|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: DawkinsWatch - 2007
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
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.
You're speaking of a remarkable similarity, but all the examples you cite show such a degree of generalization and abstraction that it's very hard to see that you're providing any support for any substantial point.
I mean "ownership (communal or individual)" - the variations within that idea are enormous. A village in feudal Europe, a plantation (and slave) owner in the American South pre-civil war, a modern corporation, the ruler of an ancient mesopotamian city-state: in all cases some person or group of people claim some sort of right to
determine what is done with some area of real estate, it is true. But to say that they all operate with our modern notion of property rights is just not the case.
I assume you're expecting somebody to take you up on the implication that in most Western societies we have initiation into adulthood. At what age does this take place?
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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Davyd
Of course, all of one's views are molded through the prism of our cultural context; and only a fool would reject another's opinion because of their religious persuasion: But I am struck by a thought -
If some of the major contributors to the Enlightenment happen to be Christians - does it necessarily follow that the Enlightenment came about because of Christianity?
And surely the greatest protector of individual rights is a healthy democracy (with all its limitations), as , at least technically, no-one is above the Law.
And that is a derivation from Ancient Greece is it not?
quote:
At what age does this take place?
Did you miss out on a 21st???
(Just please dont start on the Age of consent/voting/driver's licence etc.,etc. the derivation is clearly cultural going back to a time of formal initiation into adulthood)
S-E
PS
TA said:
quote:
I belabour the point often enough that atheists don't have an anything.
I resent that! I definitely have an something...
(I just haven't worked out what it is yet!)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
....Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
Gosh it's nice to actually have facts to support your assertions....
quote:
"Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexuals and other groups as "sharing their vision of American society." Americans are also least willing to let their children marry atheists."
And since you are not American, let me spell it out for you. Homosexuals are often treated like dogshit in America, you wouldn't believe what some fucking idiots say about immigrants nowadays, and Muslims are imprisoned in America just on a whim.
Of course, the EU has its own bigotry, but atheists are treated worse than a broke-dick dog over here.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
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.
Yes, I do think human beings can know the natural moral law. But that does not mean it's easy in all or even most cases to find, understand, and apply it. I think the degree of difficulty involved can be quite comparable to knowing the natural physical law. Except that we invest a considerable part of the total resources of society (both financial and human) into investigating the natural physical law, and very little into investigating the natural moral law. With regards to the latter, we mostly make it up as we go along.
There is a tendency to believe that natural moral law implies that people only need to give a moral question some calm and serious thought, and zing, they all arrive at the same correct answer. In reality, for anything but the most trivial moral questions one can only hope that people with considerable life experience and comprehensive training in logics and philosophy can work out a strong consensus opinion in an open discourse with plenty of trial and error. That is, one can only hope for a situation analogous to natural science.
Natural moral law simply means that there is an objective morality, and that humans can find, understand, and apply it. It does not mean that we have it at our ready disposal.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
If some of the major contributors to the Enlightenment happen to be Christians - does it necessarily follow that the Enlightenment came about because of Christianity?
No, it doesn't. If however they were invoking ideas derived from the variants of Christian theology they were familiar with, or recognisably close to those ideas, when they expounded those ideas then there is a strong presumption in favour of the claim.
I think most people would assent to the claim that Maxwell would not have discovered his laws without the example of Newton; the claim is not much weaker.
quote:
And surely the greatest protector of individual rights is a healthy democracy (with all its limitations), as , at least technically, no-one is above the Law.
And that is a derivation from Ancient Greece is it not?
I would think that someone called Socratic-Enigma would appreciate the difficulty in considering the Athenian democracy a protector of human rights.
Technically Athens was an oligarchy, as was the Venetian republic. People tend not to refer to it in the Renaissance or early Enlightenment in support of democratic ideas - the most prestigious Athenian authors (Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, the playwrights) saw democracy as the foolish led by the dishonest by sophistry. Thucydides' account had a great influence on Hobbes.
(I'm not sure at what point people started to look back and say 'Athens was a democracy and so is the UK; Athens was wonderful therefore we must be too...' I'd guess the Victorians.)
The Roman republic was probably more influential; nevertheless, my understanding is that an examination of the writings of the period finds that the universal brotherhood of all men[sic] as children of one heavenly father ('when Adam delved and Eve span who was then the gentleman') was at least as influential as the example of ancient Rome or the Italian republics.
quote:
Did you miss out on a 21st???
It was not terribly different from my 20th and my 18th and my 16th and my... My family neither cut me loose nor awarded me any new privileges or responsibilities.
My sister was out of the country on her 21st and never had any major celebration.
quote:
[QB]
(Just please dont start on the Age of consent/voting/driver's licence etc.,etc. the derivation is clearly cultural going back to a time of formal initiation into adulthood)
/QB]
Why shouldn't I start on those? Someone at 20 has pretty much got all the appurtenances of adulthood - and will continue to do so even if they never celebrate their 21st.
The 21st is exactly what you say: a cultural fossil[1]. It's not a sign of an independent universal derived from natural selection.
You might be better off saying that all societies (of certain types) mark what they consider significant rites of passage. Even then, there are a lot of exceptions. And I would think that the natural selection explanations tend to towards Just So stories.
Dafyd
[1] I don't know the history though. I think it's a trace of the legal age at which a man could inherit property (in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) which has since been moved down again. In Elizabethan England, adulthood (for men) was considered to start at 15. I'm not aware of any formal ceremonies to celebrate it though. If medieval or Renaissance Europe had such a ceremony it would have been confirmation - which to my knowledge was not considered to have any secular relevance.
[ 31. May 2007, 13:15: Message edited by: 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
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Dave, I wonder if we speak the same language. Clearly neither one of us remotely understands the other. Certainly you have misprepresented me, and I am very bored and pissed off with it. I have also formally abandoned hope on getting any answers to my questions from yourself, as they are just met with more abuse.
