|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: DawkinsWatch - 2007
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
I don't think anyone has suggested The God Delusion is a literary work of art. The question seems to be whether the book as whole misrepresents religion.
My reading is that from the point of view of a religious outsider, it does not. And expecting Dawkins to write from any other point of view seems unreasonable. Taken like that, whatever the book's literary limitations (and I appreciate you'll be more sensistive to these than me), I suggest it can provide the church with insights it rarely if ever sees, let alone has to consider, in its own internally-generated thinking.
Okay, I've finished it. Nowhere near as bad as Dembski, I'm pleased to report. Something of a curate's egg of a book. Most of his protests against fundamentalism are justified. He is incapable of writing badly on the science involved. So probably worth the fiver I forked out for it.
On the other hand the book is characterised by a number of quite bizarre assertions. For example Dawkins subscribes to the Whig view of history - the history of humanity is the history of progress. The waves flow back and forth but the tide is definitely receeding in the long term. Hitler was evil, but Hitler would not have stood out in the time of Genghis Khan or Caligula, so progress really does happen. The only adequate response to this is Peter Atkins response to Richard Swinburne.
There is something rather Seigneurial about Dawkins' outlook. He has a certain grudging respect for the Church of England - a mixture of class affinity and the knowledge that C of E bishops will always sign petitions against Peter Vardy - but Catholics and Muslims are "these people" and he quotes, approvingly, Nicholas Humphrey as saying that parents ought not to be allowed to teach their children certain beliefs. Dawkins havers on the extent to which groups will be subject to having their children re-educated by the state but things look bleak for the Amish, the Hasidim and Gypsies and given that being raised Catholic is tantamount to child abuse I'd advise Catholics not to be complacent in the (admittedly unlikely) event of Dawkins ever being invited by HM the Queen to form a government of national unity.
The book is written for an American market. American atheists do, admittedly, get a toughish time and this ought to be less tough but it is somewhat ironic watching someone who has become rich and famous for his public espousal of atheism claim to be part of a persecuted minority. Dawkins complains that Orthodox Jews are generally likely to marry people who believe the same things as them. This complaint might have more force if Dawkins were married to a Strict and Particular Baptist.
No book by Richard Dawkins would be complete without the continuation of the many academic feuds he maintains. Steven Jay Gould, we are told, could not possibly have believed what he wrote in 'Rock of Ages'. Gould, being conveniently dead, can hardly respond to this. Michael Ruse, who claimed that Dawkins' position undermines the fight against creationism is compared to Neville Chamberlain. (It is worth observing that Dawkins was one of the participants in the Grauniad's hare-brained scheme to influence the 2004 US election by having various members of the left-liberal commentariat write to the electorate in Ohio which gives a good indicator of Dawkins' gifts as a political strategist.)
On the whole existence of God thing Dawkins is really rather disappointing. He insists that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and then, rather grumpily, concedes Alister McGrath's point that the existence of God cannot be falsified. But the whole point of a scientific hypothesis is that it can be falsified. Ergo, belief in God is not a scientific hypothesis. Dawkins draws a number of analogies - with the celestial teapot and the FSM but of course these are not exact analogies. The existence of a tea pot in orbit round the sun near Mars is, in principle, falsifiable but in practice too trivial to be taken seriously. He claims that one cannot falsify the existence of the FSM which is rather odd because it is well known that the FSM was invented by a determinate person for a joke.
Ultimately we are pushed back on to the old "why is there something rather than nothing?" argument. Dawkins' position is that eventually science will crack this, making metaphysics redundant, what one might call the blank cheque argument. This is, of course, possible but whether it is probable or likely can, I think, be doubted without too much credulity. Dawkins holds that the answer cannot be 'God' because we then have to explain where God came from and God, were he to exist, would be incredibly complex. He's rather cross with the theologians who maintain that God is a) simple and b) necessary but doesn't, I think, demonstrate conclusively that a hypothetical God couldn't be both of those things.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a quotation from Dawkins on the subject earlier in the thread.
That doesn't help me decide whether in it's original context your quote reflects what Dawkins actually said.
quote:
Discussing these things with you would be much more fruitful if you didn't throw in remarks like that from time to time.
You've yet to provide evidence for any of your claims that Dawkins' opposition to religion is unfair or intellectually dishonest.
In your last but one post you're reduced to acknowledging TGD as very well written but claim Dawkins covers up holes in his logic with fine writing, without giving any example of him doing so or any clue as to what you're referring to. And you infer my position is not intellectually honest.
You've ignored the points in my last post but one, except for an appeal to Dawkins for support against it. And an implication that it reflects an intellectually dishonest position. No attempt to explain why the answer in my last post is not a good one.
Who's actually avoiding fruitful discussion here?
quote:
Hmm... I think I did use some language about your position (like 'wacky') which I shouldn't have used. Could you consider whether that language is really stronger than the language you regularly feel free to use about creedal Christianity?
No, I'm fairly sure you've not called my position 'wacky'. Until now, of course.
I am regularly very careful not to give unnecessary offence. Richard Dawkins doesn't see value in that, so when pointing out the flaws and vindictive nature of some of the attacks on him here it's hard to avoid reference to his less than flattering comparisons between credal Christianity and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you restricted expressing your disaffection for Dawkins to pointing out errors in what he's actually said in context, I wouldn't have reason to refer to his more colourful illustrations.
If you wanted to suggest reasons for the position outlined in my last two posts being less than intellectually honest, I'd welcome the opportunity to think further about it.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
The golden rule certainly applies there - science allows childless couples (and women) to have children. People generally want to have children and I wouldn't want to deny someone the opportunity.
That's not the issue. Nobody is doubting that the end (having children) is good, or at least can be. The question is whether the means used to attain that end are morally good. It's clearly not moral to use bad means for a good end (e.g., rape is an evil means for the good end of having offspring). But how to judge the immorality of the means? Is it all just a matter of the consensus of the moral agents? Or is there such a thing as an "objective" morality? Golden Rule arguments run into trouble with systemic evil. For example, take genital mutilation, where many older women who were mutilated themselves are actually keen to carry on the tradition. They do unto their girls what has been done unto them, and if you asked them if they are following the Golden Rule, they are likely to affirm that. Yet we sense that a moral evil is being committed. What is the reference point from which we tell these women that they are being misled into propagating evil? And how do we know that we are not in a similar position concerning other moral issues? Usually everybody participating in an IVF procedure is a consenting adult, but is that really sufficient to determine that it is a morally good (or at least neutral) act?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Callan,
I think that's a pretty fair summary.
