Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Whether those beliefs and opinions are "Valid" is not relevant? Say again?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole. This man is a respected scientist, he is at home with data analysis. He cannot be afforded the excuse of ignorance.
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible.
quote:How many sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury are there? Are the majority of Christians like Bonhoeffer or the ABofC? Does subtle, nuanced religion predominate?
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect
quote:I'm not sure about these numbers, so I'd be interested in your source. I'm assuming you have hard data to back up this somewhat uncompromising statement.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
[Saying decent understated religion is numerically negligable] is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole.
quote:More
The video game engages young gamers as the Tribulation Forces to fight the evil peacekeepers. In multiplayer mode, gamers play on both sides.
"It's ironic the game has been put out for Christmas, which honors the Prince of Peace who said, 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God,' " says Mr. Elnes. "What this game says is 'Cursed are the peacekeepers, for they are children of the Antichrist.' "
quote:And that was just a random sampling.
"I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution."
--Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, October 8, 2004
"I believe that God wants me to be president."
--According to Richard Land, as quoted in ""Understanding the President and his God"
"We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God,"
--As quoted in ""Understanding the President and his God"
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
quote:Then what you'd have is not Christianity in any shape or form: Jesus as simply a moral teacher? I'll take Buddhism then.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'd welcome some kind of a broad-based distancing of Christian faith from these literal claims about virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection and judgement. Funny thing is, I'd be unquestionably deluded if I thought that was likely to happen any time soon.
quote:I suspect that what Richard Dawkins would call "decent, understated religion" is very different from you are thinking of. It probably excludes miracles, moral judgments based on divine revelation, religious education for children and all sorts of other things which are characteristic of mainstream religion.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
His answer here is breathtaking:
quote:If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible.
quote:Dawkins has seen plenty of evidence to counter his views, and his response has been to harden them. By his own definition, Dawkins is now a fundamentalist.
You’re as much a fundamentalist as those you criticise.
No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.
quote:There is no universal, simple definition of Christianity. If you see it as one religion to be joined, with perhaps the historic creeds as statements of belief, that's one view. I'd argue that at best that describes a shell, that anything approaching a reflection of meaningful Christian faith is what goes on at the individual level. That includes as many variations as there are individuals.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Then what you'd have is not Christianity in any shape or form: Jesus as simply a moral teacher?
quote:If significant numbers of Christians were not militant and unreasonable, you might have a point. But that wasn't the case last time I looked. It seems unreasonable, even if some of us would prefer it without the spin, to condemn an atheist for responding in a similar way.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
You can spin all this as much as you like, but it is impossible to honestly arrive at a "numerically insignificant" number. As I originally said, it is the fact that Dawkins has had many months to consider these words that is the most alarming. In response to reason when put to him, he appears to becoming ever-more militant and unreasonable, dismissing any evidence that does not fit his prejudices.
quote:No he isn't, by his own or any other reasonable definition. Dawkins is guilty of many things, but fundamentalism? I don't think so. I hate to defend the sour old fart, but you're wrong about this. Like he says in his interview, which you quote, his opinions (however fervently held, and however objectionable) are subject to change in the face of evidence, as per the scientific method. If your God appeared to Dawkins in a puff of smoke, his opinion of the non-existence of God would be refuted by the evidence. Like he said, fundamentalism is irrefutable by any evidence.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
By his own definition, Dawkins is now a fundamentalist.
quote:
It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole.
quote:My italics. IMO this thread needs two things more clearly defined:
I'm absolutely staggered that anyone should try to defend the clearly indefensible (no hyperbole, just on fact).
quote:I suspect that Dawkins thinks a `decent, understated' religion -- inasmuch as he's thought it through at all -- is something along the lines of a religion that cannot readily be used to justify persecution or oppression.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The most obvious point to note is that Dawkins was talking about ALL "reasonable" religion being numerically negligable. The names he quotes are Christian theologians, however, and maybe we have a clue as to what sort of rare religious person he thinks is reasonable.
quote:Again, you provide no evidence that this is true - forgive, but is sounds like a vague unsubstantiated hunch. I have no doubt that there are numerically significant numbers of religous people who are dangerous. But that is not what Dawkins is saying - he says that the number NOT doing this is numerically insignificant. This, I maintain, is indefensible and is contrary to all available evidence. On a similar theme:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If significant numbers of Christians were not militant and unreasonable, you might have a point. But that wasn't the case last time I looked. It seems unreasonable, even if some of us would prefer it without the spin, to condemn an atheist for responding in a similar way.
quote:Could you illustrate how all but a numerically negligable fist of faithful advocate abuse and opression? All those warmongering Budhists perhaps? Or that arch militants Desmond Tutu and his followers? etc etc
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I suspect that Dawkins thinks a `decent, understated' religion -- inasmuch as he's thought it through at all -- is something along the lines of a religion that cannot readily be used to justify persecution or oppression.
I don't know this for sure; I'm just going by his frequent writings on how he thinks religion is used as a tool for such abuses.
If this is the kind of thing he means, it would indeed put most of mainstream religion outside his criteria for acceptability; the number of people inside would, indeed, be numerically negligible.
quote:But I have just quoted, by example, how his opinions (in this case on the number of reasonable religious people in the world) are factually innacurate. This is evidence, and yet here we are months later with Dawkins' response that these people simply do not exist. This is a perfect example of a fundamentalist mindset. This issue about existence of God is another far more complex matter, but is in this case beside the point. Dawkins has a wide variety of beliefs with regard to religion - God is but one of them. I have shown that another of his beliefs regarding religion reveals a fundamentalist view.
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Dawkins is guilty of many things, but fundamentalism? I don't think so. I hate to defend the sour old fart, but you're wrong about this. Like he says in his interview, which you quote, his opinions (however fervently held, and however objectionable) are subject to change in the face of evidence, as per the scientific method. If your God appeared to Dawkins in a puff of smoke, his opinion of the non-existence of God would be refuted by the evidence. Like he said, fundamentalism is irrefutable by any evidence.
I have a suspicion you don't like him because his views differ from yours. When your church leaders take an equivalent uncompromising stance with their beliefs, do you consider them to be fundamentalists?
quote:Fair points, I'll have a stab:
Originally posted by 206:
IMO this thread needs two things more clearly defined:
'subtle nuanced (snip) decent understated religion'
and
'hyperbole'
quote:You missed it. I gave as evidence the fact that most mainstream churches use the historic creeds to outline their beliefs. That obviously says nothing about how stridently or militantly they express them, but does I suggest illustrate an underlying commitment to beliefs that are not subtle or nuanced.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Again, you provide no evidence that this is true - forgive, but is sounds like a vague unsubstantiated hunch.
quote:Using words and phrases like 'indefensible', 'contrary to all available evidence', and 'ludicrous' to refer to Richard Dawkins' views seems unwise. If you want to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, anyway.
I have no doubt that there are numerically significant numbers of religous people who are dangerous. But that is not what Dawkins is saying - he says that the number NOT doing this is numerically insignificant. This, I maintain, is indefensible and is contrary to all available evidence.
quote:There is no evidence to support Dawkins' statement as you interpret it. My point is that you are (perhaps) not reading it as he wrote it. I might be wrong, of course, as I have no particular insight into what goes on in what passes for this man's mind.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
There is no evidence to support Dawkins ludicrous statement, and as I have shown the merest edges of the boundless evidence to prove it is, in fact, false.
quote:This is not evidence that Dawkins is a fundamentalist.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
But I have just quoted, by example, how his opinions (in this case on the number of reasonable religious people in the world) are factually innacurate.
quote:I think you (and Crooked Cucumber) have twisted Dawkins' words beyond what they bear. I suggest you read his words again, and here is the full Q&A:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:This is not evidence that Dawkins is a fundamentalist.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
But I have just quoted, by example, how his opinions (in this case on the number of reasonable religious people in the world) are factually innacurate.
You seem to be saying that, since there are large numbers of religious people who are 'reasonable' in your opinion, Dawkins' opinion that only a few of these people are reasonable is 'fundamentalist'.
Well, I think your opinion is rather unreasonable. Am I, therefore, a fundamentalist?
quote:Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate. Show me the survey that shows that, globally MOST muslims support Osama Bin Laden, or MOST Christians support Robertson or Falwell, let alone whatever fanatic he pretends that Hindus or Budhists MOSTLY support.
You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.
quote:I don't think there is a survey of Robertson, Falwell, or Haggards (RFH) believers. And I think that you are doing a form of Godwin when you compare even RFH to Osama and I despise RFH as much as the next guy.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate. Show me the survey that shows that, globally MOST muslims support Osama Bin Laden, or MOST Christians support Robertson or Falwell, let alone whatever fanatic he pretends that Hindus or Budhists MOSTLY support.
But of course, he goes further - it is not just a majority, but a majority so great that fundamentalism's opposite, "decent, understated religion" is "numerically negligible". To suggest that this is not, in fact, what he is saying seems ludicrous.
quote:
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and 24 other Christian leaders this year tried to pressure the National Association of Evangelicals to silence its Washington director, the Rev. Rich Cizik, because Cizik is trying to convince evangelicals that global warming is real.
quote:
Conservative Christians are now veteran political operatives who can deliver votes in school board races and presidential campaigns. They fill leadership posts throughout the Republican Party and comprise more than one-third of the GOP base.
quote:And speaking of James Dobson, that guy has a radio show that delivers Fundamentalist garbage nationwide. I despise the man. He has a virtual empire with hate-filled rhetoric that commands mush attention from the Christian Fundies in America.
The organizational muscle of the movement -- once controlled by national groups linked to Falwell, Robertson and a few others -- now lies with local pastors, who were key to the 2004 re-election win of President George W. Bush.
quote:Possibly, only Dawkins is British and speaks out of a British University context.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
One need only look at GW and what he has implemented and his rhetoric to see how pervasive it is. If you wonder why Dawkins is so shrill and over the top, I think he has seen enough of GW and his ilk, and "Intelligent Design" trial bullshit, and so on that he is responding to the American Right.
quote:You're taking these quotes in isolation. If you drop them back in context, which if I'm reading The Times article correctly is an extract from a foreword or something to the new paperback edition of The God Delusion, it looks like an over-simplified statement that he expands on and qualifies in the book.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I think you [dogwonderer] (and Crooked Cucumber) have twisted Dawkins' words beyond what they bear. I suggest you read his words again...
quote:I give him points for challenging the status quo. However, I think a criticism often rightfully levelled at televangelists may be applicable to him: follow the money.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
So he overstates his case for effect. That doesn't mean the essence of what he's saying does not contain at least some pointers to truths to the Church might do well to acknowledge.
quote:Actually I think Dawkins is speaking globally. He gets that the US has enormous influence and that we are ran by religious freaks at the moment. Not to imply that everyone that is religious is a freak, but that the ones in power in the US are.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Possibly, only Dawkins is British and speaks out of a British University context.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
One need only look at GW and what he has implemented and his rhetoric to see how pervasive it is. If you wonder why Dawkins is so shrill and over the top, I think he has seen enough of GW and his ilk, and "Intelligent Design" trial bullshit, and so on that he is responding to the American Right.
I quite like having him on the scene as he is very good at pointing out the absolute rubbish that we Christians often churn out.
However, if you have a copy of 'The God Delusion' handy then have a flick through the footnotes. Look at how many are webpage addresses. Now I ask you, how can he pass his work off as at all academically credible if most of his 'research' was done via google?
quote:Dawkins is clearly a fundamentalist, just about science rather than about (Christian) religion. The Christian fundamentalist is of course open to any sort of change in his opinions and behaviour, as drastic as it may be, if he judges that it is commanded by God. The evidence the Christian fundamentalist accepts as truly relevant is limited to "spiritual" evidence from God. If Christ Himself appeared and declared evolution to be true, they of course would believe it. It just so happens that the fundamentalists know, or think they know, that this will never ever happen. In fact their spirituality is restricted to certain sources, like the bible, and they know quite well what sort of thing can be found there. It is irrelevant to them if reasonable arguments for something exist, if they can construct counter-arguments from their "spiritual" evidence, no matter how flimsy. Their first instinct is to eliminate non-"spiritual" sources of truth, not to harmonize them with God's word.
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
No he isn't, by his own or any other reasonable definition. Dawkins is guilty of many things, but fundamentalism? I don't think so. I hate to defend the sour old fart, but you're wrong about this. Like he says in his interview, which you quote, his opinions (however fervently held, and however objectionable) are subject to change in the face of evidence, as per the scientific method. If your God appeared to Dawkins in a puff of smoke, his opinion of the non-existence of God would be refuted by the evidence. Like he said, fundamentalism is irrefutable by any evidence.
quote:I concede that, taken on its own, this statement is either a falsehood or hyperbole. Put alongside the way he usually expresses himself on this subject, I am inclined to think that Dawkins is indulging in hyperbole here, rather than telling a lie. But I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate.
quote:Hang on, you believe in God, don't you?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Literal claims about a virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection and eternal judgement, made by the majority of Christians every time they take communion, looks like a clear illustration of a broad commitment to beliefs with negligable evidential support. Dawkins' regards these as dangerous. I'd say that's at least a defensible position.
quote:You should read the God Delusion more carefully. Dawkins draws the dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable differently to you. He doesn't say that most believers support Bin Laden or Robertson, but that they are like them in that they have firm convictions on moral and factual matters which founded on no evidence. He acknowledges that there can be 'moderate' religion - religion which believes (on poor grounds) things which are relatively helpful or harmless - but he doesn't think this is reasonable. He thinks that the moderates, far from being a contrast to the extremists, give apparent legitimacy to the poor habits of thought that allow the extremists to exist at all.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I think you (and Crooked Cucumber) have twisted Dawkins' words beyond what they bear. I suggest you read his words again, and here is the full Q&A:
quote:Dawkins has made himself crystal clear - "Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini". This is factually innacurate. Show me the survey that shows that, globally MOST muslims support Osama Bin Laden, or MOST Christians support Robertson or Falwell
You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.
quote:An excellent point.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
A thought...
The statement that "most religious people are not sufficiently educated and believe in delusions" seems a lot less vindictive when you consider the truth value of the observation that most people in general are not sufficiently educated and believe in delusions.
I mean, are most people in the general public that scientifically nuanced? I wonder...
quote:Ok, and let me kick off by saying that Dorkins is the second to last Pom I'd stick up for - Blair being last.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
His answer here is breathtaking:
quote:If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole. This man is a respected scientist, he is at home with data analysis. He cannot be afforded the excuse of ignorance.
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible.
quote:According to those base statistics, I could reasonably expect to find similar numbers of churches and churchgoers of all three of Anglican, Catholic and P,C&R branches in Auckland.
...affiliation with Evangelical, Born Again and Fundamentalist religions increased by 25.6 percent, and affiliation with Pentecostal religions increased by 17.8 percent.
quote:You present the contrast as if it were symmetrical. That would only be the case if your "spiritual evidence" and scientific evidence are equally falsifiable. You're playing word games there.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Dawkins is just as blinkered as Christian fundamentalists. The only difference is what he is blinkered about.
quote:I don't how you've arrived at that. As far as traditional Christianity speaks with a single voice on suffering, I've not seen it offer any reconciliation with a loving God that I found convincing.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My view is that if God exists, then He is almost certainly the God described by traditional Christianity, because this is the only way I can reconcile His existence with human suffering.
quote:I've no idea how you've arrived at that either. I can say with Dawkins that my faith is evidence-based, although I probably include more of the personal than he does. However, I don't have a book to sell, and I was a convinced evangelical Christian for many years. So I probably have a less one-sided take on the evidence.
The question which requires the most faith on my part is whether He exists at all. Now, I am not asking you to agree with my reasoning but I would like you to acknowledge that, from my perspective, you are as fundamentalist as the rest of us, with the added drawback that your theology does not (to my eyes) seem to have any credible way round the Problem of Evil.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Indeed, I strongly suspect that the number of people, religious or otherwise, who are always wholly reasonable is 0. Dawkins certainly isn't.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Religious people whom Dawkins thinks are wholly reasonable ARE numerically insignificant.
quote:The implication that most Chirstians in the UK are like Falwell (he didn't say Phelps IIRC) is absurd. The notion that most Christians in the US are like Falwell, is NOT.
Originally posted by Papio:
Dawkins is simply knowingly intellectualy dishonest when it comes to theology.
The implication that most Christians are like Falwell and Phelps is absurd.
quote:Re-reading this, I see the error in my above post. Sorry. However, I still think Dawkins is mistaken and that he himselves believes things which can't be proven. Epistemologically, very few things can be proven. I suspect that the line between "can't be proven but rationally defensible" and "not reasonable" is more blurred than Dawkins allows for, and neither do I think, for example, that the Bible's injunction against murder falls into the latter catergory, although it does possibly fall into the first.
Originally posted by Eliab:
You should read the God Delusion more carefully. Dawkins draws the dividing line between reasonable and unreasonable differently to you. He doesn't say that most believers support Bin Laden or Robertson, but that they are like them in that they have firm convictions on moral and factual matters which founded on no evidence. He acknowledges that there can be 'moderate' religion - religion which believes (on poor grounds) things which are relatively helpful or harmless - but he doesn't think this is reasonable. He thinks that the moderates, far from being a contrast to the extremists, give apparent legitimacy to the poor habits of thought that allow the extremists to exist at all.
The quote seems to me to summarise an argument made in the book in greater detail, that it is the mode of thinking, not the specific conclusion reached, that is the problem, and that if you have millions of people believing (for example) that the best reason to forgive others their trespasses is because it says so in some old book, then you will inevitably have some thousands of those also thinking that it is right to stone people to death for working on a Saturday when the same old book says it is. Dawkins would agree that the people who believe in forgiveness are 'moderates' in some sense, but they aren't practising a religion which he would call reasonable.
quote:Yes, you can. He repeatedly misrepresents and distorts the opinions and beliefs of other people. Whether or not those opinions are valid is completely and utterly 100& irrelavent. He either makes sweeping pronouncements about all or most belivers without making any effort to prove or even research his alligations or else he is simply a liar.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And you cannot be knowingly intellectually dishonest about a "belief system" such as Christianity.
quote:Whether those beliefs and opinions are "Valid" is not relevant? Say again?