If you wish to continue in any constructive manner at all, please do PM me.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Natural moral law simply means that there is an objective morality, and that humans can find, understand, and apply it. It does not mean that we have it at our ready disposal.
I agree with that.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
....Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
Gosh it's nice to actually have facts to support your assertions....
Interesting that you equate "least trusted" with "persecuted". What other words do you use in ways completely different from other folks?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Davyd
Of course, all of one's views are molded through the prism of our cultural context; and only a fool would reject another's opinion because of their religious persuasion: But I am struck by a thought -
If some of the major contributors to the Enlightenment happen to be Christians - does it necessarily follow that the Enlightenment came about because of Christianity?
And surely the greatest protector of individual rights is a healthy democracy (with all its limitations), as , at least technically, no-one is above the Law.
And that is a derivation from Ancient Greece is it not?
quote:
At what age does this take place?
Did you miss out on a 21st???
(Just please dont start on the Age of consent/voting/driver's licence etc.,etc. the derivation is clearly cultural going back to a time of formal initiation into adulthood)
S-E
PS
TA said:
quote:
I belabour the point often enough that atheists don't have an anything.
I resent that! I definitely have an something...
(I just haven't worked out what it is yet!)
Don't you think it's strange though that the enlightenment followed on naturally from the reformation? Protestants promoted freedom of belief because they valued genuine belief. It was grace that had the freedom to accomodate other beliefs. Liberal democracy (including it's imperfections) clearly has it's roots in the reformation; the first of such countries had protestant roots. OK I know France is a tricky one but lets face in spite of the OTT revolution democracy struggled in France (including Napoleon and Vichy).
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Gee, MT, I didn't see that one coming. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) You're getting very predictable in your old age.
If you can't do the math and see that "least trusted" doesn't equate to "persecuted" in the real world, then you probably have other failings.
Why do you think Dawkins et al is writing this? It's because athiests are abused if they out themselves. The various attitudes such as "not willing to marry my daugher" and so on demonstrate it. He's trying to get atheists to come out of the closet.
But since you are a member of the persecuting class, I wouldn't expect you to really understand, so go ahead and think what you want.
[ 31. May 2007, 21:01: 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, I'm so evil and wicked to atheists. Buy, rent, lease, beg, borrow, or steal a grip.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
PS only probably? I definitely have many, many other failings. And am man enough to admit it. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
Oh we know your failings.
The question is not whether you are man enough to admit it, but are man enough to correct it?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Certainly you have misprepresented me, and I am very bored and pissed off with it.
I don't believe I have misrepresented you at all. If you think differently, show where and how and I will apologise publicly. No need for PMs.
[ 31. May 2007, 21:38: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
MadGeo, I think MouseThief has a pretty valid question (not to jump in on the fun you two have baiting each other). Outside of a static "thought experiment" type survey where people are asked "Whom do you trust least?" what evidence do you have that atheists are actually persecuted in real life. I can see how a lot of religious (probably most of them nominally religious) Americans might feel that atheists are "not trustworthy" if put on the spot and asked about it -- i.e. they don't like the idea of atheists. But does that translate into actually treating the atheists they encounter every day any differently? Are there a lot of examples of atheists being fired from jobs or not allowed to buy homes in a neighbourhood simply because of their unbeliefs?
I don't want to distrust these widely-quoted statistics, and the US may indeed be a bizarrely different place from Canada, but having lived much of my life in an environment where atheism was considered pretty normal and active religious belief greeted with a tolerant/bemused smile ("isn't it funny how many people really believe that stuff?" is the sort of comment I'm used to hearing in connection with religious faith) ... it's hard for me to believe that even if those attitudes DO exist, they translate into real "persecution" for a lot of atheists.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
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?"
Or, you might argue, that it came about because of Christians applying the principles of Scripture and the spirit of Jesus' life and teaching, rather than adhering to a slavish literalism about the specific rules and regulations given to govern particular communities several thousand years ago.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
It is indeed subtle. No one is being lynched, no one is probably losing pay, but then almost no one will admit it either.
quote:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - Bush, the Greater
An athiest would have gone to prison.
The texas Bill of Rights allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds
Yikes
A long list.
More
Discrimination Lawsuit won.
Funny, but not
Many offices require an oath to God. No dice.
The long story short is like any faction that is persecuted, not everyone comes forward to admit what they are. Athiests do not have a color to descriminate against, or wear funny hats that identify them. It is easy to hide. It is also not easy to buck a society that is so Christian. And yes, we are very different from Canada in that regard.
Atheists are often on the high end of intelligence (not that theists aren't btw). It is not surprising that they also can fool people into leaving them alone. However, it doesn't make it pleasant.
Speaking as a Buddhist, I wrestle with who I can tell, or not, daily. Even here on the Ship there are assholes that will attack you for being different, and assholes that think they know better. Atheists have it worse I suspect.
Just look at the way Dawkins is handled. Granted he attracts it towards himself, but I can't help but wonder if he were rabidly defending Christinaity if he would get pilloried as 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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Just look at the way Dawkins is handled. Granted he attracts it towards himself, but I can't help but wonder if he were rabidly defending Christinaity if he would get pilloried as much.
He wouldn't sell anywhere near as many books.
Though I have to report that I just bought a remaindered copy of the Devil's Chaplain book for two quid.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Maybe not in UK, over here we have "Left Behind" and "The Purpose Driven Life" pounding the Best Seller lists, etc.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Maybe not in UK, over here we have "Left Behind" and "The Purpose Driven Life" pounding the Best Seller lists, etc.
Bought, I don't doubt, by exactly the same people that pushed Dawkins into the bestseller list.
And please. A Christian nation? It is to laugh. Post-Christian maybe. A lot of people say they "believe in God" but how much difference does it make in most people's lives? It hardly makes any difference in most Christians' lives.
