mad Geo even from here. "The imbecile!" he cries. "He's done it again! Dawkins has answered THIS EXACT point! Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but just a reverence and awe for nature".

Indeed. This unambiguous quote from Einstein backs it up:

quote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
But again, Dawkins ignores evidence to fit his pre-determined theories. Here is one rather unambiguous quote from Albert Eisntein to illustrate that Dawkins paints a very selctive picture:

quote:
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
Or:

quote:
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.
But this is far too inconvenient for Dawkins to bother mentioning. Indeed, I'm sure Einstein did not know his own mind, and was blinded by temporary insanity when he said such things.

Or... just possibly... maybe... are things just a tiny bit more complicated that Dawkins presents? Maybe the 8 greatest physicists of the 20th Century have a point after all? Believing in what we call a personal God versus a faith like Budhism is another matter altogether. But the evidence suggests that there are big questions out there that science simply cannot answer. And Dawkins paint Budhism and Christianity with the same brush anyway - they are both infantile religions based on fairy tales.

This is why Dawkins (and his fundamentalist followers here) make me angry. They sweep away all this in favour of their own nice simple fairy tale - that faith is a childish insanity, and people with faith are childishly insane. Evidence is swept away in favour of loud, offensive rhetoric. Intellectual equals (and betters) are ignored or surpressed. It is not science, it is fundamentalism.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 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:
I don't know what on Earth posessed me to start this thread appealing to reason and logic.

No, I'm not sure either. It seems you think the Ship needs you to tell us how things are on a narrow range of topics you think you can get away with sounding knowledgable on.

You don't raise a question, contribute whatever knowledge and opinions you have, and see where the discussion goes. You don't seem much interested in learning or exchanging ideas. It seems you only start threads after you have made up your mind, then get all upset when, shock horror, not everyone agrees with you.

That in itself would be OK; you'd have been a little naive and, I think for most people, it would have been a useful learning experience. For you though, it quickly becomes an outrageous liberty. You switch from apparently reasonable contributor mode to a rather nasty, self-righteous tabloid style attack-the-person style, deliberately setting out not to counter arguments with evidence but to needle, to wind up, and to denigrate those who disgree with you.

There are no fundamentalist Dawkins supporters on this thread. You know that (and if you don't then you really are more stupid than I thought) but, what the hell, they disagree with you so you'll have a go at being hurtful back.

What makes me laugh here (sorry, but you annoy me too) is that in blathering on about what you see as Dawkins' lack of coherence you demonstrate your lack of awareness of your own limitations. I'm no Einstein, the gaps in my knowledge are vast, but what I have learnt is the result of listening to people and thinking about what they say.

Apart from the God of the Gaps bit, everything in your last post has already been countered by people who in various ways have shown they know more about the subject than you do. So why start all over again with this little rant? Dawkins has been done to death already. Some of us value his contribution to the debate, some react vitriolically to the mere mention of his name. But if you read the thread again for comprehension, you'll see that literally no-one agrees with most of what you're complaining about.

Let it go. If people want to pick up on stuff and keep the thread alive, all well and good. But keep acting like you're some kind of Ship thread-master poking half-dead discussions to artificially keep them alive does not look a useful or contructive way to carry on.

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 The Atheist:
To attack the foundation of the church - faith - Dawkins (or me, or any atheist) would have to accept the revelation of the scripture. Can't be done. To accept the revelation of scripture, he'd have to be a christian.

What you seem to be saying is that you (or Dawkins) is unable to argue about hypothetical situations. I don't have be an atheist to be able to argue that conclusions atheists might draw are incorrect.

For example, an atheist might argue that, because there is no god there is no objective standard of morality. And I might reply that even if there were no god there is still an objective standard of morality because XYZ...

I don't have to accept any tenet of atheism to engage with atheistic arguments. I merely have to be capable of considering the logical conclusions of what, to me, are hypothetical situations.

For all I know, you might be unable to do that. But I'm pretty damned sure that Dawkins can, if he wants to.

And what does `attacking faith' mean, anyway?

You could argue that it is a bad idea to base your life choices on propositions that are not physically observable. I happen to disagree (because I think we all do this all the time, even atheists), but I don't see that you have to accept the revelation of scripture to argue the point.

Or are you attacking `faith' in the sense of `loyalty' or `commitment'? For sure you could argue that one should make a strong commitment to something on the basis of scant evidence; but, again, I don't see why you need to accept anything about scripture to do that.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stars
Shipmate
# 10804

 - Posted      Profile for Stars   Email Stars   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:


Indeed. This unambiguous quote from Einstein backs it up:

quote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
But again, Dawkins ignores evidence to fit his pre-determined theories. Here is one rather unambiguous quote from Albert Eisntein to illustrate that Dawkins paints a very selctive picture:

quote:
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
Or:

quote:
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.
But this is far too inconvenient for Dawkins to bother mentioning. Indeed, I'm sure Einstein did not know his own mind, and was blinded by temporary insanity when he said such things.

Or... just possibly... maybe... are things just a tiny bit more complicated that Dawkins presents?





Or..just possibly, things are a bit more complicated than even you are allowing for. I think I understand what Einstein is saying, because it is (often) more or less my position.

I would describe myself as an atheist, because i have no religious belief

Posts: 357 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What you seem to be saying is that you (or Dawkins) is unable to argue about hypothetical situations. I don't have be an atheist to be able to argue that conclusions atheists might draw are incorrect.

It's worse than that. If you can't argue from a hypothetical position, then you have lost one of the most powerful tools in logic or mathematics, i.e. where you accept a premise and then reason within the terms of that premise until you reach a contradition, thus proving (if the intermediate reasoning is valid), that the premise was untenable.

So we could make 3 propositions about a framework such as Christianity or Atheism:
1. Christianity is tenable and true
2. Christianity is tenable but false
3. Christianity is untenable

Distinguishing between 1 and 2 requires data (which may or may not be observable), whereas 3 can be tested given just a definition of the framework. (Unfortunately there are a number of sets to be tested, since Christians can't agree).