Comments thereon:
quote:
On the other hand the book is characterised by a number of quite bizarre assertions. For example Dawkins subscribes to the Whig view of history - the history of humanity is the history of progress.
Agreed - and I think this is a logical flaw. As CS Lewis points out somewhere, to have the idea of progress you need to have the idea of some fixed standard by which progress is measured. Otherwise it is merely change. Dawkins doesn't merely observe as a neutral anthropologist that our society is more tolerant and liberal than past societies in (for example) condemning racism and homophobia, he thinks that this is a genuine advance. Which would imply that there is an objective morality that stands outside society. It may well be that an atheist viewpoint can accommodate a transcendent morality that remains true whatever people universally happen to think, but he doesn't explain why he seems to hold this.
quote:
Dawkins havers on the extent to which groups will be subject to having their children re-educated by the state but things look bleak for the Amish, the Hasidim and Gypsies and given that being raised Catholic is tantamount to child abuse I'd advise Catholics not to be complacent in the (admittedly unlikely) event of Dawkins ever being invited by HM the Queen to form a government of national unity.
He does explicitly disavow any intention to do more against believers than argue with them - and equally explicitly deplores the historical taking-into-care / kidnapping of a Jewish child to ‘protect' him from a Jewish religious upbringing, so I'd feel fairly safe under his personal premiership. He supports scientific (and secular) education as being the fundamental right of every child - I don't think he supports witch-hunts.
However the logical consequence of viewing religous upbringing as abusive is that it should be treated as any other form of abuse. And we, as a society, do take children away from abusive parents. I would be absolutely terrified of the second generation of Dawkinsian government - a bad man acting on his principles would be as much a monster as a bad man acting on ‘Christian' principles.
quote:
No book by Richard Dawkins would be complete without the continuation of the many academic feuds he maintains. Steven Jay Gould, we are told, could not possibly have believed what he wrote in 'Rock of Ages'. Gould, being conveniently dead, can hardly respond to this.
I thought this point of Dawkins' harsh, but fair. Gould's real point in RoA is that religion asks questions upon which science has no grounds for commenting - they are outside the scientific magisterium altogether. But he does address this AS IF he were conceding that religion does in fact have an effective mechanism for answering such questions comparable to the scientific mechanism for answering scientific questions, that is, not only are the fields of enquiry distinct but equally vital (as Gould clearly thought) but that the established disciplines for conducting that enquiry are equally developed and useful in their respective fields.
As a sympathetic reader of Gould - I'm inclined to doubt that he really believed what he could be taken as saying. I think he saw "how to get to heaven" as a religious question for religious enquiry and irrelevent to science - but not that "religion" as conventionally defined had any inside track on providing an answer. Dawkins calling him on it is fair (and Gould's lack of capacity to communicate what we may hope he now knows doesn't stop it being fair - the NOMA idea isn't raised for the purpose of a snide side-shot, but because it is a solid idea that Dawkins feels the need to address in developing his thesis).
quote:
He insists that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and then, rather grumpily, concedes Alister McGrath's point that the existence of God cannot be falsified. But the whole point of a scientific hypothesis is that it can be falsified.
I'm not sure that Dawkins would necessarily concede that falsifiability is absolutely determinative of whether a hypothesis is scientific. I think (judging by his other writings) that he uses ‘scientific hypothesis' to mean a factual claim about the real world that is either true or false - not any particular philosphy-of-science definition. In any case, the converse of the God hypothesis is something he thinks falsifiable (in that God could prove his own existence - although I'm not sure he's right about that), and it would be curious if proposition A is scientific but not-A is not.
quote:
He's rather cross with the theologians who maintain that God is [...] simple
I can't blame him for that. I'm a Christian and I don't understand what is meant by calling God "simple", so I don't wonder that an atheist sees it as an absurd claim.
What I think it means is that God isn't divisible - that we might for convenience talk about God's justice as if it were opposed to God's compassion, but we should not think of bits of God's character being separable from and acting independently of the divine nature. All of God is involved in everything God does. There isn't an all-powerful being who happens to be all-benevolent and all-wise: there is God, who is described in this way, but is essentially and indivisibly himself.
If I'm right, what theologians mean by simply is rather close to what, in another context, might be conveyed by "irreducibly complex" (and no refutation of Dawkins' main point). If I'm wrong, then I think I'm agnostic about the whole simplicity-of-God idea - and it certainly strikes me as counter-intuitive and probably wrong for any usual definition of ‘simple'.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
No, I'm fairly sure you've not called my position 'wacky'. Until now, of course.
I find I edited the word out. What I was going to say was that to an outside observer your position was just as wacky as creedal Christianity.
quote:
I am regularly very careful not to give unnecessary offence.
I am glad to learn that.
quote:
If you wanted to suggest reasons for the position outlined in my last two posts being less than intellectually honest, I'd welcome the opportunity to think further about it.
I said that, if you accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, then it applies equally to your position as to creedal Christianity - and therefore if Dawkins is right about the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument then your position is just as intellectually dishonest as creedal Christianity.
I leave you to work out whether I think Dawkins is right about the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.
The point about a logical argument, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, is that if it is valid it is valid regardless of context. (For that matter, I was responding to your use of it in the context in which you were using it. If that's not Dawkins' context, you could say so.)
You keep saying that the church needs to learn from Dawkins, but you also say that Dawkins' arguments don't in any way apply to your position. If you have nothing to learn, why isn't it valid for the people you're addressing to reject Dawkins in exactly the same way?
Now you said why you thought it didn't apply; I don't think the reasons you gave are adequate but I don't see any point in trying to convince you of the fact. Sorry to deprive you of my opinions - but as you're dismissive of them you're not losing out. I try to avoid getting heated in discussions, as it seems we both are getting.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Before bowing out I should apologise for anything I said while heated that was offensive.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I think it means is that God isn't divisible - that we might for convenience talk about God's justice as if it were opposed to God's compassion, but we should not think of bits of God's character being separable from and acting independently of the divine nature.