And quoting Bush to prove atheists have it hard is just a little silly. If anybody ever did take him seriously (and sadly many did) those days are over. Only the die-hard fundies still back him, and they're a rather small (if vocal) minority.
And you can't rely on the news to show you the religious timbre of the nation. What gets on the news are the nutjobs, because sensationalism sells. The vast majority of quiet, respectable, normal people from any group -- Christians, gays, Buddhists, you name it -- never get into the news. Except maybe on NPR.
I have five kids. I can rank them in how much I trust them. The one I trust the least, however, I do not persecute, nor does this lack of trust equate into persecution.
And I wonder how much of it is just plain old ignorance. Most people in this country are still settling into the idea that gays aren't all crazies that spend endless nights having meaningless sex in bathhouses, but are by and large an awful lot like you and me. This has taken a long time, and sadly has done a lot of damage to a lot of people. But people are coming around. It would have been impossible to have a show like Will and Grace in the 1970s, for instance.
I think maybe a lot of the negative feelings people have toward atheists is of the same sort. It's not that they know what atheists are like and reject them. It's that they don't know what atheists are like. They probably imagine people with no sense of morals or ethics, or people (however paradoxical it is) who are satanic, or something like that. What they still don't realize is that atheists are a lot like you and me. There are probably a few on your street; they hold jobs and kiss their wives and play baseball with their kids, etc. etc. As this ignorance is overcome, the distrust and dislike will also be overcome.
And then comes Dawkins. I can't think of anything that could do more damage to the cause of improving the public's image of atheists. It makes one think he really is a fundamentalist Christian who is masquerading as an atheist just to make people hate atheists more, or at the very least not hate them less. The man is a walking billboard that screams out, "ATHEISTS SUCK".
[ 01. June 2007, 03:27: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
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
MT,
Are you tossing back a few over there? The people that would by Left Behind and PTL wouldn't touch Dawkins with a ten foot pole. And vice versa.
As for a Christian nation, well if you're right, could you please notify the assholes trying to roll back abortion, sex, gays rights, etc, etc. and simultaneously put the 10 Commandments in every room, and stop medical treatments like HPV and stem cell research?
Thanks, apparently all those heathens you think are out there, didn't get the memo.
--------------------
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
Sorry. There are some noisy fundamentalists trying to do X, Y, and Z is not equal to this is a Christian country. Maybe next time, ol' pal.
--------------------
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 Mad Geo:
As for a Christian nation, well if you're right, could you please notify the assholes trying to roll back abortion, sex, gays rights, etc, etc. and simultaneously put the 10 Commandments in every room, and stop medical treatments like HPV and stem cell research?
If abortion, sex (before marriage? what?), gay rights, HPV, stem cell research, etc. were atheist agendas, opposed by all Christians - then the fact that the US of A is currently allowing all these things would show that atheists are in power and Christians are suppressed.
It's funny how your rhetorics bite you in the butt. For you've also claimed that atheists are numerically a small minority. So if they determine US politics, as you claim, then in fact atheists are currently dictators in the US, lording it over the Christian masses...
--------------------
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
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
I think (as Mad Geo) has pointed out, there is an awful lot of evidence to support that ascertation that hostility and suspicion are targetted at atheists in the US. I suspect a good deal of this is wrapped up in resudiual cold war / communist bashing? You know the thing - Communists are Not Like Us and are Atheists, ergo Atheists are Not Like Us?
Several people have suggested that this is a primary motivation for The God Delusion, to be a "coming out of the closet" rallying call for all those with atheist tendancies. This theory would certainly make sense. But if (as a quite a few of us here seem to think along with McGrath et al) that in order to generate the PR, Dawkins has had to inflate the arguments beyond science and logic into rhetoric, will this move ultimately undermine the atheist cause?
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Maybe not in UK, over here we have "Left Behind" and "The Purpose Driven Life" pounding the Best Seller lists, etc.
New York Times Bestseller List, Hardcover Non-Fiction, for June 1, 2007:
1. GOD IS NOT GREAT, by Christopher Hitchens.
2. EINSTEIN, by Walter Isaacson
3. ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MIRACLE, by Barbara Kingsolver with Steven L. Hopp and Camille Kingsolver
4. * PLATO AND A PLATYPUS WALK INTO A BAR, by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein
5. A LONG WAY GONE, by Ishmael Beah
Clearly evangelical Christians have a stranglehold on book publishing and purchase in the US.
--------------------
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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Natural moral law simply means that there is an objective morality, and that humans can find, understand, and apply it. It does not mean that we have it at our ready disposal.
I agree with that.
I don't.
As morality is a function of Natural Selection, the behaviour which is beneficial or deleterious for survival will alter depending on the circumstance. One might argue that technically there is a possible objective morality for this point in time, but that is largely irrelevant, particularly if it is accompanied by an inability to modify or abandon these aspects when the situation changes.
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Don't you think it's strange though that the enlightenment followed on naturally from the reformation? Protestants promoted freedom of belief because they valued genuine belief. It was grace that had the freedom to accomodate other beliefs. Liberal democracy (including it's imperfections) clearly has it's roots in the reformation; the first of such countries had protestant roots. OK I know France is a tricky one but lets face in spite of the OTT revolution democracy struggled in France (including Napoleon and Vichy).
I did actually mention this in an earlier post (albiet somewhat tongue in cheek ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ):
quote:
Christianity's greatest contribution to the Enlightenment was to splinter as a result of squabbling over doctrine which somewhat mitigated its power and influence.
I don't know about naturally, but that it did is something for which we can all be grateful. IMO, the greatest contributor to the Enlightenment was Mister Gutenberg (and in our sphere, Mister Caxton), who enabled the transfer of information, which had hitherto largely been in the realm of a few monks. Not forgetting of course, the enlightened Charles II and his establishment of the 'Royal Society'.
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Or, you might argue, that it came about because of Christians applying the principles of Scripture and the spirit of Jesus' life and teaching, rather than adhering to a slavish literalism about the specific rules and regulations given to govern particular communities several thousand years ago.