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Yes, you can. He repeatedly misrepresents and distorts the opinions and beliefs of other people. Whether or not those opinions are valid is completely and utterly 100& irrelavent. He either makes sweeping pronouncements about all or most belivers without making any effort to prove or even research his alligations or else he is simply a liar.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And you cannot be knowingly intellectually dishonest about a "belief system" such as Christianity.
quote:Dawkins is rightly pillioried because he undermines the very thing which he is attempting to champion. Any reasonably bright theology undergrad knows that Dawkins arguments about theology are simply wrong. He is wrong about the sort of questions theology asks. He is wrong about the sort of language it employs. He is wrong about where theologians get their ideas. He is wrong about the history of theology. He is wrong about what theology actually is, and most of all he is wrong to assert that religious faith and blind, unquestioning certainty are the same thing.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Whether those beliefs and opinions are "Valid" is not relevant? Say again?
quote:I think you have misunderstood the objection to Dawkins. In a certain sense, whether miracles happen or not is relavent, but that is not the sense in which the objection operates.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You on the other hand could say "Miracles actually happened" and I could say "prove it!" and all you can say is "Because the bible/koran/whatever said so!" and I go "Prove it! It doesn't happen NOW" and we go round and round. Not validatable. A belief system.
quote:- Richard Dawkins
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
quote:No, I'm not. I simply reject the notion that empirical falsifiability is the be all and end all of determining truth values. That reduces the human intellect to much less than it is and it is as a matter of fact self-contradictory (for the detection of regularities in empirical data, which is after all what the data is for, is not itself empirical). The scientific method is the equivalent to an error correction algorithm, it serves to suppress the most common mistakes made in certain types of questions. That's all. The claim that it must be possible to receive all important insights through this error correction algorithm is nothing short of extraordinary. Extraordinary proof for that is not available, and indeed it is impossible to obtain it through the error correction algorithm itself (yet another self-contradiction).
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You present the contrast as if it were symmetrical. That would only be the case if your "spiritual evidence" and scientific evidence are equally falsifiable. You're playing word games there.
quote:I can't help thinking that this debate would be improved if people used their terms with more precision. That's noy you, TheAtheist, I'm talking about in particular -- the census-takers are clearly in a muddle too.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
quote:...
...affiliation with Evangelical, Born Again and Fundamentalist religions increased by 25.6 percent, and affiliation with Pentecostal religions increased by 17.8 percent.
The truth is that in Auckland, the ratio of fundamental churches to mainstream churches is between two and three fundie churches to one mainstream church - yes, there are over twice as many fundie churches as all other churches combined.
quote:Fair point. The trouble is that the "fundy" churches have no structure as such. It's very easy to count Catholic and Anglican churches and know that they are the same as the one down the road, but how can I tell the difference between the Elim Christian Church, the International Baptist Church and the Evangelical Church of Christ?
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What, exactly, are `evangelical, born-again, and fundamentalist religions'? More to the point, why are they considered similar enough to lump together?
quote:I don't agree. In my view, the `religious right' of the USA is a cause for concern, and it matters a great deal how widespread are the attitudes it espouses.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
We are probably a bit too liberal with terms, but it's more of an occupational risk than something which is going to muddy the waters too much.
quote:Anglican churches are indeed not the same. The one I am now going back to, that used to be my regular church years ago, is very far to the 'evangelical' end of the spectrum. The one in a different town I went to last Sunday, (whilst visiting a shipmate and family!) was breathtakingly ‘Catholic’, so different in fact that you’d wonder the two churches were in the same denomination.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
...Fair point. The trouble is that the "fundy" churches have no structure as such. It's very easy to count Catholic and Anglican churches and know that they are the same as the one down the road, but how can I tell the difference between the Elim Christian Church, the International Baptist Church and the Evangelical Church of Christ?
We are probably a bit too liberal with terms, but it's more of an occupational risk than something which is going to muddy the waters too much.
quote:I'm also going to say that I agree as well. I respect Dawkins, but some of his increasing rants have come across as provocations rather than complete arguments (i.e. everyone who has a religious belief is bad, that sort of thing).
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I'd have to agree, Noiseboy, with most if not all of that last post. It is incredibly lax of Dawkins not to look into the facts before slagging off all religious belief; lumping together very disparate categories of believer. I am not a fundamentalist, but am an evangelical, and that statement would probably cause Dawkins to develop apoplexy.
quote:IIRC, he was set up by the press who read the quote over the phone without attributing it. (Silly old Dawkins not asking for an attribution, or indeed context, perhaps, but clearly someone was stirring things up to get a story.)
Does anyone remember, I think it was either last year or a few months ago, when Dawkins went on a massive rant against the comedian Peter Kay? I think that was something to do with Peter Kay saying that he believed in a God and found that somewhat comforting, only for Dawkins to rant at him for it.
quote:I don't think it is wrong at all to describe Dawkins as a fundamentalist. He appears to believe that scientific facts are literally true which is not so. Every experiment, every hypothesis and antithesis, requires interpretation so that we can say that x is the outcome, which is good enough for all practical purposes.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
quote:IIRC, he was set up by the press who read the quote over the phone without attributing it. (Silly old Dawkins not asking for an attribution, or indeed context, perhaps, but clearly someone was stirring things up to get a story.)
Does anyone remember, I think it was either last year or a few months ago, when Dawkins went on a massive rant against the comedian Peter Kay? I think that was something to do with Peter Kay saying that he believed in a God and found that somewhat comforting, only for Dawkins to rant at him for it.
Apropos of the whole fundamentalism thing, I think fundamentalism is about the relationship between believer and text. It is about believing that a given text is literally inerrant. It isn't about holding strong views and expressing them in an objectionable manner. If that were the case half the people who post in hell could be classed as fundamentalists.
So I don't think that Dawkins can accurately be characterised as a fundamentalist. I think 'aggressive and intellectually lazy (at least on the subject of religion)' is a more accurate characterisation. To paraphrase George Orwell on H.G. Wells, he squanders his talents on slaying paper dragons. But what it is to have talents to squander.
quote:(with a nod to dj_ordinaire too)
Originally posted by Callan:
What does 'literally true' mean in this context?
quote:You’ve missed the point completely.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Now maybe his own definition of reasonable religion does not encompass people like Rowan Williams, in which case he is either an appalling writer, has been apallingly edited or is decietful. But if he does view Williams as reasonable, one cannot evade the conclusion that he is the leader of a large mainstream religion whose followers could reasonably be expected to accord with his views. […]
He tells the majority of religous people in the world that their beliefs are the same as fanatical extremists.
quote:It's not about falsifiability as the be all and end all of anything. The question is one of acknowledging and retaining the field of legitimacy inherent in any particular determination.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I ... reject the notion that empirical falsifiability is the be all and end all of determining truth values.
quote:That's an interesting take but it's basically a reiteration of Popper's demarcation between science and metaphysics with (not unreasonable) political consequences (metaphysical beliefs should be a matter of individual conscience).
You characterise the scientific method as an error-correction algorithm, but in doing so obscure its critical strength. It is always applied to the physical universe, our common shared reality. It is explicitly designed to exclude opinion. That gives its determinations universal legitimacy because, other things being equal, anyone can check if they're right.
A non-empirically testable truth claim is of a different order, one that requires faith not in a physical reality based system but one based on human opinion. That in my view means such "truths", from the point of view of humanity as a whole, are never determinations. They are things only we as individuals have the legitimacy to conclude.
Richard Dawkins is I think only making this distinction. He just has the desire and the position to object more vocally than most of us about religion that conflates personal convictions with universal truth.
quote:Really? #2 on Amazon and #4 on New York Times Best Selling non-Fiction (10 weeks on the list) is failure? I'd like to hear your definition of success!
Dawkins is a failure. I'm very happy if he continues his crusade though. As far as I'm concerned, the best he can do is make atheism look like an idiotic option, the worst he can do is to separate Christian chaff from wheat. So his worst is not so bad at all for Christianity. [/QB]
quote:If you think Dawkins makes atheism look like an idiotic option than you haven't seen what categorically stupid things your boys have been saying over here. Pat Robertson, Fallwell, Haggard, Phelps, for that matter The Pope, all make Dawkins look like a Rocket Scientist, as we say over here.
"....I have been inundated (with responses) from literally all over the world.''
Of the 500 or so responses Stark has received, all but about 25 them have been supportive. Even those weren't the type of harsh screeds that might be expected on a hot-button topic like religion.
"The negative responses were the most reasoned and reasonable I've ever received,'' he said. "In this instance, the people who have disagreed with me have been polite and reasonable. All in all, this has been a pleasurable experience.''
quote:Yes, but if he had ever bothered to read any theology then he would get it.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But it is by no means an easy task to explain the sort of reasoning possible within a faith position to someone who doesn’t know or understand religious faith at all, and the fact that Dawkins doesn’t get it does not make him stupid, or intellectually lazy, or dishonest, or fundamentalist. He is none of those things.
quote:A good, intellectually rigorous argument displaying all the hallmarks of exceptionally good scholarship?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I'd like to hear your definition of success!
quote:That, if correct, is not what he actually says. His only description of religion which he presumably approves of is that it is "decent" and "understated", "subtle" and "nuanced". Your interpretation may be correct, but it certainly isn't to be found or inferred in his answer. The apparent reason for his tacit approval of Williams or Bonhoeffer appears to be that they are decent and understated, not that they are uniquely posessed with a power to reason.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Dawkins’ objection to “moderate” religion isn’t just about the content of people’s views, it’s an objection to religious faith as a means of forming views at all. If he thinks that Rowan Williams is reasonable, it isn’t because Rowan Williams has moderate views rather than extremist views – it’s because Rowan Williams has good reasons for his views. So the fact (assuming it to be a fact) that most Anglicans agree with their Archbishop does not make those followers reasonable. If they believe the same things, but for worse reasons, then they are unreasonable.
quote:crunch
Originally posted by Papio:
It's simply ranting drivel, IMO of course.
quote:I've never hearrd or read anything of Dawkins's views on religion that amounted to anything more whatsoever. Personally.
Originally posted by Stars:
quote:crunch
Originally posted by Papio:
It's simply ranting drivel, IMO of course.
You realy did walk into that one
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I am familar with his "work" on religion. It's bullshit from top to bottom. I've read numerous reviews of Dawkins Being Deluded that appear to agree with me.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
My definition of success is actually attempting to study something before I rant on it. Your mileage appears to vary.
quote:Well, no. That's quite wrong. The scientific method is not designed to exclude opinion, it is rather designed to build a consensus opinion through a constant formal exchange of opinions. That it can arrive at a strong majority consensus at all, unlike say politics, has indeed to do with limiting the field of discussion to the "physical universe". Although truth to be told, that limitation is more a guideline - scientists sometimes do go and play with the fairies. And almost nobody can check the conclusions reached these days by most hard sciences. Science sort of "freezes out" into a hierarchical system of knowledge with time. In the beginning amateurs can contribute, but rapidly it becomes less and less accessible except for an educated elite - the scientists. All a layperson generally can do is to believe one scientist or the other.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You characterise the scientific method as an error-correction algorithm, but in doing so obscure its critical strength. It is always applied to the physical universe, our common shared reality. It is explicitly designed to exclude opinion. That gives its determinations universal legitimacy because, other things being equal, anyone can check if they're right.
quote:I would rather say that determinations rely on simplicity. The point of the basically reductionist scientific method and of empirical data collection is to break down some complicated problem into parts which are simple enough to be evaluated by human minds with great consistency. A "scientific proof" is actually just a sequence of steps building up to a final truth, where every single step is considered to be obvious enough to dismiss the select few who disagree as exceedingly stupid. Many questions in many fields resist any such process, for example the question "Which political party is the best?" There is generally no way of breaking any answer down into a sequence that all but the exceedingly stupid will agree with. So we call such answers "opinions". There are non-empirical truths which are simple enough to allow a determination. For example that nothing can be both true and false in the same way at the same time - that is true, and all but the barking mad will have to agree. Or that a human being has a certain intrinsic value that cannot be ignored but for a good reason - that is true, and all but the psychopaths agree. Etc. A question like "Does the Christian God exist?" cannot be broken down into a sequence of undeniable non-empirical truths. So this is an "opinion", or as we say in this case, a "belief". But I think our time is way too pessimistic about the possibility of constructing meaningful sequences out of non-empirical, or both empirical and non-empirical, undeniable truths. I think sequences like Aquinas' five ways of proving the metaphysical God are generally more ignored as a whole than followed with an open mind step by step.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
A non-empirically testable truth claim is of a different order, one that requires faith not in a physical reality based system but one based on human opinion. That in my view means such "truths", from the point of view of humanity as a whole, are never determinations.
quote:You can't possibly believe that Dawkins is the "near-sole-voice" in pointing out the flaws of Christians!
I think Dawkins is speaking globally. He gets that the US has enormous influence and that we are ran by religious freaks at the moment. Not to imply that everyone that is religious is a freak, but that the ones in power in the US are.I completely "get" Dawkins (I think). The problem with being the near-sole-voice in pointint out the flaws of the other side, is that you are immediately rendered into a caricature of yourself.
quote:Again, you have not read the book for yourself. It's a very nice soundbite Eagle-ton (ironically) came up with, but it is for the birds.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I haven't read The God Delusion either, but I have read an awful lot of quotes from it and seen interviews with Dawkins. Alister McGrath has, IMHO, definitely demonstrated that there is very little geniune scholarship involved in his arguments, and Dawkins' public response to the criticism is risible.
This is totally different from saying that Dawkins is not a genius in his own field. But as Terry Eagleton's almost legendary review of The God Delusion said in the London Review Of Books, "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology". Outside his field of expertese, he literally does not know what he is talking about.
quote:And yet both you and him are suprised when people dismiss his views on theology as unworthy of serious attention. Why?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
My read of his book says that Dawkins dismisses Theology completely out of hand. Completely unworthy as an academic pursuit. It is best summarized by his Flying Spaghetti Monster argument(s).
quote:And many of us simply don't CARE what Dawkins has to say about theology, and never will, because he skewers nobody but himself.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Yes but he's a shite theologian!" is hillarious argument. He simply doesn't CARE. And neither do I, frankly, on his behalf. It's as if theologians are arguing Spaghetti Monsters all the way down. Again, he makes this point nicely in his book, better than I.
If the best arguments of mythology are more mythology, why bother to play their game? It's like watching Dawkins skewer the believers in Athena.
Believer: "Yes, but St. Whoever says that Athena is real!"
Dawkins: "Well, no, clearly Athena is not real and who the heck cares what St Whoever says about that which is not real".
Believer: "Well the epistomoligical raster baiting of Dr. Atrocious says that your argument is specious because he says so!"
Dawkins: "Again, Athena is a myth, so Dr. Atrocious argument is simply false from the get go."
Believer: "But But but...."
And so on. Ad infinitum.
quote:The thing is, to an atheist, all theology is fundamentally based on, to put it bluntly, an imaginary friend. Whether it's the Summa Theologica or a "Jesus is my boyfriend" song. Theology was called the queen of the sciences, but in terms of doing experiments and collecting data, it bears no resemblance to anything else I would describe as science. So a particular theology is intellectually and metaphysically self-consistent? If it's all fiction, it should be easy to make it so - look at J.R.R. Tolkien. I've only read some of Dawkins' biology books, and I'm not defending him - I'm just trying to point out where his antipathy to theology comes from. From that point of view, theology and e.g. astrology are equally (non)valid. OliviaG
Originally posted by Papio:
... Any reasonably bright theology undergrad knows that Dawkins arguments about theology are simply wrong. He is wrong about the sort of questions theology asks. He is wrong about the sort of language it employs. He is wrong about where theologians get their ideas. He is wrong about the history of theology. He is wrong about what theology actually is, and most of all he is wrong to assert that religious faith and blind, unquestioning certainty are the same thing. ...
quote:I'm merely amused that anyone with any intelligence can still not tell the difference between Dawkins wanking himself off in public and a serious refutation of God. I mean, WTF?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Oh I not only doubt that, I know you care deeply.
quote:So that means he can criticise something he knows bugger all about and then we should all fall flat on our faces and hail him as the wisest man in the universe?
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:The thing is, to an atheist, all theology is fundamentally based on, to put it bluntly, an imaginary friend. Whether it's the Summa Theologica or a "Jesus is my boyfriend" song. Theology was called the queen of the sciences, but in terms of doing experiments and collecting data, it bears no resemblance to anything else I would describe as science. So a particular theology is intellectually and metaphysically self-consistent? If it's all fiction, it should be easy to make it so - look at J.R.R. Tolkien. I've only read some of Dawkins' biology books, and I'm not defending him - I'm just trying to point out where his antipathy to theology comes from. From that point of view, theology and e.g. astrology are equally (non)valid. OliviaG
Originally posted by Papio:
... Any reasonably bright theology undergrad knows that Dawkins arguments about theology are simply wrong. He is wrong about the sort of questions theology asks. He is wrong about the sort of language it employs. He is wrong about where theologians get their ideas. He is wrong about the history of theology. He is wrong about what theology actually is, and most of all he is wrong to assert that religious faith and blind, unquestioning certainty are the same thing. ...
quote:So the problem is not at all that Dawkins believes nothing of the Christian faith. That is understood given that he is an atheist. But if Dawkins claims that his objections to faith are reasonable, then intellectual honesty forces him to listen to the counter-arguments to his reasons. And intellectual honesty furthermore forces him to not only listen to counter-arguments of intellectually weak and misinformed opponents, but rather precisely to the counter-arguments of his brightest and most knowledgeable opponents. He does not have to accept any counter-argument that makes use of an article of faith which he does not share, of course. But he must deal with counter-arguments engaging him on his own terms. And if what he claims about Christianity in some argument is not in fact what Christianity says, then a counter-argument based on that is engaging him on his own terms. The counter-argument is not that Dawkins has to believe what Christianity really says, the counter-argument is that Dawkins cannot critique validly as Christian that which is not. Thus Dawkins must have sufficient knowledge of Christian doctrine, for otherwise he is wide open to such entirely rational counter-arguments which are not depending on faith. If he does not have a clue, then his argument is not reasonable. Instead, it is simply what on these boards is called "crusading". It is not surprising that Dawkins is crusading, since his belief in materialistic scientism is clearly fundamentalist, and fundamentalists love to crusade...
