|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: DawkinsWatch - 2007
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Serious question for U.S. people.
Am I right in believing that there are lots of people out there who think that Ayn 'you are too intelligent to believe in Gott' Rand is the best thing since sliced custard? And if so, how does this square with the whole atheists as despised minority scenario?
--------------------
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 Socratic-enigma:
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.
I'd like to ignore Noiseboy's posts (I assume that's what you're referring to). The problem is that without a response that would leave the impression, on a thread I've participated in, on a subject I care about, on a site with a certain credibility, that his views are a) coherent (ie. he's made valid points), and b) right (ie. there's no better explanation).
If Noiseboy wants to post opinions, invite comment, then ignore or react to any disagreement or criticism, he could start a blog. His main interest seems to be climate change, so he could call it Climate Noise or something, with a category Dawkins Noise, and he could share his thoughts and questions till the cows come home. He could put a link in his signature here, so anyone who was interested could respond as easily as they can here.
Instead, he continues to use the Ship to post on threads where his name is in the 'Look at me, Mummy' column as if they were his personal blogs. While he continues to do that, on this thread anyway, part of my contribution will be to highlight (if someone hasn't already or a host says otherwise) what in my view he says that is wrong or unhelpful. I appreciate that can make for tedious reading, and I'll quite understand if you want to skip over my posts as a result.
[ 02. June 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
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
I swear to my checking account (Trudy's apparently tired of my Zeus) that I am trying to stay cool here, I really am. Maybe doing a piss poor job at it, I'll try harder. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
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.
I see your point (now). I personally think that persecution is a much bigger word than nazi death camps and Darfur.
I take "rights" very very seriously and yes they are an abstraction of sorts, but they are very real to me. So let's take it down from death camps to say signs over water coolers that say "White's only". Then let's take it down from there to a justice system that if a jury found out you were an atheist would be more likely to find you guilty becuse clearly you couldn't possibly be a moral person and be an theist. And let's take it to believing in a very hard line between church and state and then having a bunch of righteous pricks (and I do mean righteous) shoving their view of "what's right" down your gullet on the evening news every night and using their view to screw with things you believe in like the Freedom to Choose, and evolution, etc.
Can you see how one might start to feel persecuted?
If Christians weren't the majority, I might feel sorry for them, but they are. Up until very recently they had the most powerful lobby in their midst (The Religous Right) with the possible exception of the AARP. They owned the presidency lock stock and gun barrel.
I know it's not death camps, but then I think you are limiting the word "persecuted" a little too much.
As the frog said "It's not easy being green".
quote:
quote:
And your postmodern view of significant research projects by Universities that you happen to also disagree with is fascinating. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
I guess I would have preferred rather than a general attack on the study from a semi-obvious position that studies can be biased, that people provide their own study. I can only provide the study(s) I have. I have doen so. The "Well all studies are biased" defense came off a little ummm, errrrr, trite? Not sure if that's the word I want, no offense intended.
I probably should have called you out to provide your own study that refutes mine. This is purg and all.
quote:
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.
I've worked for two employers that would have hired you on the spot for having gone to a bible college. According to the survey, nearly no one would hire you if you went to Southern Atheist College.
I am not sure that an employer cares so much about whether you were a Christian in your scenario, as that you may not have gotten as full an education as someone that didn't have to study 16 units of theology. ANd I don't think that is an unreasonable bias necessarily. If I had someone come in and had 16 units more of geology over 16 unit of theology, I might take that into account if everything else was equal. Of course, almost never is everything else equal in hiring.
But to get to your point, I honestly do not think that Christians suffer much bias here. I really don't. If they do, the gains they get in politics alone more than offset the losses. Just my opinion. If it makes you mad, I apologize but I can't help it when GW is cramming his religion down my throat for 7 years. I pay attention to such things.
quote:
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???
Complex question. Honestly, I cannot recall seeing direct Christian bashing going on in the media (do you have examples of this?). I recall seeing things that Christians value being thrown in their face like an unusual amount of homosexual characters on tv, sexuality, etc.
To be perfectly honest, I think the media is seriously heavy with Jews, if anything. Just an observation from being around Hollywood. Maybe they are atheist/agnostic Jews, but I honestly don't know.
I would point out that anything Fox is Rupert Murdoch and he is a friend of the Christian Right cubed. It's not as though Christians do not have their media. Heck, even Adventists have their own tv shows.
quote:
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.
We may have to agree to disagree. I do not see "persecution" as being limited to Afghans and Death Camps. Richard Dawkins clearly is calling for athiests to come out of the closet. Why are they in the closet in the first place is a serious question. We are possibly on the cusp of atheists coming out of the closet, I do not recall this many books on atheism hitting the mainstream in my lifetime, do you? The closest thing was probably the broohaha over Salmo Rushdie and that was "Satanic", not atheist IIRC.