The claim is that God isn't composed of any smaller parts, since anything composed of smaller parts wouldn't be an ultimate explanation.
Dawkins thinks that anything of this kind couldn't take the role of God, but his objection is based purely on complex and simple things of which we have direct acquaintance.
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I said that, if you accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, then it applies equally to your position as to creedal Christianity - and therefore if Dawkins is right about the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument then your position is just as intellectually dishonest as creedal Christianity.
OK, I can't see how I could reasonably have got this meaning from what you posted before, but I think I can reply without over-heating.
Dawkins' FSM criticism does not apply equally to my position for two reasons:
1) I make no claim to know, to 'believe for sure', without empirical evidence. The faith element, my choosing to act as if God is real, is a result of my personal experience and what sense I make of it. It's non-empirical evidence that is not directly available to anyone else, so I don't use it as grounds for expecting anyone else to make the same choices.
2) This universally defensible reality of God idea is not some alternative to the Jesus story, it's simply a label that it occurred to me connects the hypothetical creator with the physical universe described by science. It introduces no new information to a scientific world view, but articulates a connection to what might lie beyond, something Dawkins seems happy to acknowledge.
quote:
You keep saying that the church needs to learn from Dawkins, but you also say that Dawkins' arguments don't in any way apply to your position. If you have nothing to learn, why isn't it valid for the people you're addressing to reject Dawkins in exactly the same way?
What the church could learn is the inadequacy of its official statements of belief in the light of Dawkins' critique. That doesn't imply I have nothing to learn from him. The difference is that his criticisms don't invalidate the basis of my faith; I have simply seen value in theorising about metaphysical questions it seems Dawkins only considers when pushed.
The church on the other hand defines itself by what Dawkins calls belief in belief, what I think of as faith in people. This is an essential component in our personal decision-making, but has no unarguable legitimacy in any community or wider institution. It inevitably leads to arguments with no universal solution, distractions from the work of and real value in the church, without providing any explanatory benefit that is not vulnerable to the likes of Dawkins.
quote:
I don't think the reasons you gave are adequate but I don't see any point in trying to convince you of the fact. Sorry to deprive you of my opinions - but as you're dismissive of them you're not losing out. I try to avoid getting heated in discussions, as it seems we both are getting.
I've not dismissed any opinion of yours until you've indicated it's not been up for discussion. I don't mind a little heat, but I understand if you have other priorities.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Dawkins' FSM criticism does not apply equally to my position for two reasons:
1) I make no claim to know, to 'believe for sure', without empirical evidence. The faith element, my choosing to act as if God is real, is a result of my personal experience and what sense I make of it. It's non-empirical evidence that is not directly available to anyone else, so I don't use it as grounds for expecting anyone else to make the same choices.
2) This universally defensible reality of God idea is not some alternative to the Jesus story, it's simply a label that it occurred to me connects the hypothetical creator with the physical universe described by science. It introduces no new information to a scientific world view, but articulates a connection to what might lie beyond, something Dawkins seems happy to acknowledge.
Surely the FSM argument (in Dawkins' hands) is that the existence of God can in no way be disproved but that there are no better grounds for holding it than for holding the FSM. So I don't think Dawkins is happy to acknowledge a beyond and I think he would take the view that you (and I) by holding what he would describe as 'moderate religion' legitimise the beliefs of those who hold 'extreme religion'.
Sorry mate, according to Dawkins neither you nor I have any basis for our views and we're providing ideological legitimation for Osama bin Laden.
[ 29. May 2007, 19:33: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Well, I wouldn't refuse to read it under all circumstances but if you've got a limited book budget I wouldn't read it in preference to something you actually want to read, IYSWIM.
--------------------
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
I am now 3 days behind, and I'll be honest, deeply confused (having read the posts). 206's Dawkins quote at the top of page 6 baffles me completely. RD seems to be quite happy to accept a reasonable faith on the basis of what he says, but then:
quote:
“I do think that intelligent, sophisticated theologians are almost totally irrelevant to the phenomenon of religion in the world today. Regrettable as that may be.” Why so? “Because they’re outnumbered by vast hordes of religious idiots.”
So this brings us back to the OP - does anyone have any evidence, anywhere, that this is true? On what basis does Dawkins conclude that the overwhelming majority of people in the world are idiots, incabable of comprehending something as basic as 6 day creation not being literally true? One might quote the alarming statistic about how many Americans believe in YEC (although I undestand there are problems with that particular survey), but even this hardly comes close to representing an "overwhelming majority" of all religious people. I have yet to see any evidence that Dawkins isn't working on his own hunches when it comes to this matter and, as has already been pointed out, actually ignored contrary evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Faith is what fills the voids." that is not reason-able. A scientist such as Dawkins trys to fill the voids with data and theories and then tries to prove them. They have filled many god-voids over the years and many more will fall in our lifetimes. Some may not, but the scientist should naturally be suspicious of attempts to fill voids with "Here there be dragons". It's just not a reasonable step to take, unless you are religous and look at the void filling as an Art.
This may be getting close to the real nub of it. My view (as already stated) is that the void actually keeps expanding. As compared with 100 years ago, we have to wrestle with quantum theory and the possibility of infinite numbers of universes and / or another 7 dimensions to play about with. We have to face the fact that we do not have a clue regarding 94% of the matter in the universe.
And yet I passionately believe in science and the scientific method. I rather suspect that Dawkins likes to believe that a theist like me simply crosses his or her arms and is content with saying "it is all a mystery, and we'll call that mystery God". I think central to Dawkins' charge against religion is a misunderstanding regarding what religion (or much of it, anyway) actually claims.
Noiseboy's final thought (for today!) - I have been reading Karen Armstrong's excellent A History Of God, which has put me right on more than a fair few things. I was staggered to learn about the origin of Islam, and how The Prophet's original intent was to reunite the seeker with their original God. He never intended to start a new religion, but would exhort the Jew to become a more devout Jew, or the Christian to be a more devout Christian. And of course Jesus remained a devout Jew in his lifetime, and did not form his own church. I am still reflecting on all this, not least because it is the antidote to the fundamentalist view (including that, I still believe, of Dawkins). How could The Prophet reconcile the contradictory teachings in the different faiths, unless the teachings themselves were metaphors?