But the fact that it took 1800 years would suggest that their Christian faith was either incidental or irrelevant and that it was cultural and societal changes which drove the participants: Indeed the Religious Institutions were often slothful in their adherence to changed circumstance: "When did women first have the opportunity to become priests?"
Davyd
I never claimed that Ancient Athens was a 'healthy' democracy (although it largely avoided absolute dictatorships during its 'golden age', even tossing out distinguished statesmen such as Themistocles and Pericles.)
I do not dispute that Christianity has had some influence in our regard for the individual - but to argue that it would not have occured otherwise is mere speculation.
S-E
PS
quote:
4. * PLATO AND A PLATYPUS WALK INTO A BAR, by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein
This is obviously the fiction section, as no self-respecting Australian Platypus would ever walk into a bar with a 'trumped-up, self-promoting, pompous ass', like Plato
[ 01. June 2007, 10:20: 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
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
As morality is a function of Natural Selection, the behaviour which is beneficial or deleterious for survival will alter depending on the circumstance. (snip)
I do not dispute that Christianity has had some influence in our regard for the individual - but to argue that it would not have occured otherwise is mere speculation.
I'm conflating your quotes to ask: isn't your assumption the theory of Natural Selection is largely responsible for morality speculation qualitatively the same as Christians assuming their religious revelation is responsible?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I'm conflating your quotes to ask: isn't your assumption the theory of Natural Selection is largely responsible for morality speculation qualitatively the same as Christians assuming their religious revelation is responsible?
A fair question, but no, it is simply implicit within the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
A community which adopted incest as de rigueur would have a far higher rate of genetic abnormalities, ultimately resulting in its demise; hence (as I mentioned earlier) sanctions against incest, adultery, theft, killing (in most circumstances) are common across cultures throughout the world; arising independently, and supported by various mythologies, created primarily for that purpose.
A good starting point is: 'The Biology of Moral Systems'(1986) by Richard Alexander.
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
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I'm conflating your quotes to ask: isn't your assumption the theory of Natural Selection is largely responsible for morality speculation qualitatively the same as Christians assuming their religious revelation is responsible?
A fair question, but no, it is simply implicit within the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
When talking about causal factors for morality I see no evidence the theory of Natural Selection is proven a 'truer' explanation than the theory of some 'supernatural moral law' so I guess we'll agree to disagree.
But IMO both theories have merit.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Maybe not in UK, over here we have "Left Behind" and "The Purpose Driven Life" pounding the Best Seller lists, etc.
New York Times Bestseller List, Hardcover Non-Fiction, for June 1, 2007:
1. GOD IS NOT GREAT, by Christopher Hitchens.
2. EINSTEIN, by Walter Isaacson
3. ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MIRACLE, by Barbara Kingsolver with Steven L. Hopp and Camille Kingsolver
4. * PLATO AND A PLATYPUS WALK INTO A BAR, by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein
5. A LONG WAY GONE, by Ishmael Beah
Clearly evangelical Christians have a stranglehold on book publishing and purchase in the US.
Sheesh. I didn't say TODAY for Zeus sake. What a cheater.
Look at this:
quote:
<LaHayes>.... current novels, the Left Behind series, co-authored with Jerry B. Jenkins, are the all-time best-selling Christian fiction series. Five books in the series—The Indwelling, The Mark, Desecration, The Remnant, and Armageddon—debuted at number one on the best-seller lists for The New York Times, USA Today, Publishers Weekly, and The Wall Street Journal, with Desecration attaining the status of top-selling hardcover book for 2001. Series sales have exceeded 57 million copies, including Left Behind: The Kids series and audio products. The highly anticipated twelfth book, Glorious Appearing, released in Spring 2004.
57 million (and that's probably old news). Pulllllease.
From Wikipedia: quote:
The Purpose Driven Life (2002) is a devotional book written by Christian author Rick Warren and published by Zondervan. The book has been on the New York Times Bestseller list for advice books for 174 weeks (as of May 2006). The book offers readers a 40-day personal spiritual journey, and presents what Warren says are God's five purposes for human life on Earth[1]. As of November 2005, The Purpose Driven Life has been translated into 56 languages and was the bestselling book in the world for 2003, 2004, and 2005. It has been a controversial book among the Christian community.
......The book has sold over 24 million copies (as of October, 2006)[3].......
.....After hostage Ashley Smith read Chapter 32 to her captor Brian Nichols (who shot four people in Atlanta on March 11, 2005), the book hit number one on several religion and advice best-seller lists - including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Publishers Weekly......
Spare me the rhetorical tactics. Christianity has plenty of press here.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QB] If abortion, sex (before marriage? what?), gay rights, HPV, stem cell research, etc. were atheist agendas, opposed by all Christians - then the fact that the US of A is currently allowing all these things would show that atheists are in power and Christians are suppressed.
Pssst. IngoB.
Christian denominations don't all think like you do. And it was Deists that set the rules up that allow those things currently, not atheists.
Oh, and that is a temporary condition, the Bush "Christian" Regime's damage to liberty (a.k.a. relgious tyranny) isn't done yet.
Oh, and did I mention your agenda is NOT the sole Christian worldview?
Yours happens to agree with the fascist Christian wackjobs in control of the U.S. right now, so don't get too cocky.
--------------------
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 Noiseboy:
Several people have suggested that this is a primary motivation for The God Delusion, to be a "coming out of the closet" rallying call for all those with atheist tendancies. This theory would certainly make sense.
Well, that’s certainly one aim. But it isn’t (and should not be judged as) a rallying call for increased tolerance. Dawkins is attacking the whole concept of faith – in all of its forms. He thinks it is a bad and dangerous way of thinking and wishes to eradicate it from human minds.