But if you can prove 3, then distinguishing between 1 and 2 become irrelevent.

[ 25. May 2007, 12:28: Message edited by: Petaflop ]

Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074

 - Posted      Profile for Socratic-enigma     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
As a disbeliever in homeopathy I can attack the whole thing at its root by saying ``I don't think there is a molecular memory''.
And you would then, through the use of 'double-blind' testing (as has been done a number of times), demonstrate conclusively that homeopathic remedies are of no value what-so-ever.
quote:
Or I can say ``Even if there is a molecular memory, your conclusion XYZ does not follow logically from that, because ABC...''.
I don't understand your point: You make as though to accept a premise which you know to be a nonsense, in order to demonstrate within their framework, the flaws of the argument they present. But if their argument is logically feasible within that flawed framework, what is the point? What can you achieve?
And that is the problem with the analogy: It is possible to show that homeopathy is a load of cobblers because a demonstrable physical effect is part of its mantra; prove that there is no effect and its foundation collapes.

The existense of God is more elusive.

I'm also bemused about complaints about Dawkin's ignorance of theology.
Which theology?
Members here speak as though there is a singular interpretation; a science that deserves careful scrutiny.
From my observations there are a myriad of interpretations, all claiming exclusive legitimacy - how is one to choose?
And why would one bother?
Dawkins is criticized for focussing on extremists - but their views are equally as legitimate as that of the most reasonable liberal.

And that is what scares us

S-E

--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume

Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I don't understand your point: You make as though to accept a premise which you know to be a nonsense, in order to demonstrate within their framework, the flaws of the argument they present. But if their argument is logically feasible within that flawed framework, what is the point? What can you achieve?

The point is that it may be possible to refute their position without even having to consult the data. If you can prove that the position is internally inconsistent, then you save yourself the effort of doing the experiment.

Now depending on the difficulty of the experiment and the proof, one approach may be easier than the other. Since experimental evidence for or against the existance of God is tricky to provide, the traditional approach has been to look for inconsistencies within the particular framework of reasoning - and to do so requires the premises of that framework to be accepted as givens for the purposes of the argument.

Having said that, my previous post was wrong. We need to consider 4 cases:
1. Christianity is tenable but false
2. Christianity is tenable and true
3. Christianity is untenable but false
4. Christianity is untenable and true
Number 4 looks dumb, but I was ignoring the possibility that reason is not a valid tool for the determination of truth. Reason could be a flawed product of the way our minds work. Not a very useful hypothesis of course.

[ 25. May 2007, 13:29: Message edited by: Petaflop ]

Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  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 
Noiseboy.

In the book, Dawkins actually (interestingly) gave Buddhism a gloss over as being closer to a philosophical system.

As a Zen Buddhist, I thought that was rather generous of him, while probably being completely wrong.

But again don't let the book get in the way of a good rant. Carry on.

[ 25. May 2007, 14:34: 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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Am I right in thinking that you can be a Zen Buddhist without believing in any supernatural entities whatsoever?

--------------------
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      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Am I right in thinking that you can be a Zen Buddhist without believing in any supernatural entities whatsoever?

So I have been told.

--------------------
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 Callan:
Am I right in thinking that you can be a Zen Buddhist without believing in any supernatural entities whatsoever?

That is correct. OTOH, Dawkins oversimplified and admits he knows little of Buddhism. Not surprising since he has to do battle with the entirity of Christianity first.

[ 25. May 2007, 15:14: 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
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Tangent - Callan - your in-box is full to overflowing)

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

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not any more. Yours is though!

--------------------
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      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave Marshall - where to begin on such a vicious character assination?

1. I have started a few threads on subjects I have very firm views on. This is one, climate change another. This, you inflate to all threads, which is untrue. Both this and the climate change thread are admittedly linked by my incredulity that anyone can seriously defend a certain position. Many others have not been.

2. My contention at the beginning of this thread is that Dawkins has abandonded reason and is a fundamentalist atheist. This is certainly not a novel idea - McGrath's last book was subtitled "Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine". You may personally consider that view to be stupid, but as I have pointed out several times, the evidence suggests there are good grounds for it. It follows that Dawkins' followers on this thread would come into the same category.

3. I am certainly not alone in my views on this thread. Re-read it if you don't believe me - more than once, people have specifically agreed with points I have made. Your behaviour here reminds me of nothing more than bullying on this point (I know - what planet am I on, eh?) Just because yourself and MadGeo loudly pat each other on the back does not mean that your views are universal and mine are those of a lone madman.

4. Where have I ever claimed superior knowledge? My one beef on this thread has been with those who claim exactly this in the form of fundamentalist atheism. If asked, I will be equally withering regarding any form of fundamentalist theism. I am equal opportunities against fundamentalism. Beyond agreeing that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, I don't think I've even suggested what my own personal views are anyway (although some have presumed them). As it happens, I would be staggered if I wasn't wrong regarding much of what I believe when it comes to faith. Pretty much my only certainty is that scientific certainty on this subject does not exist.

If you don't like my writing style, fune. But if you want to personally slag me off further, please do it in hell, where you will have the place to yourself.

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Noiseboy.

In the book, Dawkins actually (interestingly) gave Buddhism a gloss over as being closer to a philosophical system.

As a Zen Buddhist, I thought that was rather generous of him, while probably being completely wrong.

But again don't let the book get in the way of a good rant. Carry on.

So is Budhism exempt from his diatribes against religion? If so, Dawkins appears to be reinventing the word "religion" (much like he reinvented the word "faith" perhaps).

OK, Dave Marshall has delightfully accused me of pig-headedness, so how about this. Could it be that Dawkins and Anti-Dawkins are simply talking over each others heads because their use of basic terminology is fundamentally different? When Dawkins says "religion", does he really mean "religion with personal god(s)?" When he says "faith" does he mean "blind faith?" And likewise when us theists use terms in a metaphorical sense, does he assume them to be taken literally? This could go a long way to explaining the antagonism and offence.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I hereby posit that Faerie are outside the known universe too (Santa Claus lives at the North Pole of course, so I had to switch back to the Faeries). By your “logic” Faerie therefore actually exist.