It does not follow that there is no literal truth in any religious story, far from it. But the history of the origins of religion demonstrates that literal, dogmatic interpretations are not what the religious leaders had in mind. And I think the evidence shows that a good number of religious people in the world still subscribe to this.
[ 29. May 2007, 20:15: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Remember that, for Dawkins, Roman Catholics and Muslims (and probably Orthodox Jews and, indeed, Christians although this isn't explicitly stated) all count as 'religious idiots'. Sensible theologians seem to be confined to the C of E which, you will agree, in the scheme of things is rather limited.
This has less to do with statistical analysis and more to do with which denomination provides the greatest number of Public School and Oxbridge chaplains. It's an atheist spin on nineteenth century crown-and-altar Toryism. If you're not C of E you're below the salt, dear boy. This is a man, after all, who when he wants a synonym for a third world country with superstitious practices, falls back on 'Bongoland'. Not content with being the poor man's Bertrand Russell he's also aiming for the gig of being the poor man's Alan Clark.
[Extra comma. Because I'm worth it!]
[ 29. May 2007, 20:25: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Faith is what fills the voids." that is not reason-able. A scientist such as Dawkins trys to fill the voids with data and theories and then tries to prove them. They have filled many god-voids over the years and many more will fall in our lifetimes. Some may not, but the scientist should naturally be suspicious of attempts to fill voids with "Here there be dragons". It's just not a reasonable step to take, unless you are religous and look at the void filling as an Art.
This may be getting close to the real nub of it. My view (as already stated) is that the void actually keeps expanding. As compared with 100 years ago, we have to wrestle with quantum theory and the possibility of infinite numbers of universes and / or another 7 dimensions to play about with. We have to face the fact that we do not have a clue regarding 94% of the matter in the universe.
Yes, but we actually know about quantum theory, which is a form of answer in and of itself. And I do not agree that we "do not have a clue" about that. We have another 100 years to get a clue and answer more questions. Then another 100. Religion had thousands of years to attempt to answer it's questions. Give science a little time, dude. It's not much to ask.
quote:
And yet I passionately believe in science and the scientific method. I rather suspect that Dawkins likes to believe that a theist like me simply crosses his or her arms and is content with saying "it is all a mystery, and we'll call that mystery God". I think central to Dawkins' charge against religion is a misunderstanding regarding what religion (or much of it, anyway) actually claims.
Noiseboy's final thought (for today!) - I have been reading Karen Armstrong's excellent A History Of God, which has put me right on more than a fair few things. I was staggered to learn about the origin of Islam, and how The Prophet's original intent was to reunite the seeker with their original God. He never intended to start a new religion, but would exhort the Jew to become a more devout Jew, or the Christian to be a more devout Christian. And of course Jesus remained a devout Jew in his lifetime, and did not form his own church. I am still reflecting on all this, not least because it is the antidote to the fundamentalist view (including that, I still believe, of Dawkins). How could The Prophet reconcile the contradictory teachings in the different faiths, unless the teachings themselves were metaphors?
It does not follow that there is no literal truth in any religious story, far from it. But the history of the origins of religion demonstrates that literal, dogmatic interpretations are not what the religious leaders had in mind. And I think the evidence shows that a good number of religious people in the world still subscribe to this.
The problem with metaphors, is that they are metaphors. Just look at the way metaphors are abused here on the Ship. Someone states "Here's a metaphor X". Response "Metaphor X is crap because of Y". Someone replies "Yes, because it's a METAPHOR" and so on.
Invariably people will twist the metaphor to fit their version of god, or of faith, or whatever. It's why people such as Dawkins can skewer it as "truth". What kind of "truth" is a metaphor? A very slippery one. It has a grain in it somewhere, but good luck finding it with humans involved.
As Callan pointed out in his book review, Dawkins apparently wrote this for an American audience predominantly. There is almost no question that Literalists/Fundies are either 1) the norm here or 2) so powerful (i.e. Bush) that they are proportionally loud. Either way, I can't tell if it's my culture plus all the wackjobs in the middle east, plus the knowledge of South American religousity I have, all sums up to a serious Fundie streak in the world that Dawkins is (rightly) screaming at, and defying, while calling for the atheists to come out of the closet.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that, for Dawkins, Roman Catholics and Muslims (and probably Orthodox Jews and, indeed, Christians although this isn't explicitly stated) all count as 'religious idiots'. Sensible theologians seem to be confined to the C of E which, you will agree, in the scheme of things is rather limited.
This has less to do with statistical analysis and more to do with which denomination provides the greatest number of Public School and Oxbridge chaplains. It's an atheist spin on nineteenth century crown-and-altar Toryism. If you're not C of E you're below the salt, dear boy. This is a man, after all, who when he wants a synonym for a third world country with superstitious practices, falls back on 'Bongoland'. Not content with being the poor man's Bertrand Russell he's also aiming for the gig of being the poor man's Alan Clark.
That, on the other hand, is not even remotely a fair summary of anything in TGD (or any other works by Dawkins that I have read).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely the FSM argument (in Dawkins' hands) is that the existence of God can in no way be disproved but that there are no better grounds for holding it than for holding the FSM.
I thought you'd read that book a bit quick. What Dawkins means by God is the fundamentalist caricature. I thought the whole of chapter 1 was describing (with a bit of help from Einstein and others) what he refuses to name but that is very close to what I, and perhaps you, mean by God.
quote:
I don't think Dawkins is happy to acknowledge a beyond
Have another look at what he said in this much linked to interview not too long ago:
quote:
[Dawkins] reads [from a dictionary]: “Numinous: divine, spiritual, revealing or indicating the presence of a divinity, awe-inspiring.” A moment’s pause. Then: “I’ll go along with awe-inspiring. Also, aesthetically appealing, uplifting. I’ll go along with aesthetically appealing and uplifting. Those aspects of it, yes. Let’s look for transcendent.”
He finds a definition to do with lying beyond the ordinary range of perception. “That’s probably all OK and I could go along with that. Going beyond the range and grasp of the presently experienced. Maybe transcendent would be a good word to adopt.”
Sounds like beyond to me.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And how do we know that we are not in a similar position concerning other moral issues? Usually everybody participating in an IVF procedure is a consenting adult, but is that really sufficient to determine that it is a morally good (or at least neutral) act?