The reason he didn’t simply write a book attacking fundamentalism is because fundamentalism as such isn’t his target. He uses fundamentalism as an example of why faith is not merely a harmless delusion, but that isn’t at the heart of his argument. He attacks faith because he thinks it is a delusion, and because he cares about truth. It isn’t an answer to Dawkins that he fails to present a balanced view of religion to weigh up the pros and cons, because that isn’t at all what he is trying to do, and it isn’t what he claims to be doing. The whole section on morality is an answer to an objection, not the main point of the argument, answering the point that religion is valuable because it makes us good. Dawkins shows that it need not do so, but the core of his argument is that religious faith, however inspiring, comforting, culturally valuable or socially useful it may be, is wrong because it is in all probability untrue. His points about that deserve serious thought.
The point bears repeating – Dawkins isn’t trying to describe religion and use a negative view of it to say that it should not be believed. He is answering the supposed question “Shouldn’t we (or at least some people) believe it anyway, if it helps them to be good?” His answer is first “Of course people shouldn’t believe things that aren’t true, and it’s patronising and dishonest to suggest they should on any pretext” and second “And in any case, religion makes a lot of people bad – inevitably so because uncritical belief will always be vulnerable to evil”. Your point, that he could simply have attacked fundamentalism as bad, doesn’t address the argument he is actually making. As you would have had a chance of knowing, had you read the book.
quote:
But if (as a quite a few of us here seem to think along with McGrath et al) that in order to generate the PR, Dawkins has had to inflate the arguments beyond science and logic into rhetoric, will this move ultimately undermine the atheist cause?
A false distinction. Rhetoric is concerned with the expression and association of ideas and the effect of that on a reader or hearer. It isn’t a dirty word, and it does not imply poor logic or science. You can have good logic and bad rhetoric, bad logic and good rhetoric, both good, or both bad.
TGD is a book of rhetoric, and it is good in places, bad in others. Dawkins’ talent for writing is, IMAO, exceptional, and he is at his best when explaining difficult ideas or making a positive, passionate case, and at his worst when writing purely as a controversialist. An example, already cited on the thread, is the link he makes between child abuse and religious education. As science and logic, it is quite sound. What he writes about child abuse (conventionally so called) is measured, sensible and moral. What he condemns about religious education is (on his premises, which I don’t personally accept, of course) defensible. But the explicit comparison, with the conclusion that (some) religious education is worse than (some) child abuse, is shockingly bad rhetoric. Child abuse is so emotive and appalling a topic that it cannot reasonably be used in the hope of adding clarity to the argument, it will inevitably create barriers to understanding and sympathy with a significant part of the readership.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
As morality is a function of Natural Selection, the behaviour which is beneficial or deleterious for survival will alter depending on the circumstance. One might argue that technically there is a possible objective morality for this point in time, but that is largely irrelevant, particularly if it is accompanied by an inability to modify or abandon these aspects when the situation changes.
The most reproductively successful human being in all of history (thanks to IngoB for the example) was probably Genghis Khan. If morality is simply a matter of natural selection, and varies depending on what natural selection from time to time requires, then it follows that the Khan was also the most moral person ever to have lived.
I think I’d rather stick with a system that allows me to think on the contrary that he was a bit of an arsehole.
Actually, Richard Dawkins is very good on challenging the association between biologically good and morally right (see The Selfish Gene and everything since). He thinks that there is a Darwinian explanation for the existence of morality, but not a Darwinian justification for the content of morality. He thinks that Genghis Khan was an arsehole too, and no amount of Asian demographics proving Genghis’ fecundity would persuade him otherwise.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
MadGeo, Christianity has plenty of press, of course. I never said it didn't. Your statement about bestselling books seemed to imply that conservative Christianity has such a stranglehold on US culture that a book like Dawkins' would never sell well in the US. I posted the NYT Bestseller list with "God is Not Great" at the #1 position to suggest that while, yes, there is a strong voice for conservative Chrsitianity in the US, atheists and agnostics are not some tiny persecuted minority who lack a voice and are afraid to speak out.
If you ask me the one thing conservative Christians and atheists have in common (other than an excess of certainty about things that are inherently uncertain) is that both groups like to think of themselves as a persecuted minority when in fact they are nothing of the kind. I have heard so damn much whining from people in both these groups about how they are persecuted, hated, afraid to speak out about their beliefs. They obviously can't both be right. Except that they probably both are, in the sense that people are speaking out of their own personal realities and I'm sure individuals in both groups have had experiences that have made them feel marginalized (and in the rarified atmosphere of peace and freedom we in the West enjoy today, "marginalized" has to stand in for "persecuted" since there's so little real persecution going on).
The fact is that both atheists AND conservative Christians are large, vocal, powerful and influential segments of American society. Their influence tends to move in different circles, that's all. Obviously the people who put God is Not Great on top of the Bestseller list are not the same people who bought 57 million copies of the Left Behind books. And if you're a member of one group, and you live or work where you're surrounded by the other, yeah, you may feel a little put-upon. But the fact is both groups exist, and neither is a tiny voiceless minority, and neither has any serious claim to persecution. Both sides need to get over themselves. Christians at least have the justification that their sacred text tells them they're supposed to be persecuted, so perhaps that's why they go scrounging for instances of mild prejudice that they can dress up as persecution. I don't know what the atheists' excuse for the persecution complex is -- just the urge to grab the moral high ground, I guess.
[ 01. June 2007, 22:24: 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
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I have heard so damn much whining from people in both these groups about how they are persecuted, hated, afraid to speak out about their beliefs.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
A delicious contradiction....
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Perhaps when I start seeing polls that Christians are more hated in America than Muslims or Homosexuals and people want to keep them from marrying their daughters I'll accept that Atheists are mainstream.
Until then.....good luck with that whole line of reasoning.
--------------------
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
If my daughter were bringing home a potential husband, the questions I would ask would not be "is he an atheist?" or "is he a Christian?" but rather "how does he treat his mother?" and "does he have a job?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I'd agree with you, Mad Geo, but I've also walked in social circles where you're almost made to feel ashamed of being religious. I mean, it's not overt or anything...but there's this weird notion that if you're a Christian you must be one of those people...