No, by my logic you cannot then construct a probabilistic likelihood for the existence of this "extra-fairy".

The problem with the fairy, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy is that if you assign the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever) properties sufficiently similar to God's for the analogy to work, all you've done is to show that the letter string 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' can be redefined to refer to God.

On the other hand, if you keep the analogy sufficiently distinct from God for it to do any work, you've probably added in sufficient qualities in the analogy for it to break down.

For example, we have reason to believe that giant heaps of spaghetti don't have any arbitrary quality that we might wish to assign to them. (If you're positing the existence of alien life forms similar to spaghetti on some other planet, then the rational thing in the absence of evidence is to be agnostic.)
On the other hand, if you're positing that it's not literal visible tangible spaghetti with no thought processes but metaphorical spaghetti - well, I can't at the moment think of a situation in which I would want to liken God to a plate of spaghetti, but should the situation arise there would be no objection to doing so.

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
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:
So is Budhism exempt from his diatribes against religion? If so, Dawkins appears to be reinventing the word "religion" (much like he reinvented the word "faith" perhaps).

Buddhism (or at least the Sanbo Kyodan version I practice) is a rather different species than say, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's like comparing apples and ostriches. Apparently Dawkins gets that much.

--------------------
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 Dave Marshall:
Thing is, why should anyone care what you think? You just say these things over and over, I'm not quite sure why. You're no more convincing now than when you started because you never quote what Dawkins has actually written in context, or what he's actually said that leads you to this perverse hostility.

Thing is, I've never seen anyone else say that they agree with you about what Dawkins is saying.

Oh yes, and don't think I didn't realise that that was a personal attack to go with all the other personal attacks which you have launched against me on this thread and everyone else who doesn't share your high view of Dawkins.

[ 25. May 2007, 17:55: 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
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Buddhism (or at least the Sanbo Kyodan version I practice) is a rather different species than say, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's like comparing apples and ostriches. Apparently Dawkins gets that much.

Fine, avoid the question. Again.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the objection is to belief in supernatural entities then clearly Zen Buddhism and parts of Taoism are exempt. If the objection is to fanaticism and cruelty I can think of better examples than, say the Methodist Church of Great Britain and worse examples than, say, the oh, so secular Republic of North Korea. (No idea where ZB and Taoism score on that index. Given the popularity of Zen in pre-1945 Japan I suspect there may be a case to answer, in the latter instance I don't think there is much to complain about.)

Does Dawkins anywhere criticise the concept of the nation-state, btw? Because that has generated rather more violence in the last couple of centuries than a great many religions.

--------------------
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      Profile for Dave Marshall     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Dave Marshall - where to begin on such a vicious character assination?

Um, no. Or at least, it wasn't meant that way. Just being fed up with you calling anyone who disagrees with you a fundamentalist.
quote:
1. I have started a few threads on subjects I have very firm views on. This is one, climate change another. This, you inflate to all threads, which is untrue. Both this and the climate change thread are admittedly linked by my incredulity that anyone can seriously defend a certain position. Many others have not been.
Those are the only two threads you've started that I can find. If you post links to a few of the others I'll have a look and certainly apologise if I've been unfair.
quote:
2. My contention at the beginning of this thread is that Dawkins has abandonded reason and is a fundamentalist atheist. This is certainly not a novel idea - McGrath's last book was subtitled "Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine". You may personally consider that view to be stupid, but as I have pointed out several times, the evidence suggests there are good grounds for it. It follows that Dawkins' followers on this thread would come into the same category.
So let me get this right. You think that Dawkins has abandoned reason and is a fundamentalist atheist. Your evidence is that a theologian who's attacked Dawkins has included "atheistic fundamentalism" in the title of his book. Therefore anyone on this thread who disagrees with you about Dawkins is his follower and therefore also a fundamentalist atheist?
quote:
3. I am certainly not alone in my views on this thread. Re-read it if you don't believe me - more than once, people have specifically agreed with points I have made. Your behaviour here reminds me of nothing more than bullying on this point (I know - what planet am I on, eh?) Just because yourself and MadGeo loudly pat each other on the back does not mean that your views are universal and mine are those of a lone madman.
I didn't say no-one agreed with you. I was talking about how you respond when they don't. Interesting that you raise the question of bullying. I wonder how that works on a discussion board, and who might be responsible.
quote:
4. Where have I ever claimed superior knowledge?
Where have I said that you did? If you mean my comment about limitations, it was in the context of lack of coherent reasoning. You can have all the knowledge you like, if you can't reason it's of little use.
quote:
My one beef on this thread has been with those who claim exactly this in the form of fundamentalist atheism.
There's atheists on here, but none that I'd think are fundamentalist. Calling me a fundamentalist atheist because I disagree with you about Dawkins does not make me an atheist, fundamentalist, or any combination. You start with a false assertion (anyone defending Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist), you end up with logical contradiction (theism (my faith) equals atheism).
quote:
If asked, I will be equally withering regarding any form of fundamentalist theism. I am equal opportunities against fundamentalism.
Well, we agree about something.
quote:
Beyond agreeing that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, I don't think I've even suggested what my own personal views are anyway (although some have presumed them).
I agree. I think your God of the Gaps thoughts were the first I've seen you let out. I'd have come back to you on that (out of interest) if you weren't making unfounded accusations and generally throwing your weight around.
quote:
As it happens, I would be staggered if I wasn't wrong regarding much of what I believe when it comes to faith. Pretty much my only certainty is that scientific certainty on this subject does not exist.
So would you be happy for me to repeatedly call you a fundamentalist on that basis? Because that would parallel what you've been doing to me and others on this thread.
quote:
If you don't like my writing style, fune. But if you want to personally slag me off further, please do it in hell, where you will have the place to yourself.
Stop pronouncing on who is and is not a fundamentalist, give up acting like you're the thread director, who knows where it will lead.
quote:
Could it be that Dawkins and Anti-Dawkins are simply talking over each others heads because their use of basic terminology is fundamentally different? When Dawkins says "religion", does he really mean "religion with personal god(s)?" When he says "faith" does he mean "blind faith?" And likewise when us theists use terms in a metaphorical sense, does he assume them to be taken literally? This could go a long way to explaining the antagonism and offence.
Yes, I think that's close to what's happening. The problem seems to be that neither side seems much interested in considering the implications.
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Thing is, I've never seen anyone else say that they agree with you about what Dawkins is saying.