Summa Theologiae Ia q1 a8:
Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?
...
I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections - if he has any - against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.
quote:The Incarnation. OK, not by any means an answer, but a good promise of an answer.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:I don't how you've arrived at that. As far as traditional Christianity speaks with a single voice on suffering, I've not seen it offer any reconciliation with a loving God that I found convincing.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My view is that if God exists, then He is almost certainly the God described by traditional Christianity, because this is the only way I can reconcile His existence with human suffering.
quote:But he can't have it both ways. If theology is unworthy of study, then why does he bother to attack specific theological positions at all?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Eagleton and others here simply see theology as an actual thing worthy of study. My read of his book says that Dawkins dismisses Theology completely out of hand. Completely unworthy as an academic pursuit.
quote:You and Papio both seem to be claiming this. I now call you out to provide examples of this.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The counter-argument is not that Dawkins has to believe what Christianity really says, the counter-argument is that Dawkins cannot critique validly as Christian that which is not.
quote:Because he is addressing a bunch of people that can't see the forest for their cultural baggage trees. He HAS to address the arguments somewhat. If you have a bunch of people that are building buildings around the faerie mythology, and writing books advocating the faery lifestyle, and scientists that also believe in faeary, well shit, I guess you gotta engage the faery topic, bullshit or not, on SOME level. If for no other reason than to point to the absurdity of their position!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:But he can't have it both ways. If theology is unworthy of study, then why does he bother to attack specific theological positions at all?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Eagleton and others here simply see theology as an actual thing worthy of study. My read of his book says that Dawkins dismisses Theology completely out of hand. Completely unworthy as an academic pursuit.
Supposing I said "Belief in fairies is absurd. Firstly, the whole concept of fairyhood is impossible because XYZ. Secondly, fairies can't have two heads because PQR." And a fairy-believer points out that nobody ever claimed fairies do have two heads.
Now, on the one hand the fact that my Secondly was a strawman doesn't in itself invalidate the conclusion drawn from my Firstly; but on the other hand it does make me look a bit of a prat, and therefore undermines my credibility when assessing my Firstly, and hence my conclusion; and it was also a totally unnecessary step if my Firstly was in itself sufficient.
quote:I don't really see how examples help in this instance. If I say ``Dawkins says Christians believe X but I do not believe X'' you are always at liberty to reply with ``But 46.2% of Christians do believe X'' or whatever the figure happens to be.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Both of you, with two seperate examples, please. Welcome to Purg.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Fair point. What I meant was the scientific method is designed to exclude opinion unsupported by empirical evidence.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The scientific method is not designed to exclude opinion, it is rather designed to build a consensus opinion through a constant formal exchange of opinions. That it can arrive at a strong majority consensus at all, unlike say politics, has indeed to do with limiting the field of discussion to the "physical universe".
quote:The question is, who decides when the meaning becomes undeniable.
I think our time is way too pessimistic about the possibility of constructing meaningful sequences out of non-empirical, or both empirical and non-empirical, undeniable truths.
quote:You call me a fundamentalist and you're asking me to be careful about stones and glasshouses? If you want to retreat from reason and self-identify as a fundamentalist that's your choice. It's not mine.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Anyway I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just asking you to be more careful about throwing stones in glasshouses. The existence of God is a big claim, Virgin Births and so forth less so. It's as though I claimed there was a giant blue Spode teapot orbiting Pluto, and you said "But that's absurd! Spode never made blue teapots."
quote:Indeed he does. What makes his position untenable, therefore, is that he asks theological questions, and makes theological statements - but refuses to listen to theological answers. It's like me saying "electrons smell like cheese, and anyone who thinks otherwise is mad", then putting my fingers in my ears when a physicist kindly points out I am talking bollocks.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Eagleton and others here simply see theology as an actual thing worthy of study. My read of his book says that Dawkins dismisses Theology completely out of hand.
quote:What Dawkins approves and disapproves of in religion is set out in The God Delusion. Which you should read.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
That, if correct, is not what he actually says. His only description of religion which he presumably approves of is that it is "decent" and "understated", "subtle" and "nuanced". Your interpretation may be correct, but it certainly isn't to be found or inferred in his answer.
quote:Because it is his view that faith is inherently irrational. That's the whole point. He doesn't see that faith in anything is any sort of reason for reaching any belief whatever. And thus all people of faith do "echo" Bin Laden, Falwell, Haggard, Thomas Aquinas, me, you, etc... in taking the contrary view that in some cases it is right to form opinions based on faith. His book attacks that position.
How can he possibly determine that 3/4 of the world's population have not thought through their faith, anyway? [my emphasis]
quote:Surprising though it may seem, this is exactly the views of Dawkins that I already thought he had. And I am Ł20 richer (which is actually the reason I haven't read the God Delusion - I may get it out of the library for a laugh one day though).
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you want to know (and critique) what he means in a short answer-to-question soundbite, you should begin by interpreting that answer in the light of his very clearly expressed views. If you did, you would learn that he agrees with you that mainstream, moderate religion is not the same thing as fanaticism, but does think that they are BOTH products of a dangerous failure of rationality, namely religious faith. Once you know that, the brief quote which you criticise is readily comprehensible in terms that are not plainly wrong or absurd.
quote:Elephant? You mean the dead horse, no? Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth? Or is it this one? biblical inerrancy After nearly 2000 posts on both threads, I think "how do you know which bits to believe?" is a very reasonable question for an outsider to ask. OliviaG
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
On the Heaven and Earth show last year, Dawkins and McGrath shared a sofa for a few rare minutes. Dawkins said something to the effect that if we all believed the Bible, we should stone people we didn't like. Before McGrath could splutter, he continued "Now, of course, theologians will mutter 'oh, but we don't believe that any more'. Well my question is this - how do we know which bits to believe and which bits not to believe?" He looked patronisingly incredulous, as if he'd just pointed out the elephant in the room that no-one else had noticed.
quote:Indeed - and the answer is theology.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Elephant? You mean the dead horse, no? Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth? Or is it this one? biblical inerrancy After nearly 2000 posts on both threads, I think "how do you know which bits to believe?" is a very reasonable question for an outsider to ask. OliviaG
quote:I saw the same interview. It was his obvious belief that the question had simply not occured to any theologian that is the measure of the man, for me. Berk.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:Elephant? You mean the dead horse, no? Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth? Or is it this one? biblical inerrancy After nearly 2000 posts on both threads, I think "how do you know which bits to believe?" is a very reasonable question for an outsider to ask. OliviaG
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
On the Heaven and Earth show last year, Dawkins and McGrath shared a sofa for a few rare minutes. Dawkins said something to the effect that if we all believed the Bible, we should stone people we didn't like. Before McGrath could splutter, he continued "Now, of course, theologians will mutter 'oh, but we don't believe that any more'. Well my question is this - how do we know which bits to believe and which bits not to believe?" He looked patronisingly incredulous, as if he'd just pointed out the elephant in the room that no-one else had noticed.
quote:Except its NOT a physicist answering the bloody question! It’s a bloody Witchdoctor, ooglie-booglie, mad person that believes in Faeries. I am sorry I am trying to be clear as I fucking can be. When you metaphor a Theologian to a Physicist to Dawkins, you are likening an Astrologer to a Professor of Math. And Dawkins has a point. They are not equal inquiries into the state of the universe, IMO either.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:Indeed he does. What makes his position untenable, therefore, is that he asks theological questions, and makes theological statements - but refuses to listen to theological answers. It's like me saying "electrons smell like cheese, and anyone who thinks otherwise is mad", then putting my fingers in my ears when a physicist kindly points out I am talking bollocks.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Eagleton and others here simply see theology as an actual thing worthy of study. My read of his book says that Dawkins dismisses Theology completely out of hand.
quote:As Olivia said “How do we know which bits to believe” is a very reasonable question. I have asked it repeatedly myself. I was told as a child that the whole bible (minus a few little arbitrarily determined sacrificial bits) was TRUTH. Later I learned to question these things a little. I saw the elephant’s nose. Later than that I saw the foot, the tail, and then Holy Shit! There’s a whole fucking elephant there!
On the Heaven and Earth show last year, Dawkins and McGrath shared a sofa for a few rare minutes. Dawkins said something to the effect that if we all believed the Bible, we should stone people we didn't like. Before McGrath could splutter, he continued "Now, of course, theologians will mutter 'oh, but we don't believe that any more'. Well my question is this - how do we know which bits to believe and which bits not to believe?" He looked patronisingly incredulous, as if he'd just pointed out the elephant in the room that no-one else had noticed.
quote:Again. Theology is bullshit to Dawkins. See above.
This is why his method is so risible. He specifically asked a theological question. It is not enough for him to declare "there is no God" - he blunders right into deepest theology and falls flat on his arse.
quote:I agree with your assessment that he thinks natural selection seems to answer most forms of questions he’s asked. I’m not sure I disagree with him. BTW, in the book he addresses Cosmology and presents the non-natural selection arguments as well as the natural selection argument for Cosmology (who knew there was one!).
Theology is the study of belief - a reasoned examination into what isn't and what might be. He poses questions believing they are bear traps, but he doesn't even open his eyes to see the bears plodding right over them. Despite posing the questions in the first place, he simply isn't interested, just as he isn't interested in psychology, metaphysics or philosophy. He appears to have ended up with the bizarre belief that natural selection answers every form of question or experience that mankind might ever encounter.
quote:One form of suicide terrorism would cease to exist. And it’s the prevalent current form I might point out.
He is utterly blind to the parts of the world that do not fit his world view. For example, he has this fantastical notion that the world would be a much better place if religion just vanished and the world was run by benign atheists - as if Pol Pot or Stalin had never existed. He beleives suicide terrorism would not exist, despite Robert Pape's definitive study which all-but proves otherwise. Yet again, he replaces evidence with unsubstantiated dogma - the fundamentalist blind to his own faith.
quote:That about sums it up. I'd not be surprised if this Noiseboy and Papio show ends up linked to from RD's site as a classic example of the kind of sheer mindless daftness that clings to the superficial edges of religion. There's no reasoning with it.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It cracks me up that RD addresses many of the concerns being stated here clearly in the book, yet the most vociferous protestors are refusing to read it! It’s completely hilarious arguments to someone that has read the book! You are even playing into his arguments with theological arguments that fail the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” test, all the way down. It’s fucking hilarious.
quote:I will use your own quote here as my example then. This is clearly not attempting to engage with what Christian theology has to say about God in the OT.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I now call you out to provide examples of this.
quote:Whatever is that supposed to mean? Most philosophers, Christian or not, would agree that Aquinas was one of the greatest philosophical minds ever, on par with the likes of Plato and Artistotle. The RCC has declared him a Doctor of the Church, one of only 33 theologians through the millennia whose work is considered to be normative for the by far largest Christian church. But you ignore whatever he may say because he lived a holy life?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I can't believe you actually think someone with Saint in front of their name is any source at all in this debate.
quote:"Science" is here the translation of the Latin word scientia (Aquinas of course wrote in mediaeval Latin) and indicates a much more general concept than just modern natural science. It means something like "system of knowledge". In the same manner boxing is still being called the "sweet science". As Christian, Aquinas is of course convinced that there is no higher system of knowledge than God's revelation. You do not need to share that belief to appreciate the point he makes about arguing faith.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Scripture has no science above itself". What a fucking stupid statement on Aquinas part. "Scripture has no science" at all.
quote:If Geo is stating the argument of Dawkins book accurately, and I think he probably is, then I have absolutely no interest whatever in reading it, because to ask theological questions and then refuse to listen to theological answers, and then to pretend that this is an honest method because "theology is all bunk" is not valid. It is bullshit and I'm not taken in by it.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:That about sums it up. I'd not be surprised if this Noiseboy and Papio show ends up linked to from RD's site as a classic example of the kind of sheer mindless daftness that clings to the superficial edges of religion. There's no reasoning with it.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
It cracks me up that RD addresses many of the concerns being stated here clearly in the book, yet the most vociferous protestors are refusing to read it! It’s completely hilarious arguments to someone that has read the book! You are even playing into his arguments with theological arguments that fail the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” test, all the way down. It’s fucking hilarious.
quote:So. Fucking. What?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Again. Theology is bullshit to Dawkins. See above.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Do people really still buy that stuff?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Mad Geo, please read the following from St Thomas Aquinas concerning argumentation about faith:
[QUOTE] Summa Theologiae Ia q1 a8:
Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?
quote:If you think you have a rational argument against witch-medicine, and a particularly brilliant witch-doctor defends against your objections with reasonable arguments, then you have to listen and to take that serious. Otherwise you, not the witch-doctor, are exposed as irrational believer. Nobody owns reason. Everybody can employ it, and the best argument shall win - in the end. It is a free for all, and if you take on the legendary heavyweights of the theology division you better be on your toes and have your guard up. Or your victory is just a dream you are having while lying KOed on the floor...
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That Aquinas was of a religious bent is beyond question. Unless of course you question religion, in which case his opinion is equal to that of a particularly brilliant witch doctor.
quote:I'm sorry, but discussions really do not work this way. It is not sufficient to skim for keywords and then invent what one thinks a person should say. That is getting damned close to lying for rhetorical effect. St Thomas Aquinas nowhere makes an argument like the above. In fact, what I've quoted from him says precisely that one cannot argue like the above with a non-believer, that this is pointless! Aquinas is no Heidegger, he's difficult because of a tendency to mathematical precision and an attention to minute detail, he's not difficult because he writes incomprehensibly. I've even highlighted the key sentences in the above. Kindly read them, if possible for comprehension.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
This is assertion by a bloke hundreds of years ago, not evidence of any kind. I saw the post about fingers in ears, well, poor old St Tommy is about that standard: - metaphysics above science? Yeah, right. Classical circular argument:
A - God is truth
B - The bible is the word of god
C - The bible is true
D - God exists
E - see "A"
quote:I agree with you that it is blind, but not that it is faith. Dawkins really is blind to things that are self-evident to most believers. He can see no reason whatever for preferring the Christian God to the FSM, and no cognitive difference (insofar as it is a matter of pure faith) between a teenager's religion leading him to become an altar-server, and his religion leading him to become a suicide bomber.
Originally posted by Papio:
I think Dawkins own position is one of "blind faith" just as much as the people he attacks.
quote:He doesn't praise it. He says that it is so negligible that it isn't worth worrying about.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
If all faith is dumb, then why does he apprently praise "subtle, nuanced faith"?
quote:There are far more important proofs of the existance of God. A friend of mine recently proposed this one:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
A - God is truth
B - The bible is the word of god
C - The bible is true
D - God exists
E - see "A"
quote:More like it here:
If I believe in God, it will irritate Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins deserves to be irritated.
Therefore, God exists.
quote:
quote:Whatever is that supposed to mean? Most philosophers, Christian or not, would agree that Aquinas was one of the greatest philosophical minds ever, on par with the likes of Plato and Artistotle. The RCC has declared him a Doctor of the Church, one of only 33 theologians through the millennia whose work is considered to be normative for the by far largest Christian church. But you ignore whatever he may say because he lived a holy life?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I can't believe you actually think someone with Saint in front of their name is any source at all in this debate.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:When Callan said above
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Perhaps one could appeal to the scores of eminient scientists and intellectuals who disagree with Dawkins? It does no use. Indeed, aware that their intellect must approximately equal his, he tells many of them that they simply do not mean what they say. These people are also mental - they do not know their own minds. His fundemantalism ... cannot even enteratin the possibility of other possibilities. He declares with one breath that the universe contains things that may well be "too queer for us to understand", and with the next confindently declares all mysteries at the inevitably mercy of our standard tools of scientific enquiry (whether or not we ever get to answer every question, every question is potentially answerable using these techniques). On what evidence? None, except the hopeless argument that "well, we've learned a lot in the past, so we are bound to eventually learn everything else in the same way" - the same breathtaking logic that causes people lose fortunes on the Stock Exchange.[my emphasis]
quote:I wanted to say that it was a rather narrow definition of fundamentalism in its contemporary usage. Noiseboy, I think, comes closer here. The point about fundamentalism is that it makes an a priori exclusion of certain sources of knowledge or kinds of statements.[/Slight tangent]
Originally posted by Callan:
Apropos of the whole fundamentalism thing, I think fundamentalism is about the relationship between believer and text. It is about believing that a given text is literally inerrant.
quote:I like narrow definitions. They are useful and precise. The term fundamentalist should no more be expanded to include everyone whose attitude to knowledge we disapprove of than the term fascist should be expanded to include people who vote Tory, read the Telegraph and believe that Zimbabwe was better off with Ian Smith at the helm. The word 'obscurantist' describes perfectly your objections to Dawkins and I heartily commend it.
quote:I wanted to say that it was a rather narrow definition of fundamentalism in its contemporary usage. Noiseboy, I think, comes closer here. The point about fundamentalism is that it makes an a priori exclusion of certain sources of knowledge or kinds of statements.[/Slight tangent]
Originally posted by Callan:
Apropos of the whole fundamentalism thing, I think fundamentalism is about the relationship between believer and text. It is about believing that a given text is literally inerrant.