Perhaps this discussion will be moot in the next ten minutes as all athiests take over the government and knock the Christian Right ass over teapot.
Yeah right.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Serious question for U.S. people.
Am I right in believing that there are lots of people out there who think that Ayn 'you are too intelligent to believe in Gott' Rand is the best thing since sliced custard? And if so, how does this square with the whole atheists as despised minority scenario?
I run in some pretty well-read circles, and I know exactly two people that call themselves Objectivists (Ayn Rand's "group"). I have only ever met two people in my whole life that were objectivists. I have met a lot of people that think she was full of shit.
Of the two objectivists I know, one doesn't think it is possible for her ideas to work in the real world but sees them as sort of an "ideal".
The only way I can imagine estimating the number of possible objectivists in the US is to assume that they would show up as Libertarians when they registered to vote and that is around 10% of the country, tops. And not all of them would have even heard of Ayn.
Atheists comprise around 7% of the US population IIRC. Again IIRC, even those that are not avid churchgoers in America like to view themselves as "Christian" because that is the prevailing worldview and they want to be part of the club, even if they don't go to church.
--------------------
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 W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Serious question for U.S. people.
Am I right in believing that there are lots of people out there who think that Ayn 'you are too intelligent to believe in Gott' Rand is the best thing since sliced custard?
That is not my impression. For example, if you'd accept MIT as a place likely to provide some of the most fertile ground for her philosophy, I'd note that while there is an Objectivist Club, it seems they haven't updated their website since late 2005. By contrast, this list of campus religious organizations suggests that Randians may be substantially outnumbered (though to be sure, I don't know the membership numbers, and there is an Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists group in there.)
quote:
And if so, how does this square with the whole atheists as despised minority scenario?
Of the few people I've talked to who have described one of her novels as among their favorite books, the main attraction seems to be the overwhelming emphasis on individuality and self-reliance, and the rejection of communitarian and socialist constraints on the individual. I think they saw this as an effective "leave me alone" conservative/libertarian polemic, and not fundamentally reliant on atheism (which, to my hazy recollection, didn't feature prominently in either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Socratic-Enigma, I think agnosticism is the most truly intellectually honest position because it's saying "I don't know" about something that we truly, genuinely, can't know. I choose to believe there's a god, but I don't KNOW it. I think an atheist also makes a choice to believe there's no god, but the atheist doesn't know for sure either. It's an unknowable. I think it's fine to move beyond not-knowing, agnosticism, to choose to believe or not believe, but at the bottom of my belief I would still have to admit that I don't know, which makes me say that every truly honest person is really an agnostic.
--------------------
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
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Dave Marshall - your posts I formally now ignore for my own sanity. You have rejected every opportunity now to engage in helpful debate, doing so simply wastes my time and makes me angry. Needless to say, I don't have this problem with anyone else on this thread, wheras I know others have suggested that dealing with you is, er, difficult. Something for you to reflect on, perhaps, however unlikely that prospect is.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
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.
Not very useful, IMHO. McGrath tackles this head on in Dawkins' God, and references it with this in The Dawkins Delusion:
quote:
Alister McGrath - The Dawkins Delusion:
So are all ideas viruses of the mind? Dawkins draws an absolute distinction between rational, scientific and evidence-based ideas, and spurious, irrational notions - such as religious beliefs. The latter, not the former, count as mental viruses. But who decides what is `rational' and `scientific'? Dawkins does not see this as a problem, believing that he can easily categorize such ideas, separating the sheep from the goats.
Except it all turns out to be horribly complicated, losing the simplicity and elegance that marks a great idea. For instance, every world view - religious or secular - ends up falling into the category of `belief systems; precisely because it cannot be proved. That is simply the nature of world views, and everyone knows it. It prevents nobody from holding a world view in the first place, and doing so with complete intellectual integrity in the second. In the end, Dawkins' idea simply implodes, falling victim to his own subjective judgement of what is rational and true. It's not an idea that is taken seriously within the scientific community, and can safely be disregarded.
I was severely and quite properly critical of this pseudoscientific idea in Dawkins' God, noting that it lacked any basis in evidence, and seemed to depend on Dawkins' highly subjective personal judgement as to what was `rational' or not. This discredited idea now seems to have a purely walk-on part in the narrative of The God Delusion, which alludes to a 1993 article in which Dawkins wrote about God as a `virus of the mind:" It's clearly about to be written out of the plot altogether, and not before time. It's passing will not be mourned.
Which I think sums it up pretty well.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
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.