I don't see any moral issue at all with IVF. To me, it's no different from any other couple who decide to have children. We're simply using medical technology to assist, exactly as we do with a variety of procedures which were likely to be fatal in earlier times.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely the FSM argument (in Dawkins' hands) is that the existence of God can in no way be disproved but that there are no better grounds for holding it than for holding the FSM.
I thought you'd read that book a bit quick. What Dawkins means by God is the fundamentalist caricature. I thought the whole of chapter 1 was describing (with a bit of help from Einstein and others) what he refuses to name but that is very close to what I, and perhaps you, mean by God.
Umm, no. Chapter one distinguishes between pantheism (sexed up atheism to use Dawkins' term, what Einstein believed), deism (watered down theism, God lights blue touch paper and retires immediately) and theism (God continues to take an interest in His creation). Dawkins makes it clear that all of them are unsatisfactory but that pantheism and deism are preferable to theism. The title of the book is "The God Delusion", after all, and not "My Search For The Unnameable".
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
That, on the other hand, is not even remotely a fair summary of anything in TGD (or any other works by Dawkins that I have read).
Sorry Bongolese, not Bongoland (p319). Still, if that isn't a coded Clarkism then what the hell is?
Dawkins, it might be added, rarely discusses religion as a social phenomenon. The brutality of Afghan political life, for example, might have something to do with the brutality of the various wars which have been waged there since the Soviet invasion in 1978. Dawkins never considers these sorts of possibilities. Religion is not "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions". It is what "these people" do. Are you really saying that you managed to read the God Delusion without ever noting the occasional condescending tone in Dawkins' voice?
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I don't see any moral issue at all with IVF.
I do not want to get into a tangent on IVF, but it serves as an example for the general moral problem: you do not see an issue, I do. Who is right? Who will be the judge, and what will this be judged by? Appeal to moral consensus doesn't work if there is no consensus, and might does not make right. You judge IVF moral because it does not violate the Golden Rule concerning the adults involved. I think the Golden Rule is not the only law of morals, and judge IVF immoral because it severs the connection between marriage, sex, and procreation. Dinghy Sailor thinks the Golden Rule is actually being violated concerning the destroyed embryos, hence it's immoral. Now what? Who is the moral authority we are going to appeal to? The majority opinion of the masses? History suggests that this can be a very bad idea...
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
206's Dawkins quote at the top of page 6 baffles me completely.
It's only baffling if you buy into the anti-Dawkins rhetoric. It confirms for me what I've suspected since I first took an interest, and is consistent with the odd paragraph or comment he always seems to include in his output but that his opponents like to overlook.
quote:
On what basis does Dawkins conclude that the overwhelming majority of people in the world are idiots
I think this is where he's deliberately careless with his use of language for effect. I imagine by religious idiots he means people, in all other respects as intelligent or whatever as anyone else, who when it comes to religion behave like idiots. Reason goes out the window. Reading the Ship, I often find it hard not to agree with him.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Chapter one distinguishes between pantheism (sexed up atheism to use Dawkins' term, what Einstein believed), deism (watered down theism, God lights blue touch paper and retires immediately) and theism (God continues to take an interest in His creation).
These simplistic classifications were the first weakness I picked up in the book. He only provides himself with these options, so he lumps Einstein in with pantheism. My reading of Einstein, which seems very close to Dawkins' own understanding in the interview, seems not at all pantheistic. He's using the wrong label; what Einstein and he actually describe is very close to what I think of as an appreciation of God.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Who is the moral authority we are going to appeal to? The majority opinion of the masses? History suggests that this can be a very bad idea...
I think there probably is an objective morality, but no moral way of enforcing it. If it depends on belief in God as creator, and I suspect it does, we can't legitimately appeal to it when talking to non-believers. So in practice we have no alternative but to rely on negotiated agreement and try to learn from history what works. And what doesn't.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
That, on the other hand, is not even remotely a fair summary of anything in TGD (or any other works by Dawkins that I have read).
Sorry Bongolese, not Bongoland (p319). Still, if that isn't a coded Clarkism then what the hell is?
What 'Bongolese' is, is a silly, made-up word used in the context of giving a made-up example of something that would be a silly thing to say.
What I thought was unfair in your post was the suggestion (that is to say, cheapshot) that Dawkins is some sort of nineteenth century Tory who considers non-CofE believers "below the salt" - with no more apparent basis than his (supposed) relative comfortableness with and affection for the Church of England, because there's absolutely nothing in any of his books to suggest that this is in the slightest bit true.
As I'm quite sure that I have more affection for the Anglican church than Richard Dawkins does, and I'm willing to bet that you do as well, both of us could be mocked as nineteenth century Tories with equal (in)justice on precisely the same grounds.
Anyway, I thought we'd agreed that he was a Whig?
quote:
Are you really saying that you managed to read the God Delusion without ever noting the occasional condescending tone in Dawkins' voice?
I'm a lawyer. Condescension is part of my normal discourse. Why should I object to it in others?
In fact, I don't think Dawkins' intent is condescending, even if his rhetoric occasionally suggests it. He thinks that I (as a religious believer) am absurdly wrong, but has sufficient respect for me to think that it matters that I am so wrong, and that I am at least capable of being open to persuasion about where I am wrong. I don't think that is a condescending approach at all.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Can't pass this one up.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Who is the moral authority we are going to appeal to? The majority opinion of the masses? History suggests that this can be a very bad idea...
History suggests its a worse idea to let a extreme minority opinion dictate morality.
Emphasis on the word "dictate".
--------------------
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
Compare and contrast:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's only baffling if you buy into the anti-Dawkins rhetoric.
And
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think this is where he's deliberately careless with his use of language for effect.
There. Right there is the problem. With one hand, you dismiss considered criticism of Dawkins as "rhetoric". When we try and pin down what, underneath the bluster, he actually means then, it turns out he is actually deliberately careless with his language.
Remind me - what was "rhetoric" again?