IMHO it is this that makes Dawkins 'fundamentalist' - he is so committed to a belief about the nature of faith, and to its relation to reason and science that he is unable to hear any argument that says not all faith is like that and there are other possible ways in which faith and science might relate. He gives the impression of being personally threatened by the possibility that there could be some other rational discussion about other than on the inherently circular terms he proposes.
quote:{waves hand}
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins explains his root premises in his book. That theologians and others simply can't believe that he invalidates their entire way of being with a pass of the hand is the funny thing to watch.
quote:Believer: My budgie is Athena, and my budgie is real, therefore Athena is real.
It's like watching Dawkins skewer the believers in Athena.
Believer: "Yes, but St. Whoever says that Athena is real!"
Dawkins: "Well, no, clearly Athena is not real and who the heck cares what St Whoever says about that which is not real".
quote:None so deaf as those who will not hear.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Interjection to Dave M.: How many times do you think I'll have to say this? And how many ways?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Blimey. That's good from someone who calls himself Noise Boy.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Mad Geo - I think (and this is incredible) that you may be even more of a bigoted extremist than Dawkins himself. Perhaps the clue is in your name?
quote:If you had an ounce of theological nouse you'd have noticed that McGrath is almost as limited in his perspective Dawkins. That his limitations fit within evangelical Christianity doesn't mean he has any special insight into Dawkins' thinking. As far as I can tell, he just happens to work in the same city and, as ex-principal of a theological college, has taken it on himself to oppose the local atheist.
McGrath ably demonstrated that when Dawkins uses the word "faith", he (again) literally does not know what he is talking about.
quote:Have you read McGrath's book on Dawkins?
If you had an ounce of theological nouse you'd have noticed that McGrath is almost as limited in his perspective Dawkins. That his limitations fit within evangelical Christianity doesn't mean he has any special insight into Dawkins' thinking. As far as I can tell, he just happens to work in the same city and, as ex-principal of a theological college, has taken it on himself to oppose the local atheist.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Absolutely not.
Originally posted by Callan:
Have you read McGrath's book on Dawkins?
quote:I comprehend quite clearly what Tommy said, and have done for some time. I've quoted sections of the summa theologica myself, to fundies.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm sorry, but discussions really do not work this way. It is not sufficient to skim for keywords and then invent what one thinks a person should say. That is getting damned close to lying for rhetorical effect. St Thomas Aquinas nowhere makes an argument like the above. In fact, what I've quoted from him says precisely that one cannot argue like the above with a non-believer, that this is pointless! Aquinas is no Heidegger, he's difficult because of a tendency to mathematical precision and an attention to minute detail, he's not difficult because he writes incomprehensibly. I've even highlighted the key sentences in the above. Kindly read them, if possible for comprehension.
quote:Says who?
Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself
quote:Or, "you must accept god to believe any of this - after all, divine revelation can only happen through a god.
only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation
quote:Without going back to the book, the impression it's left me with is that where Dawkins goes irrational is where he doesn't think reason is possible. It seems tied up with his conscious aim to ignore what he sees as the special status afforded to religion, to treat it like any other set of non-scientfic claims.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Dave Marshall's response has been that since some (but not all) religious apologists use bad arguments, Dawkins can use bad arguments too. Again, this is not a rationally acceptable attitude, and that needs to be pointed out too. One is never rationally justified in using irrational arguments.
quote:I can’t see these reasonable or even clever arguments
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you think you have a rational argument against witch-medicine, and a particularly brilliant witch-doctor defends against your objections with reasonable arguments, then you have to listen and to take that serious. Otherwise you, not the witch-doctor, are exposed as irrational believer. Nobody owns reason. Everybody can employ it, and the best argument shall win - in the end. It is a free for all, and if you take on the legendary heavyweights of the theology division you better be on your toes and have your guard up. Or your victory is just a dream you are having while lying KOed on the floor...
quote:Actually Aquinas DOES answer that point.
Originally posted by Stars:
He deals with the distinct and real possibility that scripture may be false with this -
“Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation”
This sidelines and avoids the, obvious to an average nine year old, objection that scripture may simply be untrue, just as anything written on a piece of paper may be untrue.
quote:If x does not believe in Divine Revelation you cannot use Divine Revelation to prove the existence of the divine, what many people have pointed out without seemingly realising that they are agreeing with Aquinus in saying so.
If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections---if he has any---against faith.
quote:But this is not addressed to atheists, this is addressed to the faithful. It is encouraging them essentially saying that, since we are right, we can answer objections. If someone brings a point that appears to contradict our faith it is a "difficulty that can be answered". He doesn't expect this to convince anyone, but to encourage us. I would argue that this is what everyone thinks about their beliefs. If someone presented Dawkins with a reason to doubt Evolutionary Theory I have no doubt that he would treat it as a "difficulty that can be answered". Aquinus isn't advocating a cop-out, "we are right so we don't have to answer objections", he thinks we should engage with objections. Just as answering objections to a theory helps strengthen it, answering objections to faith should help strengthen it.
Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.
quote:Err.. Richard Dawkins compared Osama Bin Laden to RFH. Noiseboy was quoting him directly.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't think there is a survey of Robertson, Falwell, or Haggards (RFH) believers. And I think that you are doing a form of Godwin when you compare even RFH to Osama and I despise RFH as much as the next guy.
quote:I had thought that avoiding circular arguments, avoiding logical fallacies, and avoiding setting up straw men were standards of reason accepted by all positions. I hadn't appreciated that they're peculiar to Nicene Christianity.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You and others seem to expect, perhaps require, him to argue on your terms. I think he'd see that as capitulation to all he's arguing against.
quote:Well, I would rephrase the above as "you cannot prove scripture to be divinely inspired" or “you cannot prove there is divine revelation”
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
quote:Actually Aquinas DOES answer that point.
Originally posted by Stars:
He deals with the distinct and real possibility that scripture may be false with this -
“Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation”
This sidelines and avoids the, obvious to an average nine year old, objection that scripture may simply be untrue, just as anything written on a piece of paper may be untrue.
He says:
quote:If x does not believe in Divine Revelation you cannot use Divine Revelation to prove the existence of the divine,
If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections---if he has any---against faith.
quote:Perhaps, Ingob's blustery presentation gave me the impression that Tom was trying to say something a little less trivial; in this, Tom seems to agree with Mr Dawkins.
what many people have pointed out without seemingly realising that they are agreeing with Aquinus in saying so.
quote:Even if some of Richard Dawkins arguments are less than rigorous (and I'm not defending him for that), I don't see that's good reason to dismiss what he's trying to do, or to not credit his appreciation of the universe as an authentic expression of human spirituality.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I had thought that avoiding circular arguments, avoiding logical fallacies, and avoiding setting up straw men were standards of reason accepted by all positions. I hadn't appreciated that they're peculiar to Nicene Christianity.
quote:Nice try. The actual quote is
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Err.. Richard Dawkins compared Osama Bin Laden to RFH. Noiseboy was quoting him directly.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't think there is a survey of Robertson, Falwell, or Haggards (RFH) believers. And I think that you are doing a form of Godwin when you compare even RFH to Osama and I despise RFH as much as the next guy.
Dafyd
quote:He did not compare them, he paired them together as examples of fundementalist thought. I would even say that he did it as to show a spectrum of fundementalist religious thought, not necessarily to say they were all equal, but either way, nice try.
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.
quote:They certainly seem to be on this thread.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I had thought that avoiding circular arguments, avoiding logical fallacies, and avoiding setting up straw men were standards of reason accepted by all positions. I hadn't appreciated that they're peculiar to Nicene Christianity.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You and others seem to expect, perhaps require, him to argue on your terms. I think he'd see that as capitulation to all he's arguing against.
Dafyd
quote:As Dave so marvelously pointed out NOISE Boy, backatya. As for me being more extremist, you don't have a clue what my position is, so don't assume it. I am describing Dawkins position as I understand it, repeatedly to numerous people that seem to be coming back with the same ridiculous arguments that support his other positions that they 1) Don't read his positions and 2) Use circular reasoning and logical fallacies, on a good day, to support the unsuportable, ACCORDING TO RD.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Mad Geo - I think (and this is incredible) that you may be even more of a bigoted extremist than Dawkins himself. Perhaps the clue is in your name?
quote:Discredited WHERE? SO far I've seen jack, and actual supporting arguments to Dawkins position on the lack of understanding on the part of belivers regarding his arguments. He's been amazingly brilliantly supported by these absurd positions and approaches so far.
Yet again you repeat the same tired discredited arguments (which, amazing though it may seem to your dizzying intellect, we do understand but disagree with),
quote:I already said I have tried every way I can think of to get it through that various people here are playing to RDs hand. That the irony is lost, isn't on me.
only your latest attempt is to put the word "fucking" in front of them, in the hope that the nonsense you espouse will suddenly form coherance. Guess what? It fucking doesn't.
quote:Finally a meaty argument. This may be true. OTOH, RD may be doing what he does and starting from the root level of faith because he discredits anything that is based on that. Or maybe he simply doesn't believe that there is evidence or finds the evidence underwhelming (AS I DO, which I believe is the first position I have stated here that is one of mine and not RDs).
McGrath ably demonstrated that when Dawkins uses the word "faith", he (again) literally does not know what he is talking about. He uses a definition which I've only ever heard used otherwise in a joke - the childhood definition of faith (believing something you know isn't true). He talks about faith in terms of belief which flies in the face of evidence - indeed, in the teeth of evidence as he memorably put it. There isn't a theologian - and I hope a person of faith - in the world who would subscribe to this definition.
quote:We are all descended from Monkeys (or equivelant) so technically that is accurate, go figure, while being stupidly offensive.
So the charges of global insanity are about as offensive as saying that black people descend from monkeys. They are supremely ignorant, falling at the first hurdle of comphrehension.
quote:How would you know? You haven't even read the books. Nice try.
And again, you manage to further twist the words of Dawkins.
quote:Again, possibly a valid argument (amazingly). He's got his opinion, you;ve got yours, I've got mine. Mine is probably between his and yours. I see a lot of naive believers out there. Some of them are my relatives. Many of them are here on the Ship. Are they the majority? Or are the the minority? Hard to say.
Where as he himself says if people had Williams' sort of faith the world "would be a better place and I would have written a differnet book". But now it doesn't matter what sort of faith a person has, they are just mental (either considered and mental or just plain old mental). Again, its offensiveness is matched purely by its ignorance.
quote:Has it occured to you that scientists and intellectuals often disagree and that Dawkins (and I for that matter) understand and LIKE this. While he has scores that do, he also has scores that DON'T. And he really isn't writing to them anyway. He is writing to the "scores" of people that are hidden or debating atheists and wants to have them come out of the atheist closet. This seems neither unreasonable to me as they are a persecuted minority over here, nor unlikely at all, nor unreasonable.
Perhaps one could appeal to the scores of eminient scientists and intellectuals who disagree with Dawkins? It does no use.
quote:It is potentially answerable using these techniques. Have you missed the last 200+ years somehow?
Indeed, aware that their intellect must approximately equal his, he tells many of them that they simply do not mean what they say. These people are also mental - they do not know their own minds. His fundemantalism is so extreme that he cannot even enteratin the possibility of other possibilities. He declares with one breath that the universe contains things that may well be "too queer for us to understand", and with the next confindently declares all mysteries at the inevitably mercy of our standard tools of scientific enquiry (whether or not we ever get to answer every question, every question is potentially answerable using these techniques).
quote:Oh, ye of little faith.
On what evidence? None, except the hopeless argument that "well, we've learned a lot in the past, so we are bound to eventually learn everything else in the same way" -
quote:Wow, no logical leap there.
the same breathtaking logic that causes people lose fortunes on the Stock Exchange.
quote:They sure don't seem to be coexisit in harmony in the world at the moment, or the last 100 years, oh wait, make that all of history.....
There is, of course, another view of faith and science that does not see them locked in a battle to the death. It is the mainstream view throughout history, that faith and reason can and should happily co-exist in harmony. But then again, anyone holding this view is mental, so what does the world know, anyway?
quote:Nice try.
And by the way - we are in Iraq because the US neocons needed control of the oil.
quote:Perhaps an unwise thing to do, but I'll guess you weren't talking about the gay closet.
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I am curious about Dawkins' reaction to all things relgious. His vitriol is such that I suspect he may be in the closet ...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
) you meant the religious closet, he's always seemed very open about his appreciation of what usually gets referred to as "the spiritual" or something like. He does, though, insist on not describing it in religious terms, I think because he doesn't want it tainted by association with what he objects to in religion. I can understand that.
quote:I hope Mrs Geo can live with the disappointment.
quote:It vindicates your theory, for me. I had noticed that tendency in Atheists as well.
Originally posted by Callan:
....I have always darkly suspected that a certain type of militant atheist was really a closet believer who was angry with God. I'm not sure if this represents vindication of this theory or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'I have showed from my straw man that your argument is made of straw, therefore it does not matter that I have constructed a straw man.'
quote:Well. Obviously I wasn't talking about being gay! Duh. I was using the term generically, as Mr Marshall so rightly guessed.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Wow, if someone is a rabid atheist, he must be gay. There's a new one. If I decide to embrace atheism in the future, be sure to warn my wife.
quote:Whilst Mrs Geo is containing her disappointment perhaps you could try reading for comprehension. Dawkins gives a list of fundamentalists who he argues predominate in contemporary religious discourse and whose predominance make it necessary for him to go for the jugular and ignore subtle nuanced religion. That list in full:
quote:Nice try. The actual quote is
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Err.. Richard Dawkins compared Osama Bin Laden to RFH. Noiseboy was quoting him directly.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't think there is a survey of Robertson, Falwell, or Haggards (RFH) believers. And I think that you are doing a form of Godwin when you compare even RFH to Osama and I despise RFH as much as the next guy.
quote:He did not compare them, he paired them together as examples of fundementalist thought. I would even say that he did it as to show a spectrum of fundementalist religious thought, not necessarily to say they were all equal, but either way, nice try.
If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible. Most believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men. The world needs to face them, and my book does so.
quote:Er, no actually (though, as you would say, "nice try"). As you may remember from the book you keep reminding us that you have read and we haven't, his avowed intent is to convert theists - "if this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Pretty unambiguous evengelical statement of intent, unless you have another wild interpretation to magic away the obvious meaning of the words?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Has it occured to you that scientists and intellectuals often disagree and that Dawkins (and I for that matter) understand and LIKE this. While he has scores that do, he also has scores that DON'T. And he really isn't writing to them anyway. He is writing to the "scores" of people that are hidden or debating atheists and wants to have them come out of the atheist closet. This seems neither unreasonable to me as they are a persecuted minority over here, nor unlikely at all, nor unreasonable.
quote:Stephen Jay Gould was a brilliant evolutionary biologist, but his crime was to deduce that his science did not necessarily lead to atheism. This quote is classic Dawkins all the way - he literally cannot comprehend intelligent views that are contrary to his own. Tragically, Stephen Jay Gould does not have the luxury of life with which to correct Dawkins.
I simply do not believe that [Stephen Jay] Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rock Of Ages.
and I genuinely wasn't sure what you were saying exactly.....quote:Thing is, tho, from the quotes I've seen and heard from Dawkins on things religious he sounds so similar to those he is trashing (just speaking from the other side of the fence). Which sort of undermines his credibility, IMO.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Given some of the nasty rhethoric from the religous right I see in this country on a way too regular basis and having heard it from various other religous entities, I see his point quite well and think it is well made.
quote:There was an interesting article posted on the Ship a while back, by an Atheist, which suggested that evangelical atheism was really aimed at galvanising agnostics and "well-I-don't-believe-in-God-but-I-respect-those-who -do" atheists. I must try and find it.
quote:Er, no actually (though, as you would say, "nice try"). As you may remember from the book you keep reminding us that you have read and we haven't, his avowed intent is to convert theists - "if this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Pretty unambiguous evengelical statement of intent, unless you have another wild interpretation to magic away the obvious meaning of the words?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Has it occured to you that scientists and intellectuals often disagree and that Dawkins (and I for that matter) understand and LIKE this. While he has scores that do, he also has scores that DON'T. And he really isn't writing to them anyway. He is writing to the "scores" of people that are hidden or debating atheists and wants to have them come out of the atheist closet. This seems neither unreasonable to me as they are a persecuted minority over here, nor unlikely at all, nor unreasonable.
quote:You misrepresent Dawkins - again. If I remember correctly, the sentence after the one you quote says something to the effect that "of course that's not going to happen". He doesn't say anything that can reasonably be understood to mean it is his avowed intent is to convert theists.
Originall yposted by Noiseboy:
As you [MG] may remember from the book you keep reminding us that you have read and we haven't, his avowed intent is to convert theists - "if this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". Pretty unambiguous evengelical statement of intent, unless you have another wild interpretation to magic away the obvious meaning of the words?
quote:Spectacular!!!! Bravo.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You misrepresent Dawkins - again. If I remember correctly, the sentence after the one you quote says something to the effect that "of course that's not going to happen". He doesn't say anything that can reasonably be understood to mean it is his avowed intent is to convert theists.
quote:I disagree with this position of his though FWIW:
"I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism," Dawkins says, ....."The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million," he says. "That's more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."
quote:I draw the line at not letting parents raise their kids to believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and gods, if they so wish. Not necessarily in that order.
"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"
quote:So what do you mean by religious? Like I said, he seems to me openly religious in the sense that many Christians would recognise and identify with what he values. He just refuses to use their concepts and terminology to describe what that means to him.