I disagree. A fundamentalist view of tbe Bible (of whatever hue a particular person favours), I would argue is very likely to be contrary to science. A literal Adam and Eve is a perfect example. A more "subtle, nuanced" faith is likely not to be in conflict with science, or reason.
I can't see anything arbitary about how one evaluates The Bible, or anything for that matter. It can be done well, badly, in a scholarly manner, in a reflective manner, in blind stupdidity.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
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.
Theology? Reason?
I don't for a millisecond buy the argument that reasonable faith is somehow appeasement of Osama Bin Laden et al. By exactly the same logic all socialism is appeasment of Stalin or all sex is appeasement of rape.
[ 02. June 2007, 16:31: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
You have rejected every opportunity now to engage in helpful debate
With apologies to Socratic-enigma, I have rejected no such opportunity. You on the other hand, have not IIRC replied to a single criticism of mine, at least not recently. If you post anti-Dawkins propaganda, it seems unreasonable to not expect some come-back.
But I've no complaint about the rest of the post. I disagree with you, but I'll leave that for S-e as it's a reply to him/her.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Trudy,
Thank you for your explanation: Given your regard for the position, I wonder why you remain a Christian? Because you wan't to? Do you have a choice?
quote:
I think an atheist also makes a choice to believe there's no god, but the atheist doesn't know for sure either.
Actually, I don't know anything for sure. But as someone who sees little (if any) evidence for free will I cannot agree that I chose this position. In my late teens I seriously endeavoured to become a Christian, but whatever my emotional response, intellectually I found it to be ultimately paradoxical.
Neither can I share your regard for Agnosticism; failing to make a decision probably reflects a desire to believe, despite one's intellectual misgivings - or perhaps an unwillingness to fully accept the evidence (whichever way one perceives this) and simply avoids the question; by 'sitting on the fence'.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Not very useful, IMHO.
Noiseboy,
I believe this is the first time we have engaged directly on these boards; and I must say, I have some sympathy for Dave Marshall's view. I made 3 (what I consider legitimate) points on why I believed the comparison between a virus and religion, a worthwhile analogy - yet you fail to address this, either in your reply, or in your quotation from McGrath.
I first read McGrath about 13 years ago when writing an essay on community; as a writer he is a very accomplished stylist, but his arguments are poor (or non-existent) as is demonstrated in the passage you have presented.
quote:
Alister McGrath - The Dawkins Delusion:
So are all ideas viruses of the mind?
No, they're not.
Individual genes can be beneficial,deleterious or simply benign with regard to survival: Similarly ideas fall into the same categories - those which are beneficial are retained, and those which are deleterious are selected out.
(as a child I mistakenly had a Lamarkian view of evolution, which was abandoned when I gained a greater understanding of biology)
Viruses are different. They are the result (so it is conjectured) of break-away genetic material which has developed a protein sheath and the ability to transmit directly from one organism to another. Hence, whils't they may have been derived from an organism, they(viruses) no longer participate directly in that organism's genetic evolution (although of course they participate indirectly if they prove fatal for, or produce infertility in some of their hosts).
Correspondingly, religion is an example of ideas which have coalesced into a concept which is only concerned with its own survival - not with the well-being or otherwise of its transmitting agents (us).
quote:
Alister McGrath - The Dawkins Delusion:
It's clearly about to be written out of the plot altogether, and not before time. It's passing will not be mourned.
Because he says it is??!! I often accuse myself of hubris - but this is breath-taking!
All I ask is: Demonstrate why the analogy is illegitimate (as it very possibly is); don't simply regurgitate the unsupported pronouncements from another.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I disagree. A fundamentalist view of tbe Bible (of whatever hue a particular person favours), I would argue is very likely to be contrary to science. A literal Adam and Eve is a perfect example. A more "subtle, nuanced" faith is likely not to be in conflict with science, or reason.
I can't see anything arbitary about how one evaluates The Bible, or anything for that matter. It can be done well, badly, in a scholarly manner, in a reflective manner, in blind stupdidity.
Which doesn't answer the question: I will repeat -
quote:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Theology? Reason?
There are a number of tomes written on the nature of dragons (concerned among other things, with the argument over whether the wings were extraneous; or outgrowths of the forearms - a' la bats) and innumerable publications on UFOs; examining their origins, construction, activities...(not to mention their occupants).
The amount of 'intellectual' material is irrelevant if the founding premise is unsupported; and it is incumbent upon the promulgators of such a position to demonstrate that such a foundation is extant, not merely speculative.