Again, no-one has supplied any evidence to suggest that Dawkins' sweeping rejection of the overwhelming majority of the faith of religious people in the world is based on anything more than a hunch (personally I think it is closer to a chip on his shoulder, actually). I think most of us on this forum would clap and cheer if Dawkins wrote a book vilifying fundamentalism in all its forms and praising the more common non-fundamentalist expressions of faith - I know I would. The world has far too much fundamentalism, and it is dangerous and nasty. But this is not what Dawkins does - he claims faith is irrational and God is a delusion. He cannot explain why colleagues disagree with him (many of whom have written careful explanations regarding faith and religion), beyond saying (in last year's Newsnight interview) that they must compartmentalise their faith from the normal part of their brains. Or that they don't know their own minds and don't mean what they say. Many times I have asked of people "yeah, but doesn't he really mean fundamentalism?" And back comes the answer - "No. He doesn't".
If none of the Dawkins supporters can actually supply evidence that he is not working on prejudice and hunches, I'll get round to eating that humble pie. But at the moment (purely from my perspective, Mr Marshall, lest you take offence) Dawkins' arguments have fallen, and the charges against him that started the thread very much stand.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
With one hand, you dismiss considered criticism of Dawkins as "rhetoric".
No, I've disagreed with your criticism, and said why.
quote:
When we try and pin down what, underneath the bluster, he actually means then, it turns out he is actually deliberately careless with his language.
Who do you mean, we? I hadn't noticed anyone appointing you to speak for them...
If you look at the context, what I suggested was deliberate carelessness was a throw-away comment, perhaps said with a smile to the journalist he'd been talking to for an hour, at the end of the interview that's been linked to. Different situation, different context to the book.
quote:
no-one has supplied any evidence to suggest that Dawkins' sweeping rejection of the overwhelming majority of the faith of religious people in the world is based on anything more than a hunch
Er, wait, hasn't he written a book explaining that in some detail? Some people have read that, plus the links to the interview. What exactly are you thinking is missing? How could you get more accurate information about what Richard Dawkins thinks without doing a PhD on him?
quote:
I think most of us on this forum would clap and cheer if Dawkins wrote a book vilifying fundamentalism in all its forms and praising the more common non-fundamentalist expressions of faith - I know I would.
Who would clap and cheer? Are you a cheerleader now?
quote:
But this is not what Dawkins does - he claims faith is irrational and God is a delusion.
Without reading the book, you don't know how he defines 'faith' or 'God'. It is confusing, but there's no way round it if want to know what he means.
quote:
He cannot explain why colleagues disagree with him (many of whom have written careful explanations regarding faith and religion)
Er, why should he be able to? He might work with people who think for themselves and don't always tell him when or why they disagree.
quote:
Many times I have asked of people "yeah, but doesn't he really mean fundamentalism?" And back comes the answer - "No. He doesn't".
And you assess Dawkins on the basis of what they think, rather than make up your own mind based on, oh, I don't know, what Dawkins says himself?
quote:
I'll get round to eating that humble pie.
Get eating.
quote:
But at the moment (purely from my perspective, Mr Marshall, lest you take offence) Dawkins' arguments have fallen, and the charges against him that started the thread very much stand.
A final piece of bullshit to top a pile of crap. It's OK, you don't need to make special mention that you're only speaking for you. Most people never seem to imagine they're speaking for anyone else. I should probably have left your post to speak for itself, but there you go. I won't be replying to you again.
[ 30. May 2007, 18:10: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
What a charming reply, Dave. Despite repeatedly asking - specifically - if Dawkins has any evidence that the views of the overwhelming majority of religious people are idiots, you chose to respond with a "go and read the book". Which, given that a lot of people on this thread have read the book and no-one has supplied any evidence on this particular point, I think I can safely take as a "no" then.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you look at the context, what I suggested was deliberate carelessness was a throw-away comment, perhaps said with a smile to the journalist he'd been talking to for an hour, at the end of the interview that's been linked to. Different situation, different context to the book
Er... but this is exactly the same point that he made in the Times article which started this thread, and (crucially) is also his new introduction to the paperback edition. Which was my original point - those words were carefully considered. And ARE in the book.
I think the rudeness of your last post speaks for itself, and the cheerleader comment had my jaw on the floor. Although it is not particularly edifying, I will confess I shan't miss any more of your character assasinations and, er, bizarre lashings out. And (not that I think it needs stating, but just in case) I never think I'm speaking for anyone but me, but since you have it in your head that I do, I made the reference in the last post.
I hope that other posters who are admirers of Dawkins do have a go at answering the questions though, since they are sincerely asked.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
I hope that other posters who are admirers of Dawkins do have a go at answering the questions though, since they are sincerely asked.
I admire Dawkins because he's a 'player' who managed to devise for himself a public platform and IMO he makes some points theists should consider.
Unfortunately, ISTM, in this 'media age' hyperbole is nearly a necessity in order to get attention and Dawkins understands that well; perhaps too well.
I'm not sure we'd be discussing him if he wasn't willing to make outlandish statements. From his standpoint: what's a guy to do?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I admire Dawkins because he's a 'player' who managed to devise for himself a public platform and IMO he makes some points theists should consider.
Unfortunately, ISTM, in this 'media age' hyperbole is nearly a necessity in order to get attention and Dawkins understands that well; perhaps too well.
I'm not sure we'd be discussing him if he wasn't willing to make outlandish statements. From his standpoint: what's a guy to do?
A dilemma, perhaps. But by making outlandish statements of course he undermines his scientific reputation. Would a (much more justifiable) attack on fundamentalism have been SO bad? It could certainly be supported from science, and it would no doubt generate headlines without compromising his reputation.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Despite repeatedly asking - specifically - if Dawkins has any evidence that the views of the overwhelming majority of religious people are idiots, you chose to respond with a "go and read the book".
I know you'll be disappointed, but not replying doesn't mean I won't be correcting errors and misrepresentations.
In this case, the "go read the book" suggestion was a response to you asking for evidence that "Dawkins' sweeping rejection of the overwhelming majority of the faith of religious people in the world is based on anything more than a hunch".
Nothing to worry about though.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you look at the context, what I suggested was deliberate carelessness was a throw-away comment, perhaps said with a smile to the journalist he'd been talking to for an hour, at the end of the interview that's been linked to. Different situation, different context to the book
Er... but this is exactly the same point that he made in the Times article which started this thread, and (crucially) is also his new introduction to the paperback edition. Which was my original point - those words were carefully considered. And ARE in the book.
Again, not something to worry about, but there's no mention of religious idiots in The Times article. Dawkins says "the melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible" (discussed earlier I think) but not what you say he's said. Why am I not surprised?
quote:
Although it is not particularly edifying, I will confess I shan't miss any more of your character assasinations and, er, bizarre lashings out.