Originally posted by Littlelady:
And, of course, leads me to think that he is in the religious closet ...
quote:I do not think that you have understood what St Thomas Aquinas was going on about in this case. Callan already re-phrased Aquinas' thoughts above well (just below this post of yours I'm quoting), so I can leave it at that.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I comprehend quite clearly what Tommy said, and have done for some time.
quote:I've quite literally no idea what "argument of Aquinas" you are talking about. In my quote, Aquinas is not making an argument about anything. He's simply explaining how a Christian can defend his faith in talking to different sorts of people. And in the case of unbelievers his point is precisely that nothing can be demonstrated to them from revelation, because they don't believe it. One can only refute objections: one can show that the conclusions from revelation are neither logically inconsistent nor demonstrably at odds with known facts about the world.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I'm not trying to argue dishonestly, I just think that the argument of Aquinas only makes any sense if you start from "god exists". The rest of it is simply assertion.
quote:This is not an argument at all, and it is not meant to be. It's simply making something explicit with which his Christian readers will agree (this is a textbook of theology, after all), in order to set up an analogy to metaphysics. Aquinas has just explained that one cannot maintain a metaphysical argument if the opponent is not granting any of the metaphysical axioms one is using. That's because there's nothing (philosophical) above metaphysics which one could refer to in order to force agreement. Just in the same way, his analogy goes, one cannot argue faith with those who do not have faith - because there's no higher reference point that could force agreement. You either believe or don't, and if you don't, then one cannot prove something about faith to you.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
This is a ludicrous argument:
quote:
Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself
quote:This has nothing to do with what Aquinas is going on about. Aquinas is not talking about what is necessary for belief. He is analyzing what one can argue about given a certain amount of faith. If the opponent has some faith, then one can use that in an argument. For example, Dave Marshall has some faith (he believes in some form of God), but he certainly does not share all my faith. Aquinas says then that I can argue faith usefully with Dave only about that which we both admit in faith. I cannot use stuff I believe in, but Dave doesn't, to argue some faith position to him - he simply won't believe it (unless I trick him with rhetorics, but that's beneath Aquinas). An unbeliever hence cannot be convinced about anything in the faith by argument, says Aquinas. But, he says, that does not quite mean that communication is impossible. One can still show to the unbeliever that one is not making mistakes in one's faith: errors of logic, self-contradiction, being at odds with unequivocal data, etc. (And this I can also do for Dave even where he does not believe what I believe.)
Originally posted by The Atheist:
quote:Or, "you must accept god to believe any of this - after all, divine revelation can only happen through a god.
only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation
quote:On a roll, are we?
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Spectacular!!!! Bravo.
quote:No, he doesn't.
.... Dawkins is wrong to ignore such arguments entirely, if he is attacking a faith position. For if the believer can show that his faith position is "error free" - a valid deduction from the faith axioms not at odds with other known facts - then Dawkins critique inevitably reduces to "But I just don't believe that." Which has no more power than the believer saying "I believe that."
So Dawkins must engage with theology, if he claims that his position concerning faith is more than a more or less arbitrary choice he has made. He must demonstrate that mistakes are being made in theology, or he will always be properly defeated by a simple. "But you are wrong, God exists." He knows that, at least subconsciously (presumably he has not read Aquinas). But what he apparently mostly does is to attack caricatures of the weakest theology out there, avoiding anything more challenging. And that is simply intellectually dishonest.
quote:Great claims require great proofs, is a maxim that Dawkins seems to ascribe to as it does to debunkers, magicians (the greatest of debunkers), scientists, engineers for that matter, and other people interested in guarding against fallacy.
Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one – that science could never disprove God – provoked him to sarcasm. "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."
quote:I've just said that it won't work. As did Aquinas. Do try to keep up.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Don't try to defend big claims with theology. It won't work in a reasoned argument where he got to determine in his book (not yours) what is reasonable.
quote:A reasoned argument is one in which Dawkins gets to determine what is reasonable.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins has defined the terms. If you don't like those terms, than we are done. Don't try to defend big claims with theology. It won't work in a reasoned argument where he got to determine in his book (not yours) what is reasonable.
quote:Look at that! You got it and in ONE paragraph. You could have stopped there.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If all Dawkins says is "I do not believe in God," then he is indeed cutting off theology at the root. Fine, end of discussion. But then nobody gives a shit about that.
quote:You tell me. You and others have set here for how many days flogging him because he literally questioned your holy grails. Perhaps he is hitting close to home? You want to think that your beliefs are based on reason, well they aren't. There is no reason in "Here there be dragons". You simply say "I believe" and walk away. You don't whip out Tommy for Athena's sake, that just makes your argument look absurd.
What is it to me if Dawkins does not believe in God?
quote:You see how that works?
"Religion is LIKE Art, Richard. Not Science. Yes, some people think it is Science, but they are delusional. Some people think you can use reasoning to determine whether Art is art, they are also delusional. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
So if you want to argue about whether Art is Art, using science, than you are being absurd. You are trying to use science to tell me if something is Art or not. You're being silly. You can tell me if the paint is red, maybe. You can tell me if the plaster is of a certain hardness. But I will tell YOU if it is Art or not, and you cannot tell me I am wrong. You can give me your opinion, and I will ignore it, or not, but you are not right about whether it is art."
quote:Ok.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Nice misquote. He defined the terms of the reasoned debate in his book. If you want to argue those terms, write your own book.
quote:Oh, do try again. I'm sure you can get it right if you try again.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You and others have set here for how many days flogging him because he literally questioned your holy grails.
quote:This is the biggie, right here, but I have to side with Geo and Dorkins rather than you and Tommy. I see Aquinas's as the dishonest argument (statement, if you prefer) - it's tantamount to a homeopath saying, "You won't be able to understand this unless you accept the truth of molecular memory first."
Originally posted by IngoB:
He must demonstrate that mistakes are being made in theology, or he will always be properly defeated by a simple. "But you are wrong, God exists."
quote:This is always the worrying bit; Dorkins does come across as an atheist model Benny Hinn, but without the staged miracles. I could respect a humanist selling millions of books on the delusion of god if the money were given to charity, or used to fund research, but it seems no more moral to write a book dismissing god as it is to make videos purporting to show god's work - in both cases only for the sponduliks.
Originally posted by IngoB:
.... So he does that all the time to gain fame and fortune.
quote:Here again, I'm not sure you've got it right. He needs to understand your theology to attack yours, but christian theology varies from yours and Father Gregory's right down to Fred Phelps'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QB]Hence Dawkins needs to understand theology sufficiently to attack it. Or he could simply say that he does not believe in God. And nobody would give a shit.
quote:And so I would have, but Dawkins didn't stop there. Which is what the rest of my post was about. Did you read it?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:Look at that! You got it and in ONE paragraph. You could have stopped there.
Originally posted by IngoB:
If all Dawkins says is "I do not believe in God," then he is indeed cutting off theology at the root. Fine, end of discussion. But then nobody gives a shit about that.
quote:Presumably not. I would have to read more of him to see if he ever even gets close, but who would want to do that? It's pulp philosophy. And personally, I think Dawkins work is fantastic, he's probably doing Christianity more good than the average cardinal. However, here we argue about the intellectual legitimacy of what he does. There is none.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You and others have set here for how many days flogging him because he literally questioned your holy grails. Perhaps he is hitting close to home?
quote:This seems hard to comprehend. I do not claim that the basis of my faith can be seen as true merely by reasoning based on observations of nature. I claim that once one believes in this basis, all further deductions and conclusion are made 1) in a reasonable manner (logical, self-consistent, ...) and 2) without provable contradiction with known facts. This is also Aquinas' claim. So if you deny this basis, then it's game over - but that is boring, precisely because that basis can also not be seen as false merely by reasoning based on observations of nature. But if you attack the deductions and conclusions on other grounds than their basis of faith, then I can show that you are wrong. And it does not matter for that at all that you do not believe.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to think that your beliefs are based on reason, well they aren't. There is no reason in "Here there be dragons". You simply say "I believe" and walk away. You don't whip out Tommy for Athena's sake, that just makes your argument look absurd.
quote:No, St Thomas Aquinas and I believe in reasonable fairies. That is what you have to understand: there is a state between Santa Claus and physics, a philosophical chimera if you like. If you pretend that it is just like Santa Claus, then your critique simply falls short. You have to work a lot harder than that...
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The problem of course is that you are playing the game on his field. You and Tommy are trying to assume that it is reasoned, or that it is able to proved somehow. It's not. You believe in Faeries. It's at best, art, not a science.
quote:It is not reasoned, but it is not unreasonable. If you get that one, you'll have understood what a reasonable faith like Christianity actually is like.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To continue to believe in what you can't see, is inherently UN-reasoned-able.
quote:First, once bloody more, Aquinas is not making an argument here. He's simply stating facts about communication. You will not convince the homeopath, and he won't convince you, right? Aquinas states why that is so: because the homeopath believes in something that you don't, and as long as your arguments are based on that belief, you won't get anywhere. Aquinas is saying that it is pointless to argue like that. Instead you have to attack where reason can grip. Remember how I said that if I shake a bit of water in my empty coffee pot, it should become like super-potent coffee? That's the sort of argument Aquinas says can work: because I'm attacking a reasoned conclusions from the homeopath's faith by showing that it is at odds with the world. The homeopath has to show now why this conclusion is invalid, and if he can't, then I have shown that his faith is unreasonable! This is what one can do, says Aquinas.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I see Aquinas's as the dishonest argument (statement, if you prefer) - it's tantamount to a homeopath saying, "You won't be able to understand this unless you accept the truth of molecular memory first." I repeat - the same argument can be used to justify Leprechauns and fairies and the FSM. Surely, you'd rate god above that?
quote:It's all the rage in Paris...
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Dismissing Dorkins with one hand, while holding Tommy up with the other isn't a good look.
quote:With the greatest respect, I think you're completely missing the point that IngoB is making about Aquinas (and Dawkins).
Originally posted by The Atheist:
This is the biggie, right here, but I have to side with Geo and Dorkins rather than you and Tommy. I see Aquinas's as the dishonest argument (statement, if you prefer) - it's tantamount to a homeopath saying, "You won't be able to understand this unless you accept the truth of molecular memory first."
quote:This seems like the nub of it. Let's say for a moment that I don't believe that physics is real. To prove my point, I find the oddest, maddest physicists in the history of the world, and selectively quote them. I then go on, on that basis, to ridicule every lay person who believes in physics - "They are all deluded! Look at the mad people they follow!"
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
And so Dawkins: he is perfectly entitled to say ``Theology is bullshit because I don't believe in any kind of non-material person''. And that's fine. But there's no book in that.
So he finds himself engaging with theology as a subject, which he needs to do in an intellectually honest way. And that means taking on the finest minds, not ignorant dickheads. Even if Dorkins thinks that believers are, in the overwhelming majority, ignorant dickheads, he still has to take on the best arguments for belief, not the worst, to be playing fair.
quote:Do you have any comprehension of how ignorant and offensive you are being here? Yes, I absolutely DO care about the things that Dawkins says, because implicitly he insults my intelligence.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You tell me. You and others have set here for how many days flogging him because he literally questioned your holy grails. Perhaps he is hitting close to home? You want to think that your beliefs are based on reason, well they aren't. There is no reason in "Here there be dragons". You simply say "I believe" and walk away. You don't whip out Tommy for Athena's sake, that just makes your argument look absurd.
quote:What utter crap. On that basis I could say that your endless repetition of other people's arguments insults the intelligence of everyone reading this thread.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Do you [MG] have any comprehension of how ignorant and offensive you are being here? Yes, I absolutely DO care about the things that Dawkins says, because implicitly he insults my intelligence.
quote:What planet are you on. Haven't you heard of agreeing to disagree?
I can't speak for the others on this forum, but I never - NEVER - say "I believe" and walk away. It is unimaginably insulting to suggest I do.
quote:I missed this gem earlier...
Originall posted by Mad Geo
You don't whip out Tommy for Athena's sake, that just makes your argument look absurd.
quote:This is just to note that CrookedCucumber has indeed perfectly represented the point I've been trying to make with his explanations above.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
With the greatest respect, I think you're completely missing the point that IngoB is making about Aquinas (and Dawkins). <snip: actual point>
quote:Dave,
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:What utter crap. On that basis I could say that your endless repetition of other people's arguments insults the intelligence of everyone reading this thread.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Do you [MG] have any comprehension of how ignorant and offensive you are being here? Yes, I absolutely DO care about the things that Dawkins says, because implicitly he insults my intelligence.
Why should anyone give your sensitivities the time of day when you attack a book you proudly claim you haven't read (because you just know it's not worth reading, because, oh yes, lots of people who disagree with the author tell you so), and dismiss with sarcasm comments pointing out your errors of fact?
quote:What planet are you on. Haven't you heard of agreeing to disagree?
I can't speak for the others on this forum, but I never - NEVER - say "I believe" and walk away. It is unimaginably insulting to suggest I do.
quote:There is the added fact that Dawkins has never said anything worthwhile about religion, um, ever.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
you attack a book you proudly claim you haven't read (because you just know it's not worth reading, because, oh yes, lots of people who disagree with the author tell you so
quote:You'll have to forgive me for doubting this very much indeed.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins has a point and he has your number.
quote:Utter bollocks.
Every argument presented here to date was Faery-ridden.
quote:If that were exactly what you/Dawkins are saying, then I would find myself in complete agreement with you/Dawkins - other than that I believe faeries are indeed floating about the room (metaphorically speaking), and you/Dawkins don't.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
We/Dawkins say "Yes, your argument is fine, except for the part where you inserted "God" there in argument A, which we/Dawkins don't grant you because it requires Faeries to float about the room.
quote:Dawkins said:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
And so Dawkins: he is perfectly entitled to say ``Theology is bullshit because I don't believe in any kind of non-material person''. And that's fine. But there's no book in that.
So he finds himself engaging with theology as a subject, which he needs to do in an intellectually honest way. And that means taking on the finest minds, not ignorant dickheads. Even if Dorkins thinks that believers are, in the overwhelming majority, ignorant dickheads, he still has to take on the best arguments for belief, not the worst, to be playing fair.
But he doesn't. Not only does he take on the weakest of opponents, he ascribes to them beliefs which many do not, in fact, hold. If Dawkins thinks that all theology is bullshit, he should say that and shut up. If he would rather take it on as a subject, he should do it fairly. He is not in any sense compelled to accept the axioms of theology (eg., that there is a God) to do this, any more than I am compelled to accept that homeopathy works to have a reasonable discussion about the mechanisms that are said to underly homeopathy.
quote:This seems like a completely fair argument to make. It also seems completely fair that anything that follows after that argument is open to being described as absurd, based on the intitial point. He said that in the book. You and others clearly think it isn't fair. He also said that in the book more or less. Apparently there is book in that.
"There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."
quote:Here's the most amazing part of your debate there. Yet again, you have no idea of Dawkins argument. NONE. NYET. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You haven't read it, so you are claiming all sorts of things that he addresses in his book through various ways and your arguments look absurd accordingly. How many times do I have to say it?
Originally posted by IngoB:
So Dawkins is forced to write about one or more of the following:Unfortunately for Dawkins:
- It follows from known facts that there is no God.
- An argument that makes use of God is not correct apart from its use of God.
- The conclusions reached from a correct argument that uses God are at odds with known facts.
Since Dawkins has basically no clue about theological arguments, and has not found the "magic bullet" argument against God, his book can only contain drivel. And so it apparently does...
- Is untrue. (No conclusive disproof of God is known to mankind.)
- Showing this requires knowledge of the (theological) argument.
- Showing this requires knowledge of the (theological) argument.
quote:What you forget, oh mad one, is that Dawkins regularly contributes articles to the press, the book has been widely excerpted and he recently appeared on a two part TV programme so we do have an idea where he's coming from here. Most of us have read a number of his books which are pretty good as science and rather less good as philosophy of religion. The point is, given his form, quite a few of us are disinclined to part with a tenner of our hard earned cash to pay for a re-boiled version of his articles in the Independent. I propose to get it out of the library when my reading schedule is a little less heavy because I am pretty certain I won't read anything in there that I haven't already encountered in some form or other. So I consider myself qualified to comment on Dawkins' views, but not to give a full review of his latest book which, you'll notice, I haven't done.
Now I am not doing justice to Dawkins arguments, I may have even not understood them entirely either, as they do not really matter to me other than as sport. Unlike apparently many people on this thread, I understand that Religion, like art, is not subject to the games that Dawkins is trying to play, but can appreciate his arguments from his perspective. So please do not argue his points with me as I understood them. Buy the book, choke through it, and then come back and shred it here. “Dawkins is an ass because I said so” while not having actually read his arguments is as lame an argument, as any of his. Lamer in fact.
quote:True, but this has already been pointed out time and time again on this thread.
Originally posted by Callan:
What you forget, oh mad one, is that Dawkins regularly contributes articles to the press, the book has been widely excerpted and he recently appeared on a two part TV programme so we do have an idea where he's coming from here. Most of us have read a number of his books which are pretty good as science and rather less good as philosophy of religion. The point is, given his form, quite a few of us are disinclined to part with a tenner of our hard earned cash to pay for a re-boiled version of his articles in the Independent.
quote:Why yes!
Originally posted by sanityman:
Mad Geo: I like the art analogy. However, it seems to me that RD is not so much saying "x is not Art" as saying "Art is crap. In fact, there's actually no such thing as art, and anyone who claims to be an art critic is full of crap. I know, because I can see that it's just all paint and plaster, and there's nothing else."
The above statements are all true from a strict reductionist viewpoint, but terribly unhelpful to anyone looking at a painting. Would you agree?
quote:He cites his appreciation for Douglas Adams quite strongly in the book. He misses him.
Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response? I mean, he's opinionated, arrogant and overexposed, but that's hardly unique. As a matter of fact Douglas Adams held very similar views (see the Salmon of Doubt), and I've never seen people getting as angry about that...
- Chris.
quote:If you can find where I called you "religious right" please provide it now. Otherwise feel free to take it back.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And to you Papio old boy (I think that's a complement on your side of the pond IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong).