And what does reason have to do with faith? I thought that was the argument of many here, such as IngoB (and I apologise if I have misrepresented his position) that faith is beyond reason; hence the 'leap of faith'.
quote:
By exactly the same logic all socialism is appeasment of Stalin or all sex is appeasement of rape.
Logic? Is this even worthy of a response?
quote:
Again the subject is raised on how we should all read the book... so I am aversed to giving him any money.
I have some sympathy with you here; I too have been unwilling to part with 35 of my hard earned dollars in order to further contribute to Mr. Dawkins' riches - however I would suggest that to facilitate our further participation in these discussions we should both 'bite the bullet' and obtain a copy.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I disagree with you, but I'll leave that for S-e as it's a reply to him/her.
(Initally considers a 'smart' remark, but then recalls that on those occasions of ... minor conflict with the hosts/admins it has primarily been with those of the......)
Dave,
I am flattered that my sex is apparently indeterminate from my meanderings; although I would have thought that from the clumsiness and general ineptitude (not to mention pomposity and hubris) of my posts, that I am obviously male. I can but hope to aspire to something of the eloquence and erudite argument which distinguishes our female compatriots. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(edited to remove the wink)
S-E
[ 03. June 2007, 02:25: 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
Originally posted by Socratic-Enigma:
quote:
There are a number of tomes written on the nature of dragons (concerned among other things, with the argument over whether the wings were extraneous; or outgrowths of the forearms - a' la bats) and innumerable publications on UFOs; examining their origins, construction, activities...(not to mention their occupants).
I don't actually think this is a very good argument. I think, for example, that Scientology is a racket but if I claim that Scientiologists go round sacrificing pigeons to the spirit of L. Ron Hubbard, I can't very well claim that it doesn't matter that I am talking bollocks because they believe all that weird stuff about the Emperor Xenu. Scientologists don't sacrifice pigeons to L. Ron Hubbard (at least, AFAIK) and a Scientologist would be perfectly justified in calling me on the question.
In the same way, you can say that you don't believe in Faeries, that belief in faeries is ridiculous and that there is absolutely no need for you to engage with the ideas of us faerie believers. The trouble is that this will lessen the impact of your argument. If I believe that faeries are the aboriginal inhabitants of these Islands driven underground by invading Celts then all your banging on about the impossibility of one inch high humanoids with gossamer wings dancing in circles on the sward is in vain, because that is not what I am talking about.
The bottom line is that if you are attempting to refute a belief system you have to understand it first and when you are called on the construction of straw men, it is handwaving just to say "well all your beliefs are bollocks so why should I try and understand them". The technical term is obscurantism and in the days of old when atheists were bold and good and brave and noble, they tended to get exercised about that sort of thing. That they seem not to care any more strikes me as being a somewhat depressing development.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
I trust regular contributors to this thread will enjoy our new, daily updating feature - Dawkin Hell - on the SoF home page.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Socratic enigma - hello. I don't think it is entirely fair to say I have ignored your arguments, far from it (thought for brevity I admit I only quoted one). All three related to ways in which a virus was allegdly similar how religion operated, and nothing was referenced except religion (ie no other world view). McGrath's quote dealt (I thought) with this head on and, if I may return the accusation, you did not address his point in how one can differentiate a religious idea/virus from a non-religious one. It doesn't seem fair to disregard the man as having no substance, and yet fail to address the substance of what he says.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Viruses are different. They are the result (so it is conjectured) of break-away genetic material which has developed a protein sheath and the ability to transmit directly from one organism to another. Hence, whils't they may have been derived from an organism, they(viruses) no longer participate directly in that organism's genetic evolution (although of course they participate indirectly if they prove fatal for, or produce infertility in some of their hosts).
Correspondingly, religion is an example of ideas which have coalesced into a concept which is only concerned with its own survival - not with the well-being or otherwise of its transmitting agents (us).
So if one accepts this idea, religion is one example - what are others? How would you answer McGrath's important question as to what grounds one picks to differentiate? This, incidentally, is one way of demonstrating that the idea is indadequate - it's frame of reference is impossible to pin down.
But there are other ways too. You say that viruses may be benign for some people, but it's never good. So to be LIKE a virus, religion must never be good. Now you and Dawkins may say this is true, but this needs to be demonstrated by more than bad examples - this needs something massively all-encompasing. Maybe very occasionally a virus might have a positive side-effect I guess, but I would argue that the positive effect that people claim religion has had over the thousands of years for billions of people (along with positive examples such as Wilberforce & Martin Luther King) is a considerably bigger deal. Yes, even allowing for the apalling atrocities done in its name.