Well, you could always read the book, have look at the links I posted back up the thread, find out for yourself...
quote:
Oh yes, and don't think I didn't realise that that was a personal attack to go with all the other personal attacks which you have launched against me on this thread and everyone else who doesn't share your high view of Dawkins.
Seems to go with the territory in Purg these days. What personal attacks do you think I've launched, BTW?
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Fine, avoid the question. Again.

Actually wasn't. A little busy today and I'll try to get back to you.

--------------------
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
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:
Those are the only two threads you've started that I can find. If you post links to a few of the others I'll have a look and certainly apologise if I've been unfair.

Try "is that really a green george bush I see before me", "guilt is great", "is forgiveness the answer for iraq" for starters.

quote:
So let me get this right. You think that Dawkins has abandoned reason and is a fundamentalist atheist. Your evidence is that a theologian who's attacked Dawkins has included "atheistic fundamentalism" in the title of his book. Therefore anyone on this thread who disagrees with you about Dawkins is his follower and therefore also a fundamentalist atheist?
Oh FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!

Dave, if this really is the limit of your attempts at constructive debate, then there is absolutely no point in carrying on. As I CLEARLY said, throughout this thread I have shown evidence which Dawkins has disregarded in favour of a pre-existing theory (changing evidence to fit the theory). I can't be bothered to spend another hour collating it for you. McGrath has also shown plenty more. It also follows that if people similarly chose to ignore evidence rather than counter it, they are using the same technique as Dawkins.

quote:
So would you be happy for me to repeatedly call you a fundamentalist on that basis? Because that would parallel what you've been doing to me and others on this thread.
Dave, that really is pathetic. On the same level as acusing someone who says "I don't like racist people" as being racist. Cos, you know, there's a group of people they don't like.

If the fundamentalist atheist thing really bothers you, then engage with it. Is someone not a fundamentalist if they believe fundamentalist things but don't like the term? The charge is that Dawkins ignores evidence that does not fit his pre-determined theory. These include (but are not limited to:)

All religion is evil
Science necessarily leads to atheism
Faith is contrary to reason

Each of these three points has been, to my mind, comprehensively debunked, and a large number of atheists (NOTE - NOT FUNDAMENTALIST!!!!) would agree. Dawkins goes above and beyond reason into the realm of the fundamentalist.

quote:
give up acting like you're the thread director, who knows where it will lead.
Pot, kettle, black.

quote:
The problem seems to be that neither side seems much interested in considering the implications.
OK, is this a more productive starting point? My problem on this issue, then, is that Dawkins choses to redifine terms that are well understood, without saying he is doing so. Faith is the biggie. All the while he redefines it as "blind faith", he gets nowhere. If he is serious, he needs to make quite explicit that there is a form of belief that cannot be proven by reason, but is wholly compatible with reason. He can call it what he likes, the rest of us can call if faith as it is classically understood (as opposed to blind faith, of course). If you can find him saying this in The God Delusion, I'll eat so much humble pie I'll up a belt size.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  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:
The charge is that Dawkins ignores evidence that does not fit his pre-determined theory. These include (but are not limited to:)

All religion is evil
Science necessarily leads to atheism
Faith is contrary to reason

Of those, only the third point has anything like it in the God Delusion.

Dawkins clearly thinks religion generally to be bad (and pretty universally defenceless against evil) - but not that all religion absolutely is evil. He thinks everyone should be atheists (he thinks atheism true, after all) and that science is a help to this, but there's nothing necessary about the journey from science to atheism.

quote:
My problem on this issue, then, is that Dawkins choses to redifine terms that are well understood, without saying he is doing so.
Well I agree with you that Dawkins often uses particular definitions, but if you READ THE BOOK you would see that he makes this quite clear.

quote:
Faith is the biggie. All the while he redefines it as "blind faith", he gets nowhere. If he is serious, he needs to make quite explicit that there is a form of belief that cannot be proven by reason, but is wholly compatible with reason. He can call it what he likes, the rest of us can call if faith as it is classically understood (as opposed to blind faith, of course)..
It depends what you mean by "compatible with reason". Dawkins would agree that it is possible to reason from religious premises. He would also agree that some tenets of religious faith (such as the existence of God) cannot be conclusively disproved by reason. The most he suggests is that:

1) the existence of God is objectively unlikely by the criteria we accept as valid for assessing the likelihood of anything else.

2) subjective reasons for having religious faith are not sufficient to found any degree of rational conviction.

He has, I think, a rather narrow and idiosyncratic definition of faith, but not a wholly unrealistic one. Obviously I disagree with him that there are no sufficient reasons for having such a faith (because I believe in God) but that doesn't make him a fundamentalist. He isn't a fundamentalist in the slightest, but a serious thinker and honest opponent of religious faith.

It is, I think, a significant point that those people on this thread who are saying that there is intellectual meat in TGD are united not by any similarity of faith or opinion, but by the fact that they have actually read it - and those who are the most vocal detractors have not.

--------------------
"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
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343

 - Posted      Profile for Foxymoron   Email Foxymoron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some more Einstein quotes which I feel are relevant. Most of these are from www.einstein&religion.com.

Einstein's beliefs are constantly misrepresented, not least by atheists. Einstein was properly a Deist, and a great admirer of Spinoza's brand of pantheism. He did not believe in a personal God i.e. who has any interest in us at all. Nevertheless he did believe in God as an almighty transcendent being upholding all of existence.


quote:

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

Albert Einstein
in Goldman, p. vii

quote:

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

quoted in Jammer, Max, 'Einstein and Religion' (Princeton University Press, 1999)

quote:

I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.

Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, 'Einstein and Religion' (Princeton University Press, 1999)

quote:

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality.

Letter to A. Chapple, Australia, February 23, 1954; Einstein Archive 59-405; also quoted in Nathan and Norden, Einstein on Peace P. 510

quote:

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...

18 April 1955 (Simpson's Contemporary Quotations, Houghton Mifflin, 1988).

See also 'Subtle are Einstein's thoughts' at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/9/2/1
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005  |  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:
Try "is that really a green george bush I see before me", "guilt is great", "is forgiveness the answer for iraq" for starters.

I looked at two of the other threads you've started (now in Oblivion - none are currently accessible via the search index). In one you showed a light touch, the other (Chris Brian and the NOS) similar to this.
quote:
As I CLEARLY said, throughout this thread I have shown evidence which Dawkins has disregarded in favour of a pre-existing theory (changing evidence to fit the theory).
You have clearly said that. You have equally clearly not done that. Some people consider the difference signficant.
quote:
McGrath has also shown plenty more.
So you say. Not having been impressed by the extracts from McGrath that I have seen, I don't find that at all convincing.
quote:
It also follows that if people similarly chose to ignore evidence rather than counter it, they are using the same technique as Dawkins.
Well, yes, I suppose it would - if people here were ignoring evidence. The people I'm thinking of, me for example, would consider evidence if you provided some. Depending on how convincing it was, they might counter it. But you only appear to have your personal opinion and second-hand comments, which, as some of us have noted, is contradicted by what we've heard and read directly from Richard Dawkins.
quote:
Is someone not a fundamentalist if they believe fundamentalist things but don't like the term? The charge is that Dawkins ignores evidence that does not fit his pre-determined theory.
No, the charge is that you repeatably called me and others here fundamentalist atheists when we're not. In my case because I'm convinced God is real. Nothing to do with not liking labels, or what Dawkins does or does not do.
quote:
My problem on this issue, then, is that Dawkins choses to redifine terms that are well understood, without saying he is doing so. Faith is the biggie. All the while he redefines it as "blind faith", he gets nowhere. If he is serious, he needs to make quite explicit that there is a form of belief that cannot be proven by reason, but is wholly compatible with reason.
He doesn't do that in the book, but then neither does Nicene Christianity. I do, but he doesn't know I exist. And he'd hardly include it in a book he hopes will inspire atheists anyway.

But equally, he says very little that is not basically correct. What he gets 'wrong', in the sense of misrepresenting religious faith, he does by taking religious faith at face value. I see no dishonesty in that.

Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is, I think, a significant point that those people on this thread who are saying that there is intellectual meat in TGD are united not by any similarity of faith or opinion, but by the fact that they have actually read it - and those who are the most vocal detractors have not.

On the one hand:
this is a fair point.
On the other hand:
1) I have read Dawkins' thoughts on religion in the newspapers and in his early books, and they don't inspire me to expect anything insightful in the new book.
2) Two out of three atheist reviewers of TGD whom I respect have rubbished the book; the review from the third didn't actually make me think that the book was any good.
3) The admirers of the book on this thread haven't given many illustrations of the arguments in the book; those they have seem to me to entirely miss the point that they're trying to refute.
(MadGeo has said that the arguments he read were very convincing, but he can't remember how they work well enough to reproduce them. That's evidence of sophistry: sophistry only works if you use the original rhetoric. If you've understood a logical argument, you can reproduce it.)
4) I have seen one extract from the book, which struck me as intellectually dishonest.
It's the passage regarding the suicide bombers in London, which ends up saying that 'only religion can inspire such atrocities'.

Now I don't want to waste my time reading Dawkins if I'm right about the arguments I've seen and they are typical of the book. And I don't want to give money to someone who would take any children I may have away from me if he had his way.

Does my reasoning seem fair to you?
(I mean Dawkins himself says that he wouldn't bother to read a book by a professed defender of fairies or a theologian - it's hardly unfair to extend the same courtesy to him.)

But I believe I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if I'm presented with evidence to change my view.

1) Can you defend the argument regarding suicide bombers? The charges against it are:
a) he doesn't mention that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are atheists and until recently had contributed the majority of the world's suicide bombers. If he doesn't know that, he hasn't done his research.
b) the conclusion he should reach from the premises he gives is: 'only religion and love for one's family have the power to inspire such atrocities.'
c) he does nothing to justify the word 'only'.

If you're willing to summarise any other passage of argument from the book that you think is cogent and relevant to religion that might also motivate me to change my opinion.

Can I say fairer than that?

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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is, I think, a significant point that those people on this thread who are saying that there is intellectual meat in TGD are united not by any similarity of faith or opinion, but by the fact that they have actually read it - and those who are the most vocal detractors have not.

It is significant. But I'm not sure the causality runs the way you (apparently) think it does. Rather, people who have assessed what Dawkins has said in various other places and found it wanting, believe it is not worth their while to read his book. Whereas those who have agreed with his stated opinions in these various other places have decided to read the book. It is significant that those people who have read the book and are most vociferously defending Dawkins are just those people you might have expected to do so before the conversation was mooted. And, of course, vice versa. With some notable exceptions.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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 you seem to be saying is that you (or Dawkins) is unable to argue about hypothetical situations. I don't have be an atheist to be able to argue that conclusions atheists might draw are incorrect.

Not sure where you get that from. What I'm pointing out is that while god can be attacked, faith in it can't be - faith is inviolable from outside attacks. The object of the faith might be attacked; that's why goalposts change.

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I don't have to accept any tenet of atheism to engage with atheistic arguments. I merely have to be capable of considering the logical conclusions of what, to me, are hypothetical situations.

Well, since there are no tenets to atheism, I agree that you don't have to accept any. You'd find it very difficult to achieve a hypothetical position against atheism, while you could manage it against atheists. Atheism isn't a belief system in any way.

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
You could argue that it is a bad idea to base your life choices on propositions that are not physically observable. I happen to disagree (because I think we all do this all the time, even atheists), but I don't see that you have to accept the revelation of scripture to argue the point.