Not that I'd call that persecution by a long shot, but there's enough negativity going around on both sides to give each argument a a few shreds of justification.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
If my daughter were bringing home a potential husband, the questions I would ask would not be "is he an atheist?" or "is he a Christian?" but rather "how does he treat his mother?" and "does he have a job?"
I'd just tell him I have a shotgun, 40 acres, and a shovel. Apparently you are more trusting.
Mirrizin, it is not that I can't find bigotry on both sides, hell, some supposed Christians bug the shit outta me at the moment. It's again that one side is not polling lower than Muslims and Homosexuals on the hatred scales.
That simply HAS to be relevant in these discussions.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
What's relevant in polls is who made up the poll, how they worded the questions, and who they asked. There is no such thing as an unbiased poll.
I think it would be pretty easy to design a poll and target a particular American audience that would end up resulting in a finding that churchgoing Christians are believed to be less intelligent than any other group in America. I don't see atheists being depicted as stupid, obnoxious and worthy of mockery in mainstream American entertainment, for example, to the degree that conservative Christians are. There is no safer target for satire in America than a conservative Christian; no one you can more safely portray on TV or in a movie as an uneducated bigot, than a conservative Christian. Positive depictions of people of faith (especially conservative Christian faith) in the American media and entertainment industry are so rare we have had short-lived threads here with people scratching their heads to come up with examples.
Again, I'm not saying this is evidence that Christians are persecuted and atheists aren't. I'm saying both groups have a certain bias against each other and it's demonstrated in different areas of American society. None of this equals persecution.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
None of THIS equals persecution?
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It is indeed subtle. No one is being lynched, no one is probably losing pay, but then almost no one will admit it either.
quote:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - Bush, the Greater
An athiest would have gone to prison.
The texas Bill of Rights allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds
Yikes
A long list.
More
Discrimination Lawsuit won.
Funny, but not
Many offices require an oath to God. No dice.
The long story short is like any faction that is persecuted, not everyone comes forward to admit what they are. Athiests do not have a color to descriminate against, or wear funny hats that identify them. It is easy to hide. It is also not easy to buck a society that is so Christian. And yes, we are very different from Canada in that regard.
Atheists are often on the high end of intelligence (not that theists aren't btw). It is not surprising that they also can fool people into leaving them alone. However, it doesn't make it pleasant.
Speaking as a Buddhist, I wrestle with who I can tell, or not, daily. Even here on the Ship there are assholes that will attack you for being different, and assholes that think they know better. Atheists have it worse I suspect.
Just look at the way Dawkins is handled. Granted he attracts it towards himself, but I can't help but wonder if he were rabidly defending Christinaity if he would get pilloried as much.
What ever.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
What's relevant in polls is who made up the poll, how they worded the questions, and who they asked. There is no such thing as an unbiased poll.
Feel free to read the University Study.
Seems rather well done to me.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Wow, so much to quote in that article:
quote:
The core point of this article can be stated concisely. Atheists are at the top of the list of groups that Americans find problematic in both public and private life, and the gap between acceptance of atheists and acceptance of other racial and religious minorities is large and persistent. It is
striking that the rejection of atheists is so much more common than rejection of other stigmatized groups. For example, while rejection of Muslims may have spiked in post-9/11 America,
rejection of atheists was higher.
[ 02. June 2007, 01:23: 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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
You're really sure you want to use the word "persecution"? I think the appropriate word is "discrimination." And it certainly cuts both ways.
You say that as a Buddhist you wrestle daily with whom to tell. As a Christian, I do too. Big deal. So not everybody accepts and loves us with open arms. It's a hell of a long way from being burned at the stake, which has been done both to Christians, and by Christians to others. Now that's persecution.
I never said the study wasn't good, by the way. I said it wasn't unbiased, because there's no such thing, and another study would be able to get a different result, depending on how they worded the question and who they asked.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
You're really sure you want to use the word "persecution"? I think the appropriate word is "discrimination." And it certainly cuts both ways.....
....I never said the study wasn't good, by the way. I said it wasn't unbiased, because there's no such thing, and another study would be able to get a different result, depending on how they worded the question and who they asked.
Since when is discrimination not a form of persecution? Just because atheists are a quiet discriminated bunch, do you really think that's okie dokie with you?
And your postmodern view of significant research projects by Universities that you happen to also disagree with is fascinating.
I am beginning to wonder that if the worm was on the other side of the bottle, and you were the actual discriminated minority, if you would be so cavalier about all this.
--------------------
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
So okay atheists are treated like scum of the earth by every single non-atheist American. Fine. Answer my earlier question: does Dawkins making a perfect prick of himself in the name of atheism help this situation any?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Eliab, cheers for the last post. A few matters arising...
By your analysis, we seem to have arrived back at the notion that all faith is a delusion as a matter if not of scientific fact, then of scientific extreme probablility. I know this is old ground on this thread, and there was a lot of floating around the concept of "subtle, nuanced" faith but (as I say, if you are correct) then talk of what sort of a faith a person has is irrelevent, isn't it? Faith is delusional and potentially dangerous, end of story.
Now, if Dawkins is using the term "faith" to encompass all religious and spiritual belief, then we are also in trouble in distinguishing what Dawkins terms the philosophy stuff like Budhism (and cross-fertilisation here with the other thread on this). MadGeo has made a valiant defence of his Zen Budhism and appealed to evidence to back up his claims, but I'd be surprised if he claimed there was scientific proof for his brand of ZB. A good deal (reasonably, in my view) comes from the personal experience of the effect it has had on his friend. It may be a different sort of faith from faith in a monotheistic God, but it is nevertheless a faith. So I quickly arrive at an impasse - on the one hand ALL faith is delusional and potentially dangerous, but on the other SOME kinds of faith seem to be OK if we can classify them as a way of life or philosophy? Is the Budhist faith then, NOT a religious faith so therefore falls outside the remit of what he classifies as dangerous? If so, what is the criteria for judging when a faith is religious and / or dangerous? Is Hinduism a religious faith? (all honest questions, BTW)
I agree with your analysis on rhetoric, but the questions above imply that Dawkins may be employing an awful lot of rhetoric on some very basic terms, in fact SO basic that they could make the whole book seem meaningless. I think this is a central point that McGrath makes.