Also extremely important, it seems to me, is that Dawkins did not mention the virus analogy (except for a passing reference) in what is surely his definitive book on attacking religion - The God Delusion. If McGrath is wrong and the virus issue IS addressed in TGD, then this should be pointed out. But if his ascartation is correct, it does beg the question - if the idea of the mind virus is so important in how religion operates, why does the man who brought it to our attention no longer do so? If ever this was going to be highlighted, it would be where it is most directly relevent, in The God Delusion (the idea of a virus causing a delusion would be totally spot on). McGrath's point seemed fair and pertinent to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
And what does reason have to do with faith? I thought that was the argument of many here, such as IngoB (and I apologise if I have misrepresented his position) that faith is beyond reason; hence the 'leap of faith'.
I think this is sooooooo critical. My view is that although faith itself is not of reason, there is no reason (!) that it should be contrary to reason. Faith that IS demonstrably contrary to reason ("I believe my television set is made entirely of cheese") is surely different to faith that does not conflict with reason ("I believe that there is intelligent life on other planets").
You suggested that there are no grounds to evaluate one interpretation of, in this example, the Bible from another, but this cannot be true - some interpretations will be contrary to reason and / or science (as I would argue literal 6-day creation would be). If I read the verse "Jesus wept", I could interpret that to mean that at Lazerus' graveside, Jesus decided to peel an onion and chop it up, which explains his teary eyes without wondering why he cried when he was about to raise someone from death (according to the story). I'd imagine that I would have a minority view of one on this. Would my opinion be valid? To a point yes, as it could not be disproved, but there would be overwhelming evidence to suggest I was wrong. This silly example is surely a microcosm of the whole debate? Reason and theology are the tools used to evaluate the Bible (yes, along with a bit of divine inspiration if you believe in that sort of thing).
So although you ridicule my Stalin / rape arguments, I can't see a problem with them - IF you take the view that there are grounds for evaluating matters of faith. I and many others think that, for example, it would be wrong to believe that suicide bombing could be justified from The Bible, and would appeal to theology and reason to back this up. I would strongly resent that because I have what I hope is a reasonable faith, it somehow appeases Osama Bin Laden or Jerry Falwell, any more that the Stalin / rape examples.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The technical term is obscurantism and in the days of old when atheists were bold and good and brave and noble, they tended to get exercised about that sort of thing. That they seem not to care any more strikes me as being a somewhat depressing development.
What do you think is the reason for the change?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think it is partly because when the atheists I tend to admire were around - people like Bertrand Russell - you genuinely could get in trouble for being an atheist (Russell was forced to stand down from a post at a US University after an absolutely shocking smear campaign by the Catholic Church) and so it was important to be superior in the level of argumentation used because it was the only edge you had.
The thing that used to bother me about atheism is that atheists, by and large, were clever people of broad culture whereas an awful lot of Christians wrote an awful lot of drivel. My, admittedly rather subjective, impression is that the drivel gap has closed slightly in recent years.
--------------------
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 Ancient Mariner:
I trust regular contributors to this thread will enjoy our new, daily updating feature - Dawkin Hell - on the SoF home page.
Good to see Ship of Fools officially recognising Richard Dawkins' contribution to Christian unrest.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
I trust regular contributors to this thread will enjoy our new, daily updating feature - Dawkin Hell - on the SoF home page.
Good to see Ship of Fools officially recognising Richard Dawkins' contribution to Christian unrest.
Here here. The Dawkins site pointed me to a couple of George Carlin routines that had me...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
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.
On Dawkins definition of faith (not the only one in use, of course), yes, that's more or less right. Faith is believing without evidence, thus an inherently poor way of forming opinions.
quote:
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?
Dawkins phrase is that there is "something to be said" for treating Buddhism (and other ‘religions') as "ethical systems or philosophies of life". I don't think he is necessarily affirming their value by that, or saying that it puts them beyond critique, but it may remove them from the scope of the particular point he is arguing. In as much as Buddhism makes truth claims about the universe without evidence, it is ‘faith' in Dawkins' terms, if it doesn't, then it isn't.
Obviously the ethical and philosophical principles in Buddhism can still be debated, and might be wrong, but they need not be ‘faith' if there is some objective ground for holding them. Supernatural claims in Buddhism would be ruled out (in Dawkins' view) because the only reason for believing them - faith - is no good reason at all.
quote:
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)
You're using "faith" as meaning "system of belief", I think. Which is a fair usage, but not what Dawkins means. Faith, to him, is where a factual claim is made and accepted without rational and evidential basis. "Abortion is wrong" is not necessarily faith. "God says that abortion is wrong" is faith. "Buddhist ethics tend to reduce human suffering" is not faith. "Reading these sacred texts will give you spiritual benefit" is faith.