Again, I don't think atheists could be said to base their lives on anything. Not believing fairytales isn't a lifestyle choice. The only thing atheists do as a result of atheism is not attend church. Plenty of christians don't either.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura

Wise Drunkard
# 1066

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura   Email Bonaventura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Well, since there are no tenets to atheism, I agree that you don't have to accept any. You'd find it very difficult to achieve a hypothetical position against atheism, while you could manage it against atheists. Atheism isn't a belief system in any way.

I would be inclined to agree in that atheism only describes a component of a larger world view; Theravada buddhists are also atheists, because that philosophy has no place for a divine agent. In addition, history can provide us with examples of many superstitious atheists who would not fit the ideals of rationalism that Dawkins et al. espouses. Atheism is in other words not a self-contained system.

Atheism is a relative term, like the term conservative. It does'nt really tell us a great deal divorced from the context it appears in. In the late Roman empire Christians were labeled as atheists because they refused to take part in the civic cult of the empire, to perform public religious duties and take part in the festivals of the Roman city. They were atheists because they denied the the sacred power of the state.

This brand of atheism does not bear much resemblance to modern western atheism, but it does demonstrate the atheism must be understood as a part of a historical context in order to be comprehensible. Modern atheist discourse is also shaped by what it seeks to attack, that is western theism.

What I suspect here is that most here use the term atheist to mean a naturalist, and naturalism certainly holds tenets and is a world view.
I am certainly aware that naturalists might indeed be agnostics or even deists, but the vocal atheists of today criticise Christianity from a naturalistic angle rather than, say the perspective of Theravada Buddhism.

--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco

Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave Marshall - Dafyd made such an excellent last post it answers most of the things I wanted to say far better than I would do (and I'm quite sure you'd agree on that!)

The suicide bomber argument is a very good one (and I have read Robert Pape's study on this phenomena which I found extremely convincing). Add these to the examples I cited in my last post that haven't been answered yet.

Foxymorn - cheers for those Einstein quotes, very interesting.

Eliab - Dawkins' documentary last year was called Religion - The Root Of All Evil. Does the God Delusion (published a few months later) deviate from that stance? Also I am struggling with the idea that if atheism is true (a statement of fact) why science would not lead to it? On what other grounds is it true?

?????

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 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:
Dafyd made such an excellent last post it answers most of the things I wanted to say far better than I would do (and I'm quite sure you'd agree on that!)

If you mean that Dafyd's post doesn't thank a poster on my behalf as if he were conducting the discussion, then yes, we agree. Beyond that, no.
quote:
The suicide bomber argument is a very good one
I was going to leave Dafyd's post for Eliab as it was a response to him. But seeing you've not replied to my points yourself, see below.
quote:
Add these to the examples I cited in my last post that haven't been answered yet.
What examples that haven't been answered? (perhaps re-read Eliab's post?)
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) I have read Dawkins' thoughts on religion in the newspapers and in his early books, and they don't inspire me to expect anything insightful in the new book.

So you have a reason not to read The God Delusion.
quote:
2) Two out of three atheist reviewers of TGD whom I respect have rubbished the book; the review from the third didn't actually make me think that the book was any good.
More reasons not to read the book.
quote:
3) The admirers of the book on this thread haven't given many illustrations of the arguments in the book; those they have seem to me to entirely miss the point that they're trying to refute.
I guess another reason not to read the book. With added swipe at admirers of the book. Of course, without saying which posters you mean it's impossible for them to counter or even point out, should they want to, that they're not in fact admirers of the book.
quote:
(MadGeo has said that the arguments he read were very convincing, but he can't remember how they work well enough to reproduce them. That's evidence of sophistry: sophistry only works if you use the original rhetoric. If you've understood a logical argument, you can reproduce it.)
You clearly read differently to me. When time is short I read to follow the thread of an argument. If the logic doesn't break down I may well not stop to absorb the detailed working but still recall that the logic did not break down. Your "evidence of sophistry" sounds to me like, er, a rhetorical use of sophistry.
quote:
4) I have seen one extract from the book, which struck me as intellectually dishonest.
It's the passage regarding the suicide bombers in London, which ends up saying that 'only religion can inspire such atrocities'...

If the copy I read was not now back at the library, I would cite the whole passage. As I don't have that option, I'll simply suggest that when read in context, the phrase you quote will be part of a longer argument in which Dawkins paints a picture of religion as he sees it.

If you object to Dawkins using this technique, I assume you also object to any sermon that begins with an exaggerated statement of what the preacher is going to speak against.
quote:
Now I don't want to waste my time reading Dawkins if I'm right about the arguments I've seen and they are typical of the book. And I don't want to give money to someone who would take any children I may have away from me if he had his way.
Interesting progression. You've noted some valid reasons for not reading a book. Now, out of the blue, the author wants to take away your children.
quote:
Does my reasoning seem fair to you?

Um, yes, apart from 4) and that last bit.
quote:
Can you defend the argument regarding suicide bombers? The charges against it are:
a) he doesn't mention that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are atheists and until recently had contributed the majority of the world's suicide bombers. If he doesn't know that, he hasn't done his research.
b) the conclusion he should reach from the premises he gives is: 'only religion and love for one's family have the power to inspire such atrocities.'
c) he does nothing to justify the word 'only'.

Defend it in what terms?
  • As a factual analysis of world suicide bombers? Clearly not.
  • As a philosophical treatise on what inspires attrocities? Again, not really.
  • As one (flawed) element in a broad critique of religion? I'd say it doesn't need defending. In the context of the stated aims of the book, it's a minor oversight.
I'm not bothered if anyone reads the book. I didn't have time to read every chapter, even if I'd wanted to. But I think opponents miss out if they ignore something like this. The video clip linked from that feature I think illustrates why so many church people don't like him: he dogmatically refuses to respect what they hold dear. The clip should do it for catholics; I'm sure he'd be equally dismissive of, say, the evangelical need for conversion. Yet when pushed not that hard by a journalist, he seems completely open about his belief in what I'd say is the universally defensible reality of God. He just objects to what I guess he might call the sophistry of religion.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally Posted by Bonaventura:
Atheism is a relative term, like the term conservative. It does'nt really tell us a great deal divorced from the context it appears in. In the late Roman empire Christians were labeled as atheists because they refused to take part in the civic cult of the empire, to perform public religious duties and take part in the festivals of the Roman city. They were atheists because they denied the the sacred power of the state.