I swear to Zeus if this was a debate on being Gay I'd be tempted to out you for protesting too much. For a proclaimed non-Christian, you sure can't walk away from this thread defending it. It's downright hillarious watching you flop around like a fish getting worked up defending that which you allegedly don't believe from it's biggest detractor. May want to have that position checked. It seems to be lacking some salt.
quote:Thing is, why should anyone care what you think? You just say these things over and over, I'm not quite sure why. You're no more convincing now than when you started because you never quote what Dawkins has actually written in context, or what he's actually said that leads you to this perverse hostility.
Originally posted by Papio:
I genuinely think that Dawkins gives athiests a bad name, and I genuinely think that he hates all religionist of every stripe (including Dave Marshall) and that he hates agnostics.
quote:I'm not sure. I suspect it's mostly a personality thing, that people really don't like someone who comes across like he does being successful. But I like Geo's analysis.
Originally posted by sanityman:
What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response? I mean, he's opinionated, arrogant and overexposed, but that's hardly unique.
quote:I am very aware that you all are subjected to probably a more-than-healthy dose of Dawkinsanity on a regular if not daily basis. I feel your pain.
Originally posted by Callan:
What you forget, oh mad one, is that Dawkins regularly contributes articles to the press, the book has been widely excerpted and he recently appeared on a two part TV programme so we do have an idea where he's coming from here. Most of us have read a number of his books which are pretty good as science and rather less good as philosophy of religion. The point is, given his form, quite a few of us are disinclined to part with a tenner of our hard earned cash to pay for a re-boiled version of his articles in the Independent. I propose to get it out of the library when my reading schedule is a little less heavy because I am pretty certain I won't read anything in there that I haven't already encountered in some form or other. So I consider myself qualified to comment on Dawkins' views, but not to give a full review of his latest book which, you'll notice, I haven't done.
The nearest analogy is Nick Cohen's book 'What's Left' which is also based on his newspaper articles, the thesis of which, is that people who opposed the Iraq war are objectively pro-Baathist or pro-Islamofascist, which I have no intention of reading because, again, I don't think there's anything original that he hasn't said time and again in his articles. The obvious difference is that, notwithstanding his views on religion, I rather admire Dawkins as an author. I just think he does more good as a scientific writer than in popularising a rather tired history-of-ideasy bourgeois secularism.
quote:As you demonstrate by providing an example, I have indeed correctly derived that: 1) there are only a few types of arguments possible, 2) in this particular case (number 1), the argument cannot be won at all, and 3) hence Dawkins attempting to win the argument ends up writing drivel.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Here's the most amazing part of your debate there. Yet again, you have no idea of Dawkins argument. NONE. NYET. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You haven't read it, so you are claiming all sorts of things that he addresses in his book through various ways and your arguments look absurd accordingly. How many times do I have to say it? Actually I’ll start with Number 1, since Dawkins clearly does and I remember his argument somehwat there.
quote:Unlike fairies, God is not postulated by faith as some being inhabiting this universe. Hence any sort of probabilistic calculation of the likelihood of such a Being fails on principle: we cannot meaningfully compare with any known data, for we only have data about beings inhabiting this universe. I'm not well versed in FSMology, but likely the FSM can be shown to be either self-contradictory or leading to false conclusions about the world. This is not the case for God. Further, God is a solution to the fundamental metaphysical puzzle that anything exists at all. Finally, one can make a decent case that neuroscience and physics cannot derive the human mental experience from the human body (in particular: the brain), even in principle. This suggests that personhood is at least partly non-material. Putting all this together: it makes no sense to talk about a probabilistic likelihood of God's existence, but the existence of God is well motivated by human experience and metaphysics, and does not lead to any contradictions with known facts. Hence to claim that God exists is not extraordinary in any sense.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Certain things are exceedingly unlikely. Faeries are unlikely. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is unlikely. We certainly can agree on that. Any argument that derives from an exceedingly unlikely thing such as Faery needs to have its core assumption (the Faery) proven by the one making the assertion, FIRST. Great claims require great proofs.
quote:What is absurd here is not that Someone causes the Big Bang, but rather simply that the limited mythological creature going by the name "fairy" is supposed to have such powers. It is not scientific to postulate a Creator, that's correct. But that is simply a limitation of science: science cannot talk about such things. Nothing much follows from that.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So let’s say that a scientist asserts that since he can’t explain how the Big Bang occurred, and how the universe is set so precisely to make it possible for life to appear. The scientist inserts “Faery” into the gap where he can’t explain it. Well that’s absurd. Faery is a mythological creature, right? We all KNOW that.
quote:Which just goes to show that Dawkins can be quite clueless even about science and maths. One need only to observe a non-linear system or cellular automaton, and one will quickly find that from simple rules complex phenomena can arise. It is furthermore the experience of physicists that the more phenomena a natural law describes, the more simple - not complex - it gets (in some sense). To put it flippantly, most physicists would expect that one can print a future "Theory of Everything" on a t-shirt. There's also something called "evolution", which is claimed to explain the entire complexity of life in this world based on just random mutation plus natural selection. Truly an astonishing case of producing complexity from simplicity, too bad Dawkins appears unfamiliar with this striking counter-example to his thesis... Our actual experience with the world hence points precisely to the opposite: if there is an ultimate governing principle of all that is, God, then experience suggests that it should be totally simple. Which happens to be what Christian theology claims...
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins goes on to discuss the case that any god that creates the universe certainly has to be more complicated than the universe it creates. It had to create all the rules, all the material, all the design, blah, blah, blah. So we are inserting something more complex to explain away complexity that we can’t explain.
quote:So far I have no good reasons to believe that this would be worth my money or time. If Dawkins wants me to shred his arguments, he can make them here.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Buy the book, choke through it, and then come back and shred it here.
quote:Since I already said I wouldn't dignify the scientific arguments here since he does a much better job in the book, I will address the following. I will do it in my best understanding of Dawkins position (coupled with my art theory), and will take the liberty of modifying your post to make the point. Apologies for the use of caps to call out the changed sections as shown:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unlike fairies, God is not postulated by faith as some being inhabiting this universe. Hence any sort of probabilistic calculation of the likelihood of such a Being fails on principle: we cannot meaningfully compare with any known data, for we only have data about beings inhabiting this universe. I'm not well versed in FSMology, but likely the FSM can be shown to be either self-contradictory or leading to false conclusions about the world. This is not the case for God. Further, God is a solution to the fundamental metaphysical puzzle that anything exists at all. Finally, one can make a decent case that neuroscience and physics cannot derive the human mental experience from the human body (in particular: the brain), even in principle. This suggests that personhood is at least partly non-material. Putting all this together: it makes no sense to talk about a probabilistic likelihood of God's existence, but the existence of God is well motivated by human experience and metaphysics, and does not lead to any contradictions with known facts. Hence to claim that God exists is not extraordinary in any sense.
quote:Dawkins aside, the assumptions in you post are legion, including but not limited to the following:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unlike fairies, Santa Claus is not postulated by MY ARTISTIC SENSE as some being inhabiting this universe. Hence any sort of probabilistic calculation of the likelihood of such a Santa Claus fails on principle: we cannot meaningfully compare with any known data, for we only have data about beings inhabiting this universe. I'm not well versed in FSMology, but likely the FSM can be ARM WAVED to be either self-contradictory or leading to false conclusions about the world. This is not the case for Santa Claus. Further, Santa Claus is IN MY OPINION a solution to the fundamental metaphysical FANTASY that anything exists at all. Finally, one can make a decent case that neuroscience and physics cannot derive the human mental experience from the human body (in particular: the brain), even in principle. This suggests that personhood is at least partly non-material. Putting all this together: it makes no sense to talk about a probabilistic likelihood of Santa Claus existence, but the existence of Santa Claus is well motivated by human EMOTIONAL UNRATIONAL experience and METAFANTASY, and does not lead to any contradictions with known facts. Hence to claim that Santa Claus exists is not extraordinary in any sense.
quote:The difference is that the good physicists could show, on objective criteria, why the stuff they do either works in practice or is plausible in theory. What the bad physicist does (if it's physics at all) consists of such things as experiments that other people can repeat, or mathematics that other people can check - and if it's bad it will fail the test.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Let's say for a moment that I don't believe that physics is real. To prove my point, I find the oddest, maddest physicists in the history of the world, and selectively quote them. I then go on, on that basis, to ridicule every lay person who believes in physics - "They are all deluded! Look at the mad people they follow!"
quote:Well said.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Dawkins thinks that any faith position ultimately reduces to "God says...". Sometimes what God is alleged to say is reasonable (by a logical or ethical measure) and sometimes it isn't - but illogic and immorality, as a matter of actual fact, are no necessary discouragement to faith positions. "All apostates should be killed" might be challenged on ethical grounds, but a very large number of people will still believe it, regardless of the ethics, if they can be induced as a matter of faith to think that it is a commandment of God.
Which is why Dawkins thinks that faith is an inherently bad way to reach conclusions. It will lead to real-world decisions of utmost gravity being made on criteria which simply cannot be challenged outside the context of particular beliefs, and which (outside that context) appear absurd. He is well aware that most believers do not think that God is telling them to kill anyone - that's not the point. They are still thinking in the same way as those that do - believing things to be true which they would reject if they were not convinced that God had said it.
I don't think he's right. I also don't think it is a weak, dishonest or lazy objection to faith. It seems to me to be a weighty argument deserving of serious consideration.
quote:Nooooo.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:This is just to note that CrookedCucumber has indeed perfectly represented the point I've been trying to make with his explanations above.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
With the greatest respect, I think you're completely missing the point that IngoB is making about Aquinas (and Dawkins). <snip: actual point>
quote:I suspect that, on this thread, people are responding to Mad Geo, rather than Dawkins.
Originally posted by sanityman:
Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response?
quote:Thanks. I think the analogy is helpful, because it's an area of knowledge which most people disagree on a great deal, but most people believe exists. The problem that I see on this thread is that RD would like to disallow the entire field as invalid, which to the theologically-minded comes across a bit like someone trying to deny that language exists when discussing Shakespeare!
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Why yes!
You are very appropriately named btw.
As I said in my art analogy: "if you (Dawkins) want to argue about whether Art is Art, using science, than you are being absurd. You are trying to use science to tell me if something is Art or not. You're being silly. You can tell me if the paint is red, maybe. You can tell me if the plaster is of a certain hardness. But I will tell YOU if it is Art or not, and you cannot tell me I am wrong. You can give me your opinion, and I will ignore it, or not, but you are not right about whether it is art."
But the funny thing is that the people here are not engaging him on the "painting is crap" level.
. His contention is that theology and science are a lot more similar than most people allow: they are both attempting to create meaning and signifcance out of our experiences of the universe.quote:If anyone would like to read one bit of Dawkins' writing to make them think better of him, I heartily recommend his eulogy for Douglas Adams publised the day after his death.
[Dawkins] cites his appreciation for Douglas Adams quite strongly in the book. He misses him.
quote:First, read the book. It is better than being just an ad hominem attack (I do not deny that it comntains ad hominem points, most but not all of them merited).
Originally posted by merechristian:
I haven't read any Dawkins, but from talking to a coworker who read the God Delusion, his main argument seems to be an ad hominem attack on faith, he attacks the actions of the people who are faithful, as opposed to the truth claims of the faith itself. Does any know if he's tackled the transcendental argument for the existence of God? And if he has, what does he say about it?
quote:While probably partially true, Dawkins drives his own truck.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I suspect that, on this thread, people are responding to Mad Geo, rather than Dawkins.
Originally posted by sanityman:
Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response?
quote:But nice attack nevertheless.
....If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole. This man is a respected scientist, he is at home with data analysis. He cannot be afforded the excuse of ignorance.....
quote:Really! I am curious how his analogy differs from mine?
Originally posted by sanityman:
In fact, he uses an analogy rather similar to yours
quote:Not that I can see. The only fault I'd find with that post, and then I'd be pushing it, is where Ingo concludes "Which happens to be what Christian theology claims...".
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins aside, the assumptions in [IngoB's] post are legion...
quote:In the case of God (rather than Santa Claus): the religion I care to defend, and Dawkins cares most to attack, says so.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Santa Claus is outside the universe. Says who?
quote:No, by my logic you cannot then construct a probabilistic likelihood for the existence of this "extra-fairy".
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I hereby posit that Faerie are outside the known universe too (Santa Claus lives at the North Pole of course, so I had to switch back to the Faeries). By your “logic” Faerie therefore actually exist.
quote:Certainly no contradiction with known facts results if one claims (in a careful manner) that gravity is produced by fairies. This claim will have to compete with other claims for our belief though. The Christian claims about God certainly lead to a much more coherent and interesting worldview. What do you believe produces gravity, by the way? And please don't answer "mass" or something like that, that's not the level at which I'm asking the question. That gravity is proportional to mass is a natural law, but what produces this proportionality? God? Fairies? Randomness?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Science hasn’t figured out how gravity works either. This suggest that gravity is at least partly non-material. It must be produced by faeries.
quote:Indeed. But I was not talking about any special mental state, e.g., "talking to God". I was talking about the completely normal mental life we all experience all the time - that can be argued to be at odds with known neuroscience and physics.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
“Human experience” tells me that if I take a little bit of a certain mushroom, I can actually see Faeries and possibly even god. Doesn’t mean it’s so.
quote:Miracles do not contradict natural law, they affirm it: exceptions prove the rule. A miracle is a miracle because the ordinary working of nature does not produce it. You cannot use a rule to prove that there are no exceptions to it: that is an assumption about the rule, not the rule itself. A singular event in history which is claimed to be a miracle cannot be dismissed by pointing out that it does not follow the natural law derived from repeated observations. That's like saying that black cannot exist because it is not white. The bible is a complicated text. A literalistic reading of it may lead to contradictions, but that only shows that one has to do better than that.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
“does not lead to any contradictions with known facts” Rubbish squared. All manner of claims are made for god that contradict with known facts. Creation, Miracles, Virgin Births, Walking on water, etc. etc. The entire bible or any other religious text of your choosing contradicts with known facts.
quote:The faith component of my religion is neither irrational nor illogical. It is simply not something I can reason from knowledge. If you tell me that you are a geologists by training, I can choose to believe you, even though I have no external evidence for that. It is neither irrational not illogical to assume that Mad Geo is a geologist, it is simply something I believe but do not know. And conclusions I draw from that, like that you should know something about minerals, can be entirely reasonable. Just as it is for my Christian faith.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You don't seriously actually believe you can prove anything about god without a great big irrational/illogical Faith component do you? Faith is not based on logical analysis or material evidence, by definition.
quote:Dawkins does not lose in this scenario, he simply cannot win. But Dawkins refuses to admit that he cannot win. That's why we slag him here.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If you would simply give up the idea that you have any kind of actual proof, even if derived by metaphysical mental masturbation, and say "I have simply, faith", you win. Dawkins loses.
quote:Unfortunately for Dawkins, his main target happens to be just that one religion which has claimed that what God says cannot possibly be illogical or immoral, and that we as humans can validly judge the logic and morality of what is claimed about God. See B16's Regensburg address...
Originally posted by Eliab:
Sometimes what God is alleged to say is reasonable (by a logical or ethical measure) and sometimes it isn't - but illogic and immorality, as a matter of actual fact, are no necessary discouragement to faith positions.
quote:WTF? To attack the foundation of faith, Dawkins simply has to say "I do not believe." That's all there is to that. Dawkins' attacks have drawn criticism because he doesn't leave it at that, but pretends that he has some other argument X, so that X will make any reasonable person say "I do not believe." Which is simply not the case.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Dawkins' attacks have drawn criticism because he hasn't the theological knowledge to attack it, instead using axiomatic truths - as we know them. To attack the foundation of the church - faith - Dawkins (or me, or any atheist) would have to accept the revelation of the scripture.
quote:Thus he simply uses Bulverism, but as C.S. Lewis explains:
Originally posted by Eliab:
His argument for saying that God almost certainly does not exist is based on the human need to explain
quote:
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant - but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method [Note: This essay was written in 1941.] is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father - who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third - “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
quote:I would not dream - dream I everso would not - of claiming to speak for 'everyone else' on this list: however, as an individual with a Dawkins lodged up his nostril might I volunteer my quibbles:
Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response?
quote:
Dawkins thinks that any faith position ultimately reduces to "God says...". Sometimes what God is alleged to say is reasonable (by a logical or ethical measure) and sometimes it isn't - but illogic and immorality, as a matter of actual fact, are no necessary discouragement to faith positions. "All apostates should be killed" might be challenged on ethical grounds, but a very large number of people will still believe it, regardless of the ethics, if they can be induced as a matter of faith to think that it is a commandment of God.
Which is why Dawkins thinks that faith is an inherently bad way to reach conclusions. It will lead to real-world decisions of utmost gravity being made on criteria which simply cannot be challenged outside the context of particular beliefs, and which (outside that context) appear absurd. He is well aware that most believers do not think that God is telling them to kill anyone - that's not the point. They are still thinking in the same way as those that do - believing things to be true which they would reject if they were not convinced that God had said it.
I don't think he's right. I also don't think it is a weak, dishonest or lazy objection to faith. It seems to me to be a weighty argument deserving of serious consideration.
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
The trouble is that the "fundy" churches have no structure as such. It's very easy to count Catholic and Anglican churches and know that they are the same as the one down the road, but how can I tell the difference between the Elim Christian Church, the International Baptist Church and the Evangelical Church of Christ?
quote:If there's only one elephant left then it's already extinct.
Originally posted by PeteB:
"You are on a deserted beach with a rifle, an elephant and a baby. This is the last elephant on earth and it is charging the baby. Do you shoot the elephant, knowing the species would become extinct?"