The sort of religion that is not being argued against in TGD is one that is entirely free of the element of believing something to be true simply on trust. It would be possible to be "religious" without that element, for example, to tell the Christian story as an ethical illustration about hope, forgiveness and love, without the slightest implication that any of the supernatural parts of it could possibly have happened. It would rule out miracles, God as creator or designer of the universe, any real communication (eiher way) in prayer, and any form of revelation. That sort of religion Dawkins thinks is numerically insignificant compared to the 'faith' sort - and he's right.
He does, I think, accept that there is in most believers a mixture of the thoughtful and rational, and the faith elements of religion. So when a liberal bishop says "We should teach evolution in schools, you don't have to believe in the virgin birth, and it's ok to be gay" Dawkins would approve - because those things can all be defended on non-supernatural and non-faith grounds. When the same bishop say "But it really does matter, and it really is true, that Jesus died and is risen", then that's a faith claim, and it is exactly the sort of thing that Dawkins is arguing against. He thinks not only are faith claims no guide whatever to finding what is true, but also that once the legitimacy of faith claims is granted, there is no ready way to deny the legitimacy of the faith claims of the violent fundamentalist - you can't (as a matter of practice) use rational or ethical standard to distinguish faith claims, because a faith claim, once believed, trumps ethics and reason.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Eliab, I think you are drawing the reins too tight. I don't know if Dawkins draws them similarly tight, or if you are going beyond what he said.
It's not that religious people believe things "without evidence." It's that their evidence isn't sufficiently "scientific." Think of Mad Geo's enlightened acquaintance -- that, to him, is evidence of the efficacy of Buddhist meditation. But he admits (if I read him right) that it's not a scientific proof (if that's the right word) of the efficacy of Buddhist meditation.
Similarly as a Christian I believe there is evidence for many if not most if not all of the things that make up my "Christian belief package" (if you will). I also believe that other people of good will can look at exactly the same evidence and draw different conclusions. I would be the first to admit that there is nothing like scientific rigor to the evidence I cite -- which is in large part why others can look at it and come to different conclusions. So it's not that I don't have evidence, unless you re-define evidence in a Humpty-Dumpty way. It's that it's not scientific evidence.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
It's not that religious people believe things "without evidence." It's that their evidence isn't sufficiently "scientific."
I think that is a key distinction to make MouseThief.
If we use a courtroom analogy then we make decisions based on 'evidence'. That evidence may involve empirical scientific observations (normally what we call forensic science) but we also look to other forms of evidence like 'eye witness testimony' etc.
We frequently make important decisions in life based on this collective sense of 'evidence'. Dawkins is aware of this but sometimes presses too strongly to say that we should only make decisions on 'scientific evidence' - which is just not possible... if our legal system only made judgments based on 'scientific evidence' it would soon collapse!!
Hence I prefer the word 'evidence' to 'proof' - the former has a wider, but more realistic, scope.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
....It's not that religious people believe things "without evidence." It's that their evidence isn't sufficiently "scientific." Think of Mad Geo's enlightened acquaintance -- that, to him, is evidence of the efficacy of Buddhist meditation. But he admits (if I read him right) that it's not a scientific proof (if that's the right word) of the efficacy of Buddhist meditation.
Similarly as a Christian I believe there is evidence for many if not most if not all of the things that make up my "Christian belief package" (if you will). I also believe that other people of good will can look at exactly the same evidence and draw different conclusions. I would be the first to admit that there is nothing like scientific rigor to the evidence I cite -- which is in large part why others can look at it and come to different conclusions. So it's not that I don't have evidence, unless you re-define evidence in a Humpty-Dumpty way. It's that it's not scientific evidence.
Well said. I can actually point at some scientific evidence (neurotheology) that something is going on with my enlightened friends, but what that actually is is certainly still up for grabs.
I would add that the evidence for faith is intuitive, nonobjective, often emotional, downright artistic. As "evidence" it's not 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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
Noiseboy,
Thanks for your courteous reply, and the extended explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
A more "subtle, nuanced" faith is likely not to be in conflict with science, or reason.
Do you believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (as you alluded)? And that he himself arose after being three days a corpse? Is this consistent with a scientific view?
You may not believe that the Universe was created in six days; or that God 'stopped' the Sun for a day - but are either of those beliefs any less legitimate (in the face of science) than resurrection?
quote:
Also extremely important, it seems to me, is that Dawkins did not mention the virus analogy (except for a passing reference) in what is surely his definitive book on attacking religion - The God Delusion. If McGrath is wrong and the virus issue IS addressed in TGD, then this should be pointed out. But if his ascartation is correct, it does beg the question - if the idea of the mind virus is so important in how religion operates, why does the man who brought it to our attention no longer do so?