I don't know quite how to put this, but I've only reflected what's been in your posts. If you think that's said anything about your character, maybe it's not me that's responsible. I've said nothing bizarre; it's only been the blatant half-truths and untruths that litter your posts that have had me offering a view on their lack of usefulness.
quote:
I never think I'm speaking for anyone but me, but since you have it in your head that I do, I made the reference in the last post.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Hmm. Now that is bizarre.
quote:
I hope that other posters who are admirers of Dawkins do have a go at answering the questions though, since they are sincerely asked.
I'll just note after that message that what with your attempt to dredge up dirt on what was for many people an uncomfortable episode (Chris Brain and the NOS), your anti-Martin Durkin crusade with the Climate Change thread, and your continuing efforts at fermenting hostility here towards Richard Dawkins (after people who have read the book and interview have articulated a fairly clear picture of his actual position), I'm a little unsure what you mean by sincere.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's no big surprise that by and large people who have read the book agree with Dawkins; who else would read the blasted thing except people who are predisposed to agree with him in the first place? People who have read what he has said in various other forums (fora?) and found it wanting are unlikely to run out and buy or borrow the book. With enough good things to read out there, who wants to read what promises to be dreck?
Thus, continual harping on the "everybody who has read it says blah blah blah" angle grows most tedious given this fact.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Yeah it was only number 4 on the New York Times best seller list for 16 weeks. Apparently there are enough athiests to drive a book to number 4.
Yeah, right.
We don't care if you don't want to read it. But to not read it and then weigh in as if you know what it says is the stupid part.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Are you saying everybody who bought it had heard him on other forums and decided he was a windbag, and still went and bought it anyway? That was my claim, not that only atheists read it. Reading for meaning: it's not just for theists anymore.
At any rate I was referring to the people on this thread, not to the great unwashed. Let's try not to drag in irrelevant statistics.
[ 30. May 2007, 23:21: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Yeah it was only number 4 on the New York Times best seller list for 16 weeks. Apparently there are enough athiests to drive a book to number 4.
Yeah, right.
Of course there fucking are.
Although I suspect a lot of the people who bought it were theists wanting a laugh.
[ 31. May 2007, 00:46: 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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
weigh in as if you know what it says is the stupid part.
We know what he has said in his approximatel;y 545421757541451753415671375 newspaper articles on the fucking subject. Why would the book be different?
Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
I think you might be missing the situation in USA. It's been well established that they are unpopular and untrustworthy in the eyes of the general population. That in itself is a form of persecution: saying someone is untrustworthy because he/she's an atheist.
They are unquestionably a tiny minority in USA.
Gallup Poll results
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not want to get into a tangent on IVF, but it serves as an example for the general moral problem: you do not see an issue, I do. Who is right? Who will be the judge, and what will this be judged by? Appeal to moral consensus doesn't work if there is no consensus, and might does not make right.
Ok, I agree with not derailing this - even though the Dawkins aspect is becoming a little repetitive - but this is why we have ethics committees. Someone definitely has to decide these questions and I agree that seeking a consensus is hopeless. Pity is for your crowd that the vast majority of medical doctors are on my team.
Unlucky; you've had 1900-odd years of doing the morality bit, it's our turn now! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Objective morality from a subjective perspective - atheists are great!
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Objective morality from a subjective perspective - atheists are great!
Didn't work for Kant, and with all due respect, he's a zillion times smarter than any atheists I've ever met.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
I think you might be missing the situation in USA. It's been well established that they are unpopular and untrustworthy in the eyes of the general population. That in itself is a form of persecution: saying someone is untrustworthy because he/she's an atheist.
They are unquestionably a tiny minority in USA.
Gallup Poll results
From the article:
quote:
Catholic
95
4
Black
94
5
Jewish
92
7
A woman
88
11
Hispanic
87
12
Mormon
72
24
Married for the third time
67
30
72 years of age
57
42
A homosexual
55
43
An atheist
45
53
It would be interesting to see comparable figure for the UK. Personally, not a single one of those things would make either a positive or a negative difference in how I voted. Likewise, I couldn't really care less whether the person is a Christian or not. I don't personally vote for an individual anyway. I'll vote the party who in my estimation have the most sensible policies...
On the actual point that you were refuting, I'll concede defeat. However, athiests are so numerous in the UK that I find it hard to imagine a situation in which they hardly exist. Maybe I should travel more.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes atheists are despised in America by roughly the same slice of the population as actually fits the description Dawkins has given of religious people. Sadly for his rhetoric, but thankfully for the sake of atheists in the USA, that number is not nearly so large as some people would have you believe.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
but this is why we have ethics committees. Someone definitely has to decide these questions and I agree that seeking a consensus is hopeless.
Oh, goody. Morals by committee. It's our finest and brightest who love sitting on committees. Whatever could go wrong... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Unlucky; you've had 1900-odd years of doing the morality bit, it's our turn now! Objective morality from a subjective perspective - atheists are great!
Great at what? Self-contradictory slogans? The ethics committees at universities and medical centers are practical affairs. Mostly it's about limiting harm to what is necessary, informed consent, etc. And about obeying a thousand rules and regulations... Ethics committees are not much engaged in advancing philosophical ethics, actually. Which brings us to the point: whether for example IVF is immoral or not in our system ends up as the question whether it is deemed illegal or not. And that question is eventually put to parliament, at least if enough people feel concerned. So if you feel confident that politicians on the lookout for re-election are good guardians of morals, then everything is fine.
And the "us vs. them" crap doesn't really cut it for an atheist humanist, as I thought you were. Disagreement in a few points today doesn't change the fact that historically Western humanism derives from Christian morals, and that it still agrees to 95% with its source. It's a different issue if you are possessed by the utilitarian demon, like Peter Singer. Then indeed it's moral Mad Max time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Disagreement in a few points today doesn't change the fact that historically Western humanism derives from Christian morals,
Bollocks!
Morals arose indepedently in societies all round the world, as a result of Natural Selection, and hence demonstrate a remarkable similarity: ie Marriage ceremonies; strictures against killing; notions of ownership (communal or individual) with proscribed penalties for transgressions; initiation into adulthood; etc.,etc,etc..... with consequent mythologies to support the various behavioural expectations.