Like the well brought-up Catholic girl she is, CO paused only for a brief prayer for accuracy before dropping the elephant dead with a single icy stare. RD is horrified, blood draining from his face and quivering with horror he proclaims:
" ... man, beast, they [are] all the same ... and the priority must be to protect the endangered species.
quote:Ok, here's the problem.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Your religion IS unreasonable. Wear it. It's unreasonable to believe in that which you can't see, measure, hear, touch, know. It's unreasonable to turn the other cheek. It's unreasonable to love thy enemy. To argue otherwise is absurd.
quote:But again, Dawkins ignores evidence to fit his pre-determined theories. Here is one rather unambiguous quote from Albert Eisntein to illustrate that Dawkins paints a very selctive picture:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
quote:Or:
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
quote:But this is far too inconvenient for Dawkins to bother mentioning. Indeed, I'm sure Einstein did not know his own mind, and was blinded by temporary insanity when he said such things.
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.
quote:No, I'm not sure either. It seems you think the Ship needs you to tell us how things are on a narrow range of topics you think you can get away with sounding knowledgable on.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I don't know what on Earth posessed me to start this thread appealing to reason and logic.
quote:What you seem to be saying is that you (or Dawkins) is unable to argue about hypothetical situations. I don't have be an atheist to be able to argue that conclusions atheists might draw are incorrect.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
To attack the foundation of the church - faith - Dawkins (or me, or any atheist) would have to accept the revelation of the scripture. Can't be done. To accept the revelation of scripture, he'd have to be a christian.
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Indeed. This unambiguous quote from Einstein backs it up:
quote:But again, Dawkins ignores evidence to fit his pre-determined theories. Here is one rather unambiguous quote from Albert Eisntein to illustrate that Dawkins paints a very selctive picture:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
quote:Or:
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.
quote:But this is far too inconvenient for Dawkins to bother mentioning. Indeed, I'm sure Einstein did not know his own mind, and was blinded by temporary insanity when he said such things.
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.
Or... just possibly... maybe... are things just a tiny bit more complicated that Dawkins presents?
quote:It's worse than that. If you can't argue from a hypothetical position, then you have lost one of the most powerful tools in logic or mathematics, i.e. where you accept a premise and then reason within the terms of that premise until you reach a contradition, thus proving (if the intermediate reasoning is valid), that the premise was untenable.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What you seem to be saying is that you (or Dawkins) is unable to argue about hypothetical situations. I don't have be an atheist to be able to argue that conclusions atheists might draw are incorrect.
quote:And you would then, through the use of 'double-blind' testing (as has been done a number of times), demonstrate conclusively that homeopathic remedies are of no value what-so-ever.
As a disbeliever in homeopathy I can attack the whole thing at its root by saying ``I don't think there is a molecular memory''.
quote:I don't understand your point: You make as though to accept a premise which you know to be a nonsense, in order to demonstrate within their framework, the flaws of the argument they present. But if their argument is logically feasible within that flawed framework, what is the point? What can you achieve?
Or I can say ``Even if there is a molecular memory, your conclusion XYZ does not follow logically from that, because ABC...''.
quote:The point is that it may be possible to refute their position without even having to consult the data. If you can prove that the position is internally inconsistent, then you save yourself the effort of doing the experiment.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I don't understand your point: You make as though to accept a premise which you know to be a nonsense, in order to demonstrate within their framework, the flaws of the argument they present. But if their argument is logically feasible within that flawed framework, what is the point? What can you achieve?
quote:So I have been told.
Originally posted by Callan:
Am I right in thinking that you can be a Zen Buddhist without believing in any supernatural entities whatsoever?
quote:That is correct. OTOH, Dawkins oversimplified and admits he knows little of Buddhism. Not surprising since he has to do battle with the entirity of Christianity first.
Originally posted by Callan:
Am I right in thinking that you can be a Zen Buddhist without believing in any supernatural entities whatsoever?
quote:So is Budhism exempt from his diatribes against religion? If so, Dawkins appears to be reinventing the word "religion" (much like he reinvented the word "faith" perhaps).
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Noiseboy.
In the book, Dawkins actually (interestingly) gave Buddhism a gloss over as being closer to a philosophical system.
As a Zen Buddhist, I thought that was rather generous of him, while probably being completely wrong.
But again don't let the book get in the way of a good rant. Carry on.
quote:The problem with the fairy, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy is that if you assign the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever) properties sufficiently similar to God's for the analogy to work, all you've done is to show that the letter string 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' can be redefined to refer to God.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, by my logic you cannot then construct a probabilistic likelihood for the existence of this "extra-fairy".
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I hereby posit that Faerie are outside the known universe too (Santa Claus lives at the North Pole of course, so I had to switch back to the Faeries). By your “logic” Faerie therefore actually exist.
quote:Buddhism (or at least the Sanbo Kyodan version I practice) is a rather different species than say, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's like comparing apples and ostriches. Apparently Dawkins gets that much.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
So is Budhism exempt from his diatribes against religion? If so, Dawkins appears to be reinventing the word "religion" (much like he reinvented the word "faith" perhaps).
quote:Thing is, I've never seen anyone else say that they agree with you about what Dawkins is saying.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Thing is, why should anyone care what you think? You just say these things over and over, I'm not quite sure why. You're no more convincing now than when you started because you never quote what Dawkins has actually written in context, or what he's actually said that leads you to this perverse hostility.
quote:Fine, avoid the question. Again.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Buddhism (or at least the Sanbo Kyodan version I practice) is a rather different species than say, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's like comparing apples and ostriches. Apparently Dawkins gets that much.
quote:Um, no. Or at least, it wasn't meant that way. Just being fed up with you calling anyone who disagrees with you a fundamentalist.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Dave Marshall - where to begin on such a vicious character assination?
quote:Those are the only two threads you've started that I can find. If you post links to a few of the others I'll have a look and certainly apologise if I've been unfair.
1. I have started a few threads on subjects I have very firm views on. This is one, climate change another. This, you inflate to all threads, which is untrue. Both this and the climate change thread are admittedly linked by my incredulity that anyone can seriously defend a certain position. Many others have not been.
quote:So let me get this right. You think that Dawkins has abandoned reason and is a fundamentalist atheist. Your evidence is that a theologian who's attacked Dawkins has included "atheistic fundamentalism" in the title of his book. Therefore anyone on this thread who disagrees with you about Dawkins is his follower and therefore also a fundamentalist atheist?
2. My contention at the beginning of this thread is that Dawkins has abandonded reason and is a fundamentalist atheist. This is certainly not a novel idea - McGrath's last book was subtitled "Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine". You may personally consider that view to be stupid, but as I have pointed out several times, the evidence suggests there are good grounds for it. It follows that Dawkins' followers on this thread would come into the same category.
quote:I didn't say no-one agreed with you. I was talking about how you respond when they don't. Interesting that you raise the question of bullying. I wonder how that works on a discussion board, and who might be responsible.
3. I am certainly not alone in my views on this thread. Re-read it if you don't believe me - more than once, people have specifically agreed with points I have made. Your behaviour here reminds me of nothing more than bullying on this point (I know - what planet am I on, eh?) Just because yourself and MadGeo loudly pat each other on the back does not mean that your views are universal and mine are those of a lone madman.
quote:Where have I said that you did? If you mean my comment about limitations, it was in the context of lack of coherent reasoning. You can have all the knowledge you like, if you can't reason it's of little use.
4. Where have I ever claimed superior knowledge?
quote:There's atheists on here, but none that I'd think are fundamentalist. Calling me a fundamentalist atheist because I disagree with you about Dawkins does not make me an atheist, fundamentalist, or any combination. You start with a false assertion (anyone defending Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist), you end up with logical contradiction (theism (my faith) equals atheism).
My one beef on this thread has been with those who claim exactly this in the form of fundamentalist atheism.
quote:Well, we agree about something.
If asked, I will be equally withering regarding any form of fundamentalist theism. I am equal opportunities against fundamentalism.
quote:I agree. I think your God of the Gaps thoughts were the first I've seen you let out. I'd have come back to you on that (out of interest) if you weren't making unfounded accusations and generally throwing your weight around.
Beyond agreeing that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, I don't think I've even suggested what my own personal views are anyway (although some have presumed them).
quote:So would you be happy for me to repeatedly call you a fundamentalist on that basis? Because that would parallel what you've been doing to me and others on this thread.
As it happens, I would be staggered if I wasn't wrong regarding much of what I believe when it comes to faith. Pretty much my only certainty is that scientific certainty on this subject does not exist.
quote:Stop pronouncing on who is and is not a fundamentalist, give up acting like you're the thread director, who knows where it will lead.
If you don't like my writing style, fune. But if you want to personally slag me off further, please do it in hell, where you will have the place to yourself.
quote:Yes, I think that's close to what's happening. The problem seems to be that neither side seems much interested in considering the implications.
Could it be that Dawkins and Anti-Dawkins are simply talking over each others heads because their use of basic terminology is fundamentally different? When Dawkins says "religion", does he really mean "religion with personal god(s)?" When he says "faith" does he mean "blind faith?" And likewise when us theists use terms in a metaphorical sense, does he assume them to be taken literally? This could go a long way to explaining the antagonism and offence.
quote:Well, you could always read the book, have look at the links I posted back up the thread, find out for yourself...
Originally posted by Papio:
Thing is, I've never seen anyone else say that they agree with you about what Dawkins is saying.
quote:Seems to go with the territory in Purg these days. What personal attacks do you think I've launched, BTW?
Oh yes, and don't think I didn't realise that that was a personal attack to go with all the other personal attacks which you have launched against me on this thread and everyone else who doesn't share your high view of Dawkins.
quote:Actually wasn't. A little busy today and I'll try to get back to you.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Fine, avoid the question. Again.
quote:Try "is that really a green george bush I see before me", "guilt is great", "is forgiveness the answer for iraq" for starters.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Those are the only two threads you've started that I can find. If you post links to a few of the others I'll have a look and certainly apologise if I've been unfair.
quote:Oh FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!
So let me get this right. You think that Dawkins has abandoned reason and is a fundamentalist atheist. Your evidence is that a theologian who's attacked Dawkins has included "atheistic fundamentalism" in the title of his book. Therefore anyone on this thread who disagrees with you about Dawkins is his follower and therefore also a fundamentalist atheist?
quote:Dave, that really is pathetic. On the same level as acusing someone who says "I don't like racist people" as being racist. Cos, you know, there's a group of people they don't like.
So would you be happy for me to repeatedly call you a fundamentalist on that basis? Because that would parallel what you've been doing to me and others on this thread.
quote:Pot, kettle, black.
give up acting like you're the thread director, who knows where it will lead.
quote:OK, is this a more productive starting point? My problem on this issue, then, is that Dawkins choses to redifine terms that are well understood, without saying he is doing so. Faith is the biggie. All the while he redefines it as "blind faith", he gets nowhere. If he is serious, he needs to make quite explicit that there is a form of belief that cannot be proven by reason, but is wholly compatible with reason. He can call it what he likes, the rest of us can call if faith as it is classically understood (as opposed to blind faith, of course). If you can find him saying this in The God Delusion, I'll eat so much humble pie I'll up a belt size.
The problem seems to be that neither side seems much interested in considering the implications.
quote:Of those, only the third point has anything like it in the God Delusion.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The charge is that Dawkins ignores evidence that does not fit his pre-determined theory. These include (but are not limited to:)
All religion is evil
Science necessarily leads to atheism
Faith is contrary to reason
quote:Well I agree with you that Dawkins often uses particular definitions, but if you READ THE BOOK you would see that he makes this quite clear.
My problem on this issue, then, is that Dawkins choses to redifine terms that are well understood, without saying he is doing so.
quote:It depends what you mean by "compatible with reason". Dawkins would agree that it is possible to reason from religious premises. He would also agree that some tenets of religious faith (such as the existence of God) cannot be conclusively disproved by reason. The most he suggests is that:
Faith is the biggie. All the while he redefines it as "blind faith", he gets nowhere. If he is serious, he needs to make quite explicit that there is a form of belief that cannot be proven by reason, but is wholly compatible with reason. He can call it what he likes, the rest of us can call if faith as it is classically understood (as opposed to blind faith, of course)..
quote:
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
Albert Einstein
in Goldman, p. vii
quote:
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
quoted in Jammer, Max, 'Einstein and Religion' (Princeton University Press, 1999)
quote:
I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.
Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, Max, 'Einstein and Religion' (Princeton University Press, 1999)
quote:
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. However, I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality.
Letter to A. Chapple, Australia, February 23, 1954; Einstein Archive 59-405; also quoted in Nathan and Norden, Einstein on Peace P. 510
quote:See also 'Subtle are Einstein's thoughts' at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/9/2/1
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...
18 April 1955 (Simpson's Contemporary Quotations, Houghton Mifflin, 1988).
quote:I looked at two of the other threads you've started (now in Oblivion - none are currently accessible via the search index). In one you showed a light touch, the other (Chris Brian and the NOS) similar to this.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Try "is that really a green george bush I see before me", "guilt is great", "is forgiveness the answer for iraq" for starters.
quote:You have clearly said that. You have equally clearly not done that. Some people consider the difference signficant.
As I CLEARLY said, throughout this thread I have shown evidence which Dawkins has disregarded in favour of a pre-existing theory (changing evidence to fit the theory).
quote:So you say. Not having been impressed by the extracts from McGrath that I have seen, I don't find that at all convincing.
McGrath has also shown plenty more.
quote:Well, yes, I suppose it would - if people here were ignoring evidence. The people I'm thinking of, me for example, would consider evidence if you provided some. Depending on how convincing it was, they might counter it. But you only appear to have your personal opinion and second-hand comments, which, as some of us have noted, is contradicted by what we've heard and read directly from Richard Dawkins.
It also follows that if people similarly chose to ignore evidence rather than counter it, they are using the same technique as Dawkins.
quote:No, the charge is that you repeatably called me and others here fundamentalist atheists when we're not. In my case because I'm convinced God is real. Nothing to do with not liking labels, or what Dawkins does or does not do.
Is someone not a fundamentalist if they believe fundamentalist things but don't like the term? The charge is that Dawkins ignores evidence that does not fit his pre-determined theory.
quote:He doesn't do that in the book, but then neither does Nicene Christianity. I do, but he doesn't know I exist. And he'd hardly include it in a book he hopes will inspire atheists anyway.
My problem on this issue, then, is that Dawkins choses to redifine terms that are well understood, without saying he is doing so. Faith is the biggie. All the while he redefines it as "blind faith", he gets nowhere. If he is serious, he needs to make quite explicit that there is a form of belief that cannot be proven by reason, but is wholly compatible with reason.
quote:On the one hand:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is, I think, a significant point that those people on this thread who are saying that there is intellectual meat in TGD are united not by any similarity of faith or opinion, but by the fact that they have actually read it - and those who are the most vocal detractors have not.
quote:It is significant. But I'm not sure the causality runs the way you (apparently) think it does. Rather, people who have assessed what Dawkins has said in various other places and found it wanting, believe it is not worth their while to read his book. Whereas those who have agreed with his stated opinions in these various other places have decided to read the book. It is significant that those people who have read the book and are most vociferously defending Dawkins are just those people you might have expected to do so before the conversation was mooted. And, of course, vice versa. With some notable exceptions.
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is, I think, a significant point that those people on this thread who are saying that there is intellectual meat in TGD are united not by any similarity of faith or opinion, but by the fact that they have actually read it - and those who are the most vocal detractors have not.
quote:Not sure where you get that from. What I'm pointing out is that while god can be attacked, faith in it can't be - faith is inviolable from outside attacks. The object of the faith might be attacked; that's why goalposts change.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What you seem to be saying is that you (or Dawkins) is unable to argue about hypothetical situations. I don't have be an atheist to be able to argue that conclusions atheists might draw are incorrect.
quote:Well, since there are no tenets to atheism, I agree that you don't have to accept any. You'd find it very difficult to achieve a hypothetical position against atheism, while you could manage it against atheists. Atheism isn't a belief system in any way.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I don't have to accept any tenet of atheism to engage with atheistic arguments. I merely have to be capable of considering the logical conclusions of what, to me, are hypothetical situations.
quote:Again, I don't think atheists could be said to base their lives on anything. Not believing fairytales isn't a lifestyle choice. The only thing atheists do as a result of atheism is not attend church. Plenty of christians don't either.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
You could argue that it is a bad idea to base your life choices on propositions that are not physically observable. I happen to disagree (because I think we all do this all the time, even atheists), but I don't see that you have to accept the revelation of scripture to argue the point.
quote:I would be inclined to agree in that atheism only describes a component of a larger world view; Theravada buddhists are also atheists, because that philosophy has no place for a divine agent. In addition, history can provide us with examples of many superstitious atheists who would not fit the ideals of rationalism that Dawkins et al. espouses. Atheism is in other words not a self-contained system.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Well, since there are no tenets to atheism, I agree that you don't have to accept any. You'd find it very difficult to achieve a hypothetical position against atheism, while you could manage it against atheists. Atheism isn't a belief system in any way.
quote:If you mean that Dafyd's post doesn't thank a poster on my behalf as if he were conducting the discussion, then yes, we agree. Beyond that, no.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Dafyd made such an excellent last post it answers most of the things I wanted to say far better than I would do (and I'm quite sure you'd agree on that!)
quote:I was going to leave Dafyd's post for Eliab as it was a response to him. But seeing you've not replied to my points yourself, see below.
The suicide bomber argument is a very good one
quote:What examples that haven't been answered? (perhaps re-read Eliab's post?)
Add these to the examples I cited in my last post that haven't been answered yet.
quote:So you have a reason not to read The God Delusion.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) I have read Dawkins' thoughts on religion in the newspapers and in his early books, and they don't inspire me to expect anything insightful in the new book.
quote:More reasons not to read the book.