I am loathe to accept the word of an avowed critic's (dare I suggest biased) opinion, especially when neither of us has read the book in question: But here is part of an interview given after publication of 'The God Delusion':
quote:
(Question)So why do we insist on believing in God?
Richard Dawkins:
From a biological point of view, there are lots of different theories about why we have this extraordinary predisposition to believe in supernatural things. One suggestion is that the child mind is, for very good Darwinian reasons, susceptible to infection the same way a computer is. In order to be useful, a computer has to be programmable, to obey whatever it's told to do. That automatically makes it vulnerable to computer viruses, which are programs that say, "Spread me, copy me, pass me on." Once a viral program gets started, there is nothing to stop it.
Similarly, the child brain is preprogrammed by natural selection to obey and believe what parents and other adults tell it. In general, it's a good thing that child brains should be susceptible to being taught what to do and what to believe by adults. But this necessarily carries the down side that bad ideas, useless ideas, waste of time ideas like rain dances and other religious customs, will also be passed down the generations. The child brain is very susceptible to this kind of infection. And it also spreads sideways by cross infection when a charismatic preacher goes around infecting new minds that were previously uninfected.
(from an interview on 'Salon.com', April 30, 2005)
the full interview is at:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html
You asked what other examples there were of cultural viruses?
Racism perhaps?
Sexism?
Remember, I didn't say religion was a virus, merely that I thought it a useful (or at least interesting) analogy. And whatever Dawkins' view, it is now part of the vernacular: 'Religion as a virus' googles over 13,000 hits.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
You say that viruses may be benign for some people, but it's never good. So to be LIKE a virus, religion must never be good.
'Never good?' Doctor Edward Jenner developed his smallpox vaccine after observing that milkmaids who had experienced cowpox, were immune from the far more destructive virus (or at least had only mild symptoms)
So one might suggest that religion could innoculate one from the worse virus of racism? But I wouldn't wan't to push the analogy too far.
Then again if we keep pushing we might find that it's more than just...
I apologise for not answering all your points. If this thread continues and I have more time (and if you're still interested) I will endeavour to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Similarly as a Christian I believe there is evidence for many if not most if not all of the things that make up my "Christian belief package" (if you will). I also believe that other people of good will can look at exactly the same evidence and draw different conclusions. I would be the first to admit that there is nothing like scientific rigor to the evidence I cite -- which is in large part why others can look at it and come to different conclusions. So it's not that I don't have evidence, unless you re-define evidence in a Humpty-Dumpty way. It's that it's not scientific evidence.
I take your point MouseThief - but it's more than that. Many of the beliefs (six day creation; Sun standing still; resurrection etc.) are contrary to the scientific evidence.
The passage from McGrath which Noiseboy posted really only applied to a pre-scientific age - where competing belief systems were subject to natural selection as the only guide to their validity and accuracy in correlating human behaviour to the prevailing conditions. Science has the competition built in, adapts far more quickly and has answered many questions except perhaps...
the search for meaning
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:
Do you believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (as you alluded)? And that he himself arose after being three days a corpse? Is this consistent with a scientific view?
You addressed this to Noiseboy but I'll give it a go: Jesus certainly could have raised Lazarus, and there's not inconsiderable evidence he himself was raised.
But to the larger question: neither of those alleged miracles are in any way contrary to 'science'.
ISTM science can never preclude 'supernatural' exceptions to what it calls 'laws of nature' (which are really only 'repeated instances of what we observe in nature', not 'laws').
IMO only a misunderstanding of what 'science' is will allow someone to use it as an argument against 'miracles'. The 'scientific method' just doesn't go there; what does go there is a bias that assumes 'science' is the be all and end all.
Science is a useful thing, but it can only do so much.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I would add that the evidence for faith is intuitive, nonobjective, often emotional, downright artistic. As "evidence" it's not much.
There isn't "evidence" for "faith" as faith is something I have, not something I believe in. There is evidence for Christianity, and it is not intuitive, nonobjective, emotional, or artistic. It's mostly historical and to a lesser extent sociological and psychological.
Nice try.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Do you believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (as you alluded)? And that he himself arose after being three days a corpse? Is this consistent with a scientific view?
You may not believe that the Universe was created in six days; or that God 'stopped' the Sun for a day - but are either of those beliefs any less legitimate (in the face of science) than resurrection?
...I take your point MouseThief - but it's more than that. Many of the beliefs (six day creation; Sun standing still; resurrection etc.) are contrary to the scientific evidence.
As MouseThief says a lot of the evidence for Christianity is rational and not just intuitive.
However, I'm not sure what you mean by the above 'contradict' the scientific evidence. I would agree with you on the six day creation issue but not on the other two.