This brand of atheism does not bear much resemblance to modern western atheism, but it does demonstrate the atheism must be understood as a part of a historical context in order to be comprehensible. Modern atheist discourse is also shaped by what it seeks to attack, that is western theism.

Actually, I think it's very relevant, and though I never thought of it that way, that many modern atheists (ok, the ones I argue with on craigslist) are in fact most deeply and profoundly offended by the tendency of some Christian sects to make Christianity into a "state religion." They're much more concerned with the views of George W Bush than they are with the views of Bishop Spong, for instance. What offends them most deeply is that we Christians seem to insist upon being a "Christian nation" and that some of us take offense at the phrase "secular society," or that we try to force our religious opinions on creation via the government-run public school system.

In these ways, I think many modern atheists are very much like the early Christians you describe. I've been told, in these exact words, that the only difference between an atheist and a Christian is one God. We are atheists to millions of the gods that came before. Why stop at this one?

Thanks for the post. I think I have some new insight into the issue now.

--------------------
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:
Yet when pushed not that hard by a journalist, he seems completely open about his belief in what I'd say is the universally defensible reality of God. He just objects to what I guess he might call the sophistry of religion.

This is interesting. Can you elaborate?

--------------------
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
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:


quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Noiseboy.

In the book, Dawkins actually (interestingly) gave Buddhism a gloss over as being closer to a philosophical system.

As a Zen Buddhist, I thought that was rather generous of him, while probably being completely wrong.

But again don't let the book get in the way of a good rant. Carry on.

So is Budhism exempt from his diatribes against religion? If so, Dawkins appears to be reinventing the word "religion" (much like he reinvented the word "faith" perhaps).

OK, Dave Marshall has delightfully accused me of pig-headedness, so how about this. Could it be that Dawkins and Anti-Dawkins are simply talking over each others heads because their use of basic terminology is fundamentally different? When Dawkins says "religion", does he really mean "religion with personal god(s)?" When he says "faith" does he mean "blind faith?" And likewise when us theists use terms in a metaphorical sense, does he assume them to be taken literally? This could go a long way to explaining the antagonism and offence.

All I know is, as I sadi before Dawkins gave Buddhism a pass more or less by pointing out semi-correctly that Buddhism (or at least some forms of it) are more like a philosophy than a religion. So on the one hand you are correct that he seems to be defining "Religion" in interesting ways. Of course, as I have pointed out, I am not sure I disagree with him as a Sanbo Kyodan Zen Buddhist that doen't believe in a personal god, and not sure frankly if I believe in anything but ourselves as "gods" really, that he is off the mark when he removes Buddism from the "religious" catagory. Buddhism as western-defined religion is at best a loose fit.

I actually watched a interview of dawkins yesterday where a student asked him "Do you see a difference between reasoned faith and blind faith"

Hi hillarious answer:
"No". (May have had to be there)

I do not see the distinction either btw. I think that lots of religious people like to delude themselves into thinking that their faith is reasoned, we have certainly seen it here. But that is not possible IMO. At some point, if you drill down into a debate on anything faith-related you will come to something that requires an intuition/gut-feeling/emotion/human-based something intangible that is for all intents "blind". God is a faery/FSM/Pink Unicorn/etc. Full stop. To believe anything that is said about god, you have to leap that there is one at all. Everything that follows is based on that blind leap, and is therefore also blind faith. Anything.

I am not sure I understood what you even meant "theists use terms In a metaphorical sense". After having been thoroughly deeply steeped in a Christian religion, I sometimes don't know where Christians stop metaphor and begin facts. I'm not sure anyone can, including you. Sure you could pick your flavor of Christianity and there would be three other forms that would render it metaphor, or not. Hard to address that.

The antagonism and offense is completely irrational. On both sides. It comes (IMO) from trying to define in logical terms that which is not. This also applies to Dawkins arguments as an atheist. Both of you are arguing over intangibles, you are arguing over ART, and to watch you both get so worked up is hillarious to those of us that have been through the territory and see the map is wrong. Yes, even I have gotten pissed (once) in this thread due to personal attacks and I see your map is wrong.

--------------------
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      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[/quote][/qb]
quote:


quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eliab:
[qb] It is, I think, a significant point that those people on this thread who are saying that there is intellectual meat in TGD are united not by any similarity of faith or opinion, but by the fact that they have actually read it - and those who are the most vocal detractors have not.

On the one hand:
this is a fair point.
On the other hand:
1) I have read Dawkins' thoughts on religion in the newspapers and in his early books, and they don't inspire me to expect anything insightful in the new book.


This one is the biggest mistake I can imagine on anyones opinion on anything. His opinion is not a soundbitee on the evening news, when he has rendered his opinion in 300 or whatever pages. There's just no way that the soundbite can be accurate. This is like assuming there's no city telephone book because you have one phone number.

He bases a shitload of ideas on a very few premises. Those premises are seldom stated in public but a rife in the book. Without the premise, the argument that follows sounds hollow.
quote:

2) Two out of three atheist reviewers of TGD whom I respect have rubbished the book; the review from the third didn't actually make me think that the book was any good.

Again, respected or not, why not form your own opinion based on facts, not someones stories about the facts. Ever play the telephone game? Getting your opinions from someones elses opinions without reading the background is well, dangerous.
quote:


3) The admirers of the book on this thread haven't given many illustrations of the arguments in the book; those they have seem to me to entirely miss the point that they're trying to refute.
(MadGeo has said that the arguments he read were very convincing, but he can't remember how they work well enough to reproduce them. That's evidence of sophistry: sophistry only works if you use the original rhetoric. If you've understood a logical argument, you can reproduce it.)