Again the subject is raised on how we should all read the book, and no doubt we'd all have a lot more information and understanding about Dawkins position if we did. But as others have pointed out, I am yet to be convinced in all the interviews and extended quotes / extracts that he is making a coherant case. Indeed, there needs to be an act of faith on the part of those of us Dawkins' doubters that all our questions might somehow be answered. For my own part, I think on the evidence so far Dawkins has caused more heat than light on this debate and quite unecessarily, so I am aversed to giving him any money. When my bulging pile-of-books-to-read has become smaller, I may well give the library a go, though.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Dawkins is attacking the whole concept of faith – in all of its forms. He thinks it is a bad and dangerous way of thinking and wishes to eradicate it from human minds.
The reason he didn’t simply write a book attacking fundamentalism is because fundamentalism as such isn’t his target. He uses fundamentalism as an example of why faith is not merely a harmless delusion, but that isn’t at the heart of his argument. He attacks faith because he thinks it is a delusion, and because he cares about truth. It isn’t an answer to Dawkins that he fails to present a balanced view of religion to weigh up the pros and cons, because that isn’t at all what he is trying to do, and it isn’t what he claims to be doing. The whole section on morality is an answer to an objection, not the main point of the argument, answering the point that religion is valuable because it makes us good. Dawkins shows that it need not do so, but the core of his argument is that religious faith, however inspiring, comforting, culturally valuable or socially useful it may be, is wrong because it is in all probability untrue. His points about that deserve serious thought.
The point bears repeating – Dawkins isn’t trying to describe religion and use a negative view of it to say that it should not be believed. He is answering the supposed question “Shouldn’t we (or at least some people) believe it anyway, if it helps them to be good?” His answer is first “Of course people shouldn’t believe things that aren’t true, and it’s patronising and dishonest to suggest they should on any pretext” and second “And in any case, religion makes a lot of people bad – inevitably so because uncritical belief will always be vulnerable to evil”. Your point, that he could simply have attacked fundamentalism as bad, doesn’t address the argument he is actually making. As you would have had a chance of knowing, had you read the book.
Which is I think, a reasonable summary of Dawkins' position.
In 'The Selfish Gene', Dawkins compared religion to a virus, which, whils't I understand that many of you find this offensive, is I believe, a useful analogy.
1. Just as a virus would not survive without a host, religion would not survive (and indeed many have not) without its human progenitors/promoters.
2. Viruses utilise a variety of mechanisms for dispersal, as does religion with evangelism, colonization, conquest and sanctions (covert or overt) agains't those who do not comply.
3. Many viruses have benign symptoms in many of their carriers, with only a minority suffering an extreme reaction.
And this may be the crux of Dawkins' argument.
In the 70s many of us believed religion would simply die out; that it was incompatible with a modern scientific world view.
Yet when I returned to University in the 90s, I was amazed at how many young people were members of a Charismatic/ Pentacostal/ Evangelical or Orthodox community; and rejected Evolution:This was in complete contrast to my experience 20 years earlier.
In 'The Root of All Evil', Dawkins asserted that if one did not accept the existence of Adam, and his fall, then the death of Jesus had little meaning. The 'God' to whom I was introduced, through John Robinson's,'Honest to God', may have made the concept more palatable to one trying to accomodate the concept with a modern world view - but it bears little relationship to the God of the Bible. And I think it provided little comfort to those who sought out religion primarily for that purpose.
Hence, the resurgence of a more literal interpretation of the Bible. And it is a position equally as legitimate as any promulgated by the most liberal, open-minded among you.
Because it is completely arbitary.
There is no mechanism to evaluate or determine the accuracy of any claim. So, an acceptance of the most seemingly benign claim is also an advocacy of the most radical.
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
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
By your [Eliab's] analysis, we seem to have arrived back at the notion that all faith is a delusion as a matter if not of scientific fact, then of scientific extreme probablility.
No, Dawkins specifically excludes what he calls Einsteinian religion. Eliab's point was that Dawkins attacks 'faith' that relies on what is not true.
quote:
I know this is old ground on this thread, and there was a lot of floating around the concept of "subtle, nuanced" faith but (as I say, if you are correct) then talk of what sort of a faith a person has is irrelevent, isn't it? Faith is delusional and potentially dangerous, end of story.
This only makes sense if you ignore what has already been discussed and not refuted. It's unhelpful rhetoric.
quote:
Now, if Dawkins is using the term "faith" to encompass all religious and spiritual belief
Yes, but we have shown he isn't (chapter 1), so you're perpetuating a straw man argument.
quote:
MadGeo has made a valiant defence of his Zen Budhism and appealed to evidence to back up his claims, but I'd be surprised if he claimed there was scientific proof for his brand of ZB.
Since MG has clearly spelled out a number of times that he knows there's no scientific proof for his religion, it should hardly be a surprise.
quote:
I quickly arrive at an impasse - on the one hand ALL faith is delusional and potentially dangerous, but on the other SOME kinds of faith seem to be OK if we can classify them as a way of life or philosophy? Is the Budhist faith then, NOT a religious faith so therefore falls outside the remit of what he classifies as dangerous? If so, what is the criteria for judging when a faith is religious and / or dangerous? Is Hinduism a religious faith? (all honest questions, BTW)
Honest questions? I'm not sure what that means, but they seem irrelevent to this particular discussion.
quote:
I agree with your analysis on rhetoric, but the questions above imply that Dawkins may be employing an awful lot of rhetoric on some very basic terms, in fact SO basic that they could make the whole book seem meaningless.