I don't recall any passage in the Bible saying Thou Shall Not Own Slaves - although I am aware of a number of passages in support; not to mention persecution of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Our modern morality has come about despite Christianity - not because of it !
S-E
[ 31. May 2007, 09:19: Message edited by: Socratic-enigma ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think you'd struggle to demonstrate that the Enlightenment had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
IngoB, do you believe that human beings can truly know the (natural) good quite apart from divine revelation? That seems a fairly Catholic sort of thought, and I'm not clear that the position you are arguing on this thread sits very comfortably with it.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
I think you'd struggle to demonstrate that the Enlightenment had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.
No
I wouldn't.
If you read much of Galileo's writings, it is evident that he may well have been non-religious had he lived in a more civilized time (when they didn't burn atheists); His discoveries are clearly motivated by curiosity and a sense of wonder - not by any desire to proclaim the majesty of God; Locke may have utilised a religious motif to germinate his concept of rights, but Rousseau arrived at a similar conclusion by simple observation of the natural world and conjecture on its implications; It is completely irrelevant to the work of David Hume; and whatever Christian acknowledgement certain notable characters might make, their contributions may well be said to be despite this, than because of it.
Christianity's greatest contribution to the Enlightenment was to splinter as a result of squabbling over doctrine which somewhat mitigated its power and influence.
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
If you read much of Galileo's writings, it is evident that he may well have been non-religious had he lived in a more civilized time (when they didn't burn atheists); His discoveries are clearly motivated by curiosity and a sense of wonder - not by any desire to proclaim the majesty of God; Locke may have utilised a religious motif to germinate his concept of rights, but Rousseau arrived at a similar conclusion by simple observation of the natural world and conjecture on its implications; It is completely irrelevant to the work of David Hume; and whatever Christian acknowledgement certain notable characters might make, their contributions may well be said to be despite this, than because of it.
That might be true of Galileo, but it wouldn't be true of Newton. Rousseau's 'Confession of a Savoyard Preacher' owes rather a lot to Pascal and to the fideism of his native Geneva. And I'll see your David Hume and raise you an Immanuel Kant.
More generally, a lot of Enlightenment doctrines started off being put forward by Christians and were then taken up and radicalised by Deists and sceptics. It doesn't really disprove Christian influence to say that non-Christians found non-Christian arguments for an idea already promulgated by Christians.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I don't recall any passage in the Bible saying Thou Shall Not Own Slaves - although I am aware of a number of passages in support; not to mention persecution of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Our modern morality has come about despite Christianity - not because of it !
Right ... because there was no significant Christian involvement in the movements for the emancipation of slaves or the rights of women, was there?
[ 31. May 2007, 10:04: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I don't recall any passage in the Bible saying Thou Shall Not Own Slaves - although I am aware of a number of passages in support; not to mention persecution of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Our modern morality has come about despite Christianity - not because of it !
If you assumed that Christian thought is limited to transcribing passages from the Bible, then that would be a valid argument.
As Christian thought isn't actually limited to doing that, it is less so.
There is a history that can be told about the development of concepts such as universal charity, human rights, the importance of the individual person, the importance of everyday life as opposed to elite leisure pursuits - a history which would feature Augustine, Aquinas, Vitoria and de las Casas, Grotius, the early Puritan preachers, and Locke.
Dafyd
(For the curious, I am thinking here of Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
That might be true of Galileo, but it wouldn't be true of Newton.
Ah, the Christian's favorite... So how go the endeavours in discovering the philosopher's stone???
There is little (if any) reference to God in Newton's 'Principia Philosophiae', and one's personal foibles have often not been an encumberance to significant discoveries.
OK, I was being a little facetious earlier (comments such as 'Everything we are is because of Christianity' or some such always get up my goat!); but you've now started an interesting tangent.
Just what were the significant and positive outcomes from the 'Enlightenment Period'
Physics? Chemistry? Modern Economics? The goal of Universal Education? Democracy?
And just what do any of these have to do with Christianity?
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Right ... because there was no significant Christian involvement in the movements for the emancipation of slaves or the rights of women, was there?
And that significant Christian involvement came about because of discussion between people despite what was written in the Bible - which sort of leads to:
"Do you need the Bible at all?"
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Locke may have utilised a religious motif to germinate his concept of rights, but Rousseau arrived at a similar conclusion by simple observation of the natural world and conjecture on its implications; It is completely irrelevant to the work of David Hume; and whatever Christian acknowledgement certain notable characters might make, their contributions may well be said to be despite this, than because of it.
Most of these thinkers, it is true, set out their work as if they were arguing from simple observation of the natural world and human behaviour. Any intelligent undergraduate philosopher will be able to point out where they read into the natural world features of the morality that they already believe.
They claim to be deriving their morality from first principles and observation, but their first principles and observation are heavily interpreted by their intellectual history. Thus Locke's natural man looks like a puritan freeholder; Hume's like a member of the English landed gentry. Rousseau's is somewhat more alien, it's true. So is Hobbes.
Of these figures, Locke is intentionally closest to the Christian tradition, and he is also closest to modern liberalism. Hobbes obviously isn't a liberal; neither is Hume (who is quite happy with the progress of humanity to his current society, but whose principles are inimical to any further reform). Rousseau's ideas have been notoriously influential on totalitarian governments from the French Revolution onward.
Bentham owes his deepest assumptions about human nature to Locke, although he correctly points out that Locke's claims about natural rights are nonsense on a purely natural level; but Mill, although himself an atheist, explicitly acknowledged a debt to Coleridge, a Christian. (Coleridge obviously owes something to Shaftesbury, who I think was a deist, but Shaftesbury's intellectual ancestors are Christian again. Shaftesbury's ideas are completely alien to any earlier society.)
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
|
|
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the "us vs. them" crap doesn't really cut it for an atheist humanist, as I thought you were. Disagreement in a few points today doesn't change the fact that historically Western humanism derives from Christian morals, and that it still agrees to 95% with its source.
Just as christianity gets its own morals from judaism... Not to mention, as Socratic has, that morality has arisen in many places without Jesus' input.
Actually, I kinda hoped the smiley would give it away that I was making a jest about atheist morality - I belabour the point often enough that atheists don't have an anything.
Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