LOL

How about it's evidence I remember what I like and dump what I cant remember? Or I have a crap memory for some things. Or I can always go back to the book for data (although in this case it's audio) plus I haven't finished it. I almost went and bought a hard copy just so I could quote the errata on the thread. I may yet.

Yeah, waht Dave Marshall said about sophistry, too. [Smile]
quote:


4) I have seen one extract from the book, which struck me as intellectually dishonest.
It's the passage regarding the suicide bombers in London, which ends up saying that 'only religion can inspire such atrocities'.

Now I don't want to waste my time reading Dawkins if I'm right about the arguments I've seen and they are typical of the book. And I don't want to give money to someone who would take any children I may have away from me if he had his way.

Library, anyone?
quote:


Does my reasoning seem fair to you?
(I mean Dawkins himself says that he wouldn't bother to read a book by a professed defender of fairies or a theologian - it's hardly unfair to extend the same courtesy to him.)

But I believe I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if I'm presented with evidence to change my view.

1) Can you defend the argument regarding suicide bombers? The charges against it are:
a) he doesn't mention that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are atheists and until recently had contributed the majority of the world's suicide bombers. If he doesn't know that, he hasn't done his research.
b) the conclusion he should reach from the premises he gives is: 'only religion and love for one's family have the power to inspire such atrocities.'
c) he does nothing to justify the word 'only'.

If you're willing to summarise any other passage of argument from the book that you think is cogent and relevant to religion that might also motivate me to change my opinion.

Can I say fairer than that?

Dafyd

I'll get the hardcover book on Monday so I can quote. I can't take it anymore. [Biased]

--------------------
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 Callan:
If the objection is to belief in supernatural entities then clearly Zen Buddhism and parts of Taoism are exempt.

Rebirths due to samsaric karma (choice in the case of bodhisattvas) after every biological death till paranirvana surely is supernatural by our usual standards of "natural"? Even if one throws centuries of "literal rebirth" tradition in the bin (including centuries of Zen tradition), and re-interprets all this as mere metaphor for mental changes, one is still stuck with the question whether enlightenment itself is not "supernatural". After all, one needs to shed attachment to the five skandhas, and the five skandhas are precisely what we would call (human) nature in the West. Even if "samsara is nirvana", it is far from clear that waking up to this is a natural process by the Western concept of nature. And it is the Western concept we are judging Christianity by, so for a valid comparison we should also apply it to Eastern religions.

And one has to realize that this concern for purely "natural" Zen Buddhism is rather Western anyway. One cannot read Mahayana sutras without encountering a Tathagata whose cosmic deeds make Christ's miracles look like child's play. And the Zen tradition has festivities like O-bon, which is basically the equivalent of having a mass said to get your loved ones out of purgatory. And once one starts talking about the practices of Asian laypeople, rather than monks, one surely finds at least as much superstitious contamination as one may find in Christianity. The sanitization of the traditional Zen Buddhism in the West, which includes the monk-ification of the laity and the re-interpretation of anything that could be deemed "supernatural" as mental metaphor, is quite fascinating. IMHO it remains to be seen whether the shunyata baby has been thrown out with the supernatural bathwater...

--------------------
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
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 Bonaventura:
I would be inclined to agree in that atheism only describes a component of a larger world view; Theravada buddhists are also atheists, because that philosophy has no place for a divine agent. In addition, history can provide us with examples of many superstitious atheists who would not fit the ideals of rationalism that Dawkins et al. espouses. Atheism is in other words not a self-contained system.

Correct. Buddhists, astrologers, psychics can be and are atheists. My avatar bloke is probably the most supertitious atheist of all time - although I'd argue he was more anti-theist than atheist.

Defining people through atheism is the same as difining people through their hair colour. (Although jury's still out on blondes!)

quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
I am certainly aware that naturalists might indeed be agnostics or even deists, but the vocal atheists of today criticise Christianity from a naturalistic angle rather than, say the perspective of Theravada Buddhism.

Not to mention that penalties are somewhat less severe for taking the piss out of Jesus as opposed to say,..... Mohammed.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006  |  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 IngoB:
IMHO it remains to be seen whether the shunyata baby has been thrown out with the supernatural bathwater...

Magnificent post. Fuck, you're a smart bloke!
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006  |  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 The Atheist:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Atheism is in other words not a self-contained system.

Correct. Buddhists, astrologers, psychics can be and are atheists.
I'm not sure that one follows from the other. It seems to me that there is one simple question 'Does a "God" exist?' to which there are three possible principle reactions: 'Yes' (theist), refusal of a clear answer (agnostic), and 'No' (atheist). But one reaction is not inherently more open than the other, even the agnostic reaction isn't really more open.

Sure, there are many ways of being an atheist. But there are many ways of being a theist, too. There's Deism, Christianity, Hinduism, may ways of Polytheism, ... And even if one focuses on Christianity, there are many, many ways of being a Christian, from fundamentalist to Sea of Faith, from Quaker to High Church Anglican, etc.

--------------------
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
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) I have read Dawkins' thoughts on religion in the newspapers and in his early books, and they don't inspire me to expect anything insightful in the new book.


This one is the biggest mistake I can imagine on anyones opinion on anything. His opinion is not a soundbitee on the evening news, when he has rendered his opinion in 300 or whatever pages. There's just no way that the soundbite can be accurate. This is like assuming there's no city telephone book because you have one phone number.

He bases a shitload of ideas on a very few premises. Those premises are seldom stated in public but a rife in the book. Without the premise, the argument that follows sounds hollow.

It seems a bit remiss not to state your premises in the course of a newspaper article (a bit longer than a soundbite) - don't you think?
Especially if there are so few of them.

By the way, did you read the whole of Summa Theologica before commenting on the quote from Aquinas that IngoB posted earlier in this thread?

quote:
[QB]I'll get the hardcover book on Monday so I can quote.
Thanks. That's appreciated.

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



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