If you read Eliab's post, you'd notice that he explains why the fact that something is rhetoric says nothing about whether it's meaningful. Your whole point is, er, meaningless.
quote:
Again the subject is raised on how we should all read the book, and no doubt we'd all have a lot more information and understanding about Dawkins position if we did. But as others have pointed out, I am yet to be convinced in all the interviews and extended quotes / extracts that he is making a coherant case.
I am yet to be convinced that you know what a coherent case is.
quote:
Indeed, there needs to be an act of faith on the part of those of us Dawkins' doubters that all our questions might somehow be answered.
All your questions have been answered in the only way they could be without you reading the book or talking to Dawkins.
quote:
For my own part, I think on the evidence so far Dawkins has caused more heat than light on this debate and quite unecessarily, so I am aversed to giving him any money.
This is disingenuous in the extreme. A significant part of any heat and light on this thread is largely a result of your blind prejudice (you ignore evidence contrary to your pre-decided conclusion) and your inability to follow reasoned argument.
quote:
When my bulging pile-of-books-to-read has become smaller, I may well give the library a go, though.
I would have thought that for anyone with honest questions, that would have been the place to start.
[ 02. June 2007, 10:16: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Dave Marshall, Noiseboy, Mad Geo & MouseThief.
Ok, I'm probably way out of line here; but could we possibly focus on 'the light' and leave out the heat.
You are all people whose opinions I value (and I am quite willing to admit that I may be totally misguided in my own views) and remember there are always kudos to those who ignore any (perceived) slight and are gracious in their replys.
Please feel free to attack me at will.
S-E
[ 02. June 2007, 10:29: Message edited by: Socratic-enigma ]
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Mad Geo, it's really cool how even while studying geology you managed to get a PhD in Completely Missing the Point of What People Are Saying. I'll try again (it's possible I may also have a PhD in Not Making My Point Very Clearly).
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Since when is discrimination not a form of persecution? Just because atheists are a quiet discriminated bunch, do you really think that's okie dokie with you?
No! No! Discrimination is A BAD THING. It's very, very bad. It is bad that in many areas of American life, atheists are discriminated against. It's bad that in many areas of American life, Christians are discriminated against. Discrimination is bad and we should Stop Doing It to each other. BUT...
it is NOT the same as persecution. Calling it that, belittles the real experience of those who have been and are being persecuted, everyone from Christian martyrs to Jews in Hitler's Germany to women burned for being witches. Persecution (as I understand it) involves danger to life, personal safety, or personal property, and the loss of basic human rights because of your beliefs, race, etc. Discrimination may be a step on the road to persecution but it is not the same thing. Most anyone in America today who claims they are being "persecuted" is, AFAICS, self-aggrandizing and feeding their own martyrdom complex. There are plenty of people in both the Christian and the atheist camps who are happy to do that, but as I've said before, I think they are both deluded. Yes, both groups have experienced some discrimination ... and THAT'S BAD. But it's not the same thing as being afraid someone's going to break your door down in the middle of the night and haul you off to a secret firing squad, so let's not pretend it is.
quote:
And your postmodern view of significant research projects by Universities that you happen to also disagree with is fascinating.
It's not "my" postmodern view, it's the view of any educated person, and it's not my view of research I happen to disagree with; it's my view of all research. It's biased. You can't produce unbiased research, especially on something like people's opinions. If the study was claiming something that supported an argument I happened to agree with, I would of course quote it in support of my argument, and I'd be right to do so. But I would expect you (or someone else) to quickly come back with a rejoinder that the study was biased and only measured certain things with certain people, and that a different study might produce a different result. Do you honestly believe that in an survey of people's opinions and attitudes, it doesn't matter how you phrase the question, who you ask, or who is doing the asking???
I'm not saying the study is invalid. I'm saying it provides one view on a very complex question, and different studies might well produce very different results.
quote:
I am beginning to wonder that if the worm was on the other side of the bottle, and you were the actual discriminated minority, if you would be so cavalier about all this.
This is where I'm getting ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) with you. I have said repeatedly that the worm IS on the other side of the bottle. It's on both sides. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, can rightly claim to be discriminated against (why do you think places like the former Southern Missionary College are now called Southern Adventist University or whatever they're calling it? Because graduates got tired of the little smirk on prospective employers' faces when they saw the name of the school they graduated from, and comments like, "Oh, you went to a BIBLE college...heh, heh...."). JUST AS ATHEISTS CAN RIGHTLY MAKE THE SAME CLAIM. And no, discrimination is not a good thing. But it's NOT one-side, it's not all directed against atheists, and it doesn't equal persecution.
Do you not agree that atheists (and perhaps agnostics, to make up numbers by adding the only group of truly intellectually honest people in the world) have a significant voice in American media, arts, literature and entertainment? Is their worldview under-represented in these areas? Do they never use those platforms to express negative views of Christians???
I will say again that I think the claims of conservative Christians to be "persecuted" are just as weak and pathetic. If you google for examples of Christian persecution in America today you will find lots of ridiculous claims by people who have been discriminated against (A BAD THING) and are trying to claim as a result of this that they are suffering persecution and have had all their human rights violated. I'd like to put them all on a bus to Afghanistan. The persecuted atheists can go with them and they can fight it out on the way.
Bottom line: A country in which "Left Behind" sells 57 million copies is not a country in which Christians are persecuted. A country in wihch the number one non-fiction best-seller is a book called "God is Not Great," is NOT a country in which atheists are experiencing persecution.
[ 02. June 2007, 11:37: 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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
...(and perhaps agnostics, to make up numbers by adding the only group of truly intellectually honest people in the world)...
Whoof!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, you can't place such a massive generalisation out there without explanation!
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