I think you are confused how science works. Scientific progress is made when someone comes across 'anomalous' data that doesn't fit expected models. Further investigation either reinforces the original theory OR leads to a new one that includes what we first thought 'impossible' - a good example would be Marie-Curie suggesting that elements 'change' into other elements due to radioactivity ... she was scorned as an 'alchemist' at first!
Thomas Kuhn wrote a lot about paradigm shifts within science.
Scientifically speaking, the resurrection is impossible according to current theories... it is an anomalous datum. However, good science would investigate it to see whether we are mistaken about the resurrection or about our current theories.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I take your point MouseThief - but it's more than that. Many of the beliefs (six day creation; Sun standing still; resurrection etc.) are contrary to the scientific evidence.
We have scientific evidence that Jesus wasn't resurrected? Do tell.
You mean that in general, and all other things being equal, dead people stay dead. Leave out resuscitation; there weren't defibrillators in first century Palestine. Yes I know that. That's why it was A MIRACLE. When God sticks Her finger in the stream, all other things aren't equal. Science can only say what happens when the stream isn't interfered with from outside. It can't say when it can or can't be thus interfered with, nor can it say there is or isn't anything outside. That's not what it does. It describes and predicts the motions of the stream.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Eliab, I think you are drawing the reins too tight. I don't know if Dawkins draws them similarly tight, or if you are going beyond what he said.
Dawkins on his intended targets:
“I am not attacking any particular God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented” (p36 of the hardback).
The reason he has this approach is that he is not just having a go at dangerous manifestations of religion (‘fundamentalism’) but at what he sees as a poor way of thinking (‘faith’).
quote:
as a Christian I believe there is evidence for many if not most if not all of the things that make up my "Christian belief package" (if you will). I also believe that other people of good will can look at exactly the same evidence and draw different conclusions. I would be the first to admit that there is nothing like scientific rigor to the evidence I cite -- which is in large part why others can look at it and come to different conclusions. So it's not that I don't have evidence, unless you re-define evidence in a Humpty-Dumpty way. It's that it's not scientific evidence.
I agree with you – I think belief in Christianity is sufficiently well-supported by evidence that it can rationally be believed without absurdity or delusion, but not so well supported as to be compelling. I think that’s been the case from the beginning – and I can speculate about why it has to be so.
I’m in the unusual position on this thread of defending as intellectually sound and honest a writer whom I admire greatly, but also utterly disagree with on almost all the points he makes. I’m not saying that Dawkins is right – I’m a Christian (of the mainstream, supernaturalist, credulous-of-miracles, believing-in-prayer sort who could not claim to hold whatever Dawkins thinks of as subtle nuanced religion) and I don’t think that I am deluded or an uncritical thinker simply because I have faith.
I do think that TGD mounts a strong challenge to religious thinking generally, and that it merits serious thought. If nothing else, it is an extremely articulate expression of how a very intelligent person who cares passionate for truth, but who simply doesn’t see what we see when he looks at religion, responds to a religious world-view, and it is a valuable book for that reason alone.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I do think that TGD mounts a strong challenge to religious thinking generally, and that it merits serious thought. If nothing else, it is an extremely articulate expression of how a very intelligent person who cares passionate for truth, but who simply doesn’t see what we see when he looks at religion, responds to a religious world-view, and it is a valuable book for that reason alone.
See, this is the first thing anybody has said on any Dawkins thread that makes me even slightly tempted to read the book. If his advocates could be as softspoken as you, Eliab, it would do a world of good. Or not, since Dawkins' point isn't doing good, but stirring controversy, and softspoken people don't stir controversy.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I would add that the evidence for faith is intuitive, nonobjective, often emotional, downright artistic. As "evidence" it's not much.
There isn't "evidence" for "faith" as faith is something I have, not something I believe in. There is evidence for Christianity, and it is not intuitive, nonobjective, emotional, or artistic. It's mostly historical and to a lesser extent sociological and psychological.
Nice try.
Have/belive is semantics in this case.
Evidence for Christianity includes miracle stories, outright historical fallacies, semi-arbitrary nonobjective tossings of various "historical" books over the side and inclusions of others by political appointees, and emotional/nonobjective appeals to reason that there is a god in the first place, etc. etc.
Backatcha.
[ 06. June 2007, 14:21: 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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
MouseThief
Quid pro quo (re my post on 'Do Atheists visit...)
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
There isn't "evidence" for "faith" as faith is something I have, not something I believe in.
I have thought about this over the past few days. Could you please expand? Do you mean that it is part of your make-up, such as that you are human, male etc.? Does it infer that you are free from doubt?
I am interested.
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