2) Two out of three atheist reviewers of TGD whom I respect have rubbished the book; the review from the third didn't actually make me think that the book was any good.
quote:I guess another reason not to read the book. With added swipe at admirers of the book. Of course, without saying which posters you mean it's impossible for them to counter or even point out, should they want to, that they're not in fact admirers of the book.
3) The admirers of the book on this thread haven't given many illustrations of the arguments in the book; those they have seem to me to entirely miss the point that they're trying to refute.
quote:You clearly read differently to me. When time is short I read to follow the thread of an argument. If the logic doesn't break down I may well not stop to absorb the detailed working but still recall that the logic did not break down. Your "evidence of sophistry" sounds to me like, er, a rhetorical use of sophistry.
(MadGeo has said that the arguments he read were very convincing, but he can't remember how they work well enough to reproduce them. That's evidence of sophistry: sophistry only works if you use the original rhetoric. If you've understood a logical argument, you can reproduce it.)
quote:If the copy I read was not now back at the library, I would cite the whole passage. As I don't have that option, I'll simply suggest that when read in context, the phrase you quote will be part of a longer argument in which Dawkins paints a picture of religion as he sees it.
4) I have seen one extract from the book, which struck me as intellectually dishonest.
It's the passage regarding the suicide bombers in London, which ends up saying that 'only religion can inspire such atrocities'...
quote:Interesting progression. You've noted some valid reasons for not reading a book. Now, out of the blue, the author wants to take away your children.
Now I don't want to waste my time reading Dawkins if I'm right about the arguments I've seen and they are typical of the book. And I don't want to give money to someone who would take any children I may have away from me if he had his way.
quote:Um, yes, apart from 4) and that last bit.
Does my reasoning seem fair to you?
quote:Defend it in what terms?
Can you defend the argument regarding suicide bombers? The charges against it are:
a) he doesn't mention that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are atheists and until recently had contributed the majority of the world's suicide bombers. If he doesn't know that, he hasn't done his research.
b) the conclusion he should reach from the premises he gives is: 'only religion and love for one's family have the power to inspire such atrocities.'
c) he does nothing to justify the word 'only'.
quote:Actually, I think it's very relevant, and though I never thought of it that way, that many modern atheists (ok, the ones I argue with on craigslist) are in fact most deeply and profoundly offended by the tendency of some Christian sects to make Christianity into a "state religion." They're much more concerned with the views of George W Bush than they are with the views of Bishop Spong, for instance. What offends them most deeply is that we Christians seem to insist upon being a "Christian nation" and that some of us take offense at the phrase "secular society," or that we try to force our religious opinions on creation via the government-run public school system.
Originally Posted by Bonaventura:
Atheism is a relative term, like the term conservative. It does'nt really tell us a great deal divorced from the context it appears in. In the late Roman empire Christians were labeled as atheists because they refused to take part in the civic cult of the empire, to perform public religious duties and take part in the festivals of the Roman city. They were atheists because they denied the the sacred power of the state.
This brand of atheism does not bear much resemblance to modern western atheism, but it does demonstrate the atheism must be understood as a part of a historical context in order to be comprehensible. Modern atheist discourse is also shaped by what it seeks to attack, that is western theism.
quote:This is interesting. Can you elaborate?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yet when pushed not that hard by a journalist, he seems completely open about his belief in what I'd say is the universally defensible reality of God. He just objects to what I guess he might call the sophistry of religion.
quote:All I know is, as I sadi before Dawkins gave Buddhism a pass more or less by pointing out semi-correctly that Buddhism (or at least some forms of it) are more like a philosophy than a religion. So on the one hand you are correct that he seems to be defining "Religion" in interesting ways. Of course, as I have pointed out, I am not sure I disagree with him as a Sanbo Kyodan Zen Buddhist that doen't believe in a personal god, and not sure frankly if I believe in anything but ourselves as "gods" really, that he is off the mark when he removes Buddism from the "religious" catagory. Buddhism as western-defined religion is at best a loose fit.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:So is Budhism exempt from his diatribes against religion? If so, Dawkins appears to be reinventing the word "religion" (much like he reinvented the word "faith" perhaps).
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Noiseboy.
In the book, Dawkins actually (interestingly) gave Buddhism a gloss over as being closer to a philosophical system.
As a Zen Buddhist, I thought that was rather generous of him, while probably being completely wrong.
But again don't let the book get in the way of a good rant. Carry on.
OK, Dave Marshall has delightfully accused me of pig-headedness, so how about this. Could it be that Dawkins and Anti-Dawkins are simply talking over each others heads because their use of basic terminology is fundamentally different? When Dawkins says "religion", does he really mean "religion with personal god(s)?" When he says "faith" does he mean "blind faith?" And likewise when us theists use terms in a metaphorical sense, does he assume them to be taken literally? This could go a long way to explaining the antagonism and offence.
quote:This one is the biggest mistake I can imagine on anyones opinion on anything. His opinion is not a soundbitee on the evening news, when he has rendered his opinion in 300 or whatever pages. There's just no way that the soundbite can be accurate. This is like assuming there's no city telephone book because you have one phone number.
quote:On the one hand:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eliab:
[qb] It is, I think, a significant point that those people on this thread who are saying that there is intellectual meat in TGD are united not by any similarity of faith or opinion, but by the fact that they have actually read it - and those who are the most vocal detractors have not.
this is a fair point.
On the other hand:
1) I have read Dawkins' thoughts on religion in the newspapers and in his early books, and they don't inspire me to expect anything insightful in the new book.
quote:Again, respected or not, why not form your own opinion based on facts, not someones stories about the facts. Ever play the telephone game? Getting your opinions from someones elses opinions without reading the background is well, dangerous.
2) Two out of three atheist reviewers of TGD whom I respect have rubbished the book; the review from the third didn't actually make me think that the book was any good.
quote:LOL
3) The admirers of the book on this thread haven't given many illustrations of the arguments in the book; those they have seem to me to entirely miss the point that they're trying to refute.
(MadGeo has said that the arguments he read were very convincing, but he can't remember how they work well enough to reproduce them. That's evidence of sophistry: sophistry only works if you use the original rhetoric. If you've understood a logical argument, you can reproduce it.)
quote:Library, anyone?
4) I have seen one extract from the book, which struck me as intellectually dishonest.
It's the passage regarding the suicide bombers in London, which ends up saying that 'only religion can inspire such atrocities'.
Now I don't want to waste my time reading Dawkins if I'm right about the arguments I've seen and they are typical of the book. And I don't want to give money to someone who would take any children I may have away from me if he had his way.
quote:I'll get the hardcover book on Monday so I can quote. I can't take it anymore.
Does my reasoning seem fair to you?
(I mean Dawkins himself says that he wouldn't bother to read a book by a professed defender of fairies or a theologian - it's hardly unfair to extend the same courtesy to him.)
But I believe I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if I'm presented with evidence to change my view.
1) Can you defend the argument regarding suicide bombers? The charges against it are:
a) he doesn't mention that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are atheists and until recently had contributed the majority of the world's suicide bombers. If he doesn't know that, he hasn't done his research.
b) the conclusion he should reach from the premises he gives is: 'only religion and love for one's family have the power to inspire such atrocities.'
c) he does nothing to justify the word 'only'.
If you're willing to summarise any other passage of argument from the book that you think is cogent and relevant to religion that might also motivate me to change my opinion.
Can I say fairer than that?
Dafyd
quote:Rebirths due to samsaric karma (choice in the case of bodhisattvas) after every biological death till paranirvana surely is supernatural by our usual standards of "natural"? Even if one throws centuries of "literal rebirth" tradition in the bin (including centuries of Zen tradition), and re-interprets all this as mere metaphor for mental changes, one is still stuck with the question whether enlightenment itself is not "supernatural". After all, one needs to shed attachment to the five skandhas, and the five skandhas are precisely what we would call (human) nature in the West. Even if "samsara is nirvana", it is far from clear that waking up to this is a natural process by the Western concept of nature. And it is the Western concept we are judging Christianity by, so for a valid comparison we should also apply it to Eastern religions.
Originally posted by Callan:
If the objection is to belief in supernatural entities then clearly Zen Buddhism and parts of Taoism are exempt.
quote:Correct. Buddhists, astrologers, psychics can be and are atheists. My avatar bloke is probably the most supertitious atheist of all time - although I'd argue he was more anti-theist than atheist.
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
I would be inclined to agree in that atheism only describes a component of a larger world view; Theravada buddhists are also atheists, because that philosophy has no place for a divine agent. In addition, history can provide us with examples of many superstitious atheists who would not fit the ideals of rationalism that Dawkins et al. espouses. Atheism is in other words not a self-contained system.
quote:Not to mention that penalties are somewhat less severe for taking the piss out of Jesus as opposed to say,..... Mohammed.
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
I am certainly aware that naturalists might indeed be agnostics or even deists, but the vocal atheists of today criticise Christianity from a naturalistic angle rather than, say the perspective of Theravada Buddhism.
quote:Magnificent post. Fuck, you're a smart bloke!
Originally posted by IngoB:
IMHO it remains to be seen whether the shunyata baby has been thrown out with the supernatural bathwater...
quote:I'm not sure that one follows from the other. It seems to me that there is one simple question 'Does a "God" exist?' to which there are three possible principle reactions: 'Yes' (theist), refusal of a clear answer (agnostic), and 'No' (atheist). But one reaction is not inherently more open than the other, even the agnostic reaction isn't really more open.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
quote:Correct. Buddhists, astrologers, psychics can be and are atheists.
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Atheism is in other words not a self-contained system.
quote:It seems a bit remiss not to state your premises in the course of a newspaper article (a bit longer than a soundbite) - don't you think?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:This one is the biggest mistake I can imagine on anyones opinion on anything. His opinion is not a soundbitee on the evening news, when he has rendered his opinion in 300 or whatever pages. There's just no way that the soundbite can be accurate. This is like assuming there's no city telephone book because you have one phone number.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) I have read Dawkins' thoughts on religion in the newspapers and in his early books, and they don't inspire me to expect anything insightful in the new book.
He bases a shitload of ideas on a very few premises. Those premises are seldom stated in public but a rife in the book. Without the premise, the argument that follows sounds hollow.
quote:Thanks. That's appreciated.
[QB]I'll get the hardcover book on Monday so I can quote.
quote:The passage you cite seems to be from page 303 (of the hardback). It is talking about a specific incident – the 7/7 London bombs – used precisely because it is not a typical example of a suicide attack. The point is that the bombers had no expectation of any advantage for their families, or any advancement of their cause. The sole motivation for it – if we take Muslim suicide bombers at their word – is a religiously inspired love of martyrdom for its own sake, in expectation of purely spiritual reward.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1) Can you defend the argument regarding suicide bombers? The charges against it are:
a) he doesn't mention that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are atheists and until recently had contributed the majority of the world's suicide bombers. If he doesn't know that, he hasn't done his research.
b) the conclusion he should reach from the premises he gives is: 'only religion and love for one's family have the power to inspire such atrocities.'
c) he does nothing to justify the word 'only'.
quote:Yes. But the relevant passage is deeply buried on page 1 of the Preface, so you can be excused for missing it.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Eliab - Dawkins' documentary last year was called Religion - The Root Of All Evil. Does the God Delusion (published a few months later) deviate from that stance?
quote:If so, what’s your objection to Dawkins saying it?
Also I am struggling with the idea that if atheism is true (a statement of fact) why science would not lead to it? On what other grounds is it true?
quote:
Again, I lob in the words “transcendent” and “numinous”, which I believe sum up what he is trying to describe. God, in other words. “I suspect they don’t mean anything at all,” he says. But being a good scientist, he leaps from the sofa for a dictionary. He reads: “Numinous: divine, spiritual, revealing or indicating the presence of a divinity, awe-inspiring.” A moment’s pause. Then: “I’ll go along with awe-inspiring. Also, aesthetically appealing, uplifting. I’ll go along with aesthetically appealing and uplifting. Those aspects of it, yes. Let’s look for transcendent.”
He finds a definition to do with lying beyond the ordinary range of perception. “That’s probably all OK and I could go along with that. Going beyond the range and grasp of the presently experienced. Maybe transcendent would be a good word to adopt.”
So there we are. Dawkins sums up our conversation: “I don’t think you and I disagree on anything very much but as a colleague of mine said, it’s just that you say it wrong.”
But his crusade will not be stopped, even if it can be proved that he and half the bishops of the Christian Church believe the same thing. “I do think that intelligent, sophisticated theologians are almost totally irrelevant to the phenomenon of religion in the world today. Regrettable as that may be.” Why so? “Because they’re outnumbered by vast hordes of religious idiots.”
quote:This analysis is rubbish sitting on a pile of trash.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And one has to realize that this concern for purely "natural" Zen Buddhism is rather Western anyway. One cannot read Mahayana sutras without encountering a Tathagata whose cosmic deeds make Christ's miracles look like child's play. And the Zen tradition has festivities like O-bon, which is basically the equivalent of having a mass said to get your loved ones out of purgatory. And once one starts talking about the practices of Asian laypeople, rather than monks, one surely finds at least as much superstitious contamination as one may find in Christianity. The sanitization of the traditional Zen Buddhism in the West, which includes the monk-ification of the laity and the re-interpretation of anything that could be deemed "supernatural" as mental metaphor, is quite fascinating. IMHO it remains to be seen whether the shunyata baby has been thrown out with the supernatural bathwater...
quote:Well, that certainly answers my question re faith and blind faith! Also, your expansion on it is illuminating. "Blind Faith" means your favourite faeries FSM stuff - believe whatever you like no matter what the evidence. "Faith" means something totally different. I have a very simple picture of reason on the one hand, and truth on the other, with reason always trying to arrive at truth. For all of us (IMH0) faith is what fills the void in between. It may be made up of intution, hunches and guesswork deductions in all sorts of combintations. It may well be full of unknows and questions (especially for the agnostic). This I'm sure is TOO simple a definition, but I have to go to work and time precludes!
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I actually watched a interview of dawkins yesterday where a student asked him "Do you see a difference between reasoned faith and blind faith"
Hi hillarious answer:
"No". (May have had to be there)
I do not see the distinction either btw. I think that lots of religious people like to delude themselves into thinking that their faith is reasoned, we have certainly seen it here. But that is not possible IMO. At some point, if you drill down into a debate on anything faith-related you will come to something that requires an intuition/gut-feeling/emotion/human-based something intangible that is for all intents "blind". God is a faery/FSM/Pink Unicorn/etc. Full stop. To believe anything that is said about god, you have to leap that there is one at all. Everything that follows is based on that blind leap, and is therefore also blind faith. Anything.
I am not sure I understood what you even meant "theists use terms In a metaphorical sense". After having been thoroughly deeply steeped in a Christian religion, I sometimes don't know where Christians stop metaphor and begin facts. I'm not sure anyone can, including you. Sure you could pick your flavor of Christianity and there would be three other forms that would render it metaphor, or not. Hard to address that.
quote:Forced on him by his editors, apparently.
Eliab - Dawkins' documentary last year was called Religion - The Root Of All Evil. Does the God Delusion (published a few months later) deviate from that stance? Also I am struggling with the idea that if atheism is true (a statement of fact) why science would not lead to it? On what other grounds is it true?
quote:If you mean the universally defensible reality of God, I'm not sure I can directly. It may be something you either get or you don't. Dawkins seems to get it, as does Mad Geo, as do many Christians. The problem is we get it through different 'carriers' and are prone to confusing what is the reality with how we appreciate it. We especially seem to confuse the reality with the carrier we first detect it through.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:This is interesting. Can you elaborate?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yet when pushed not that hard by a journalist, he seems completely open about his belief in what I'd say is the universally defensible reality of God. He just objects to what I guess he might call the sophistry of religion.
quote:Without wanting to detract from the trauma of physical child abuse, I'd have thought there are enough guilt-ridden Catholics about to suggest he may not be far wrong.
Originally posted by Callan:
Apparently, bringing one's child up as a Catholic may be more damaging than having your child tampered with by a Catholic priest.
quote:Yes, taking your child to church sure is the same as repeatedly raping them, is it not? So anyone who has ever taken their child to church (that'll be most shipmates with kids then, I assume) might as well have sexually molested their children?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Without wanting to detract from the trauma of physical child abuse, I'd have thought there are enough guilt-ridden Catholics about to suggest he may not be far wrong.
Originally posted by Callan:
Apparently, bringing one's child up as a Catholic may be more damaging than having your child tampered with by a Catholic priest.
quote:I certainly wouldn't know anything about that!
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The trouble with these threads is that they take so long to read and even longer to reply to. Dave Marshall, I am well aware that I am missing some specific replies (and almost certainly you too Elaib and Mad Geo) but time precludes at the moment.
quote:Glad to finally be of service.
In the five minutes I have, a couple of points that lept out:
Well, that certainly answers my question re faith and blind faith!
Also, your expansion on it is illuminating.
quote:Not sure I agree, and that comes out of 2x years of trying to tease out the difference myself. I want to emphasize that I do not see "blind faith" as the perjorative that you might. Too me blind faith is a blessing. My mom has blind faith and regularly uses it when she can't explain something using reason. I get that. There's nothing "wrong" there. Becuase IMO, Dawkins perspective is right. All faith is based somewhere on a blind faith.
"Blind Faith" means your favourite faeries FSM stuff - believe whatever you like no matter what the evidence. "Faith" means something totally different.
quote:I think you stated it well. "Faith is what fills the voids." that is not reason-able. A scientist such as Dawkins trys to fill the voids with data and theories and then tries to prove them. They have filled many god-voids over the years and many more will fall in our lifetimes. Some may not, but the scientist should naturally be suspicious of attempts to fill voids with "Here there be dragons". It's just not a reasonable step to take, unless you are religous and look at the void filling as an Art.
I have a very simple picture of reason on the one hand, and truth on the other, with reason always trying to arrive at truth. For all of us (IMH0) faith is what fills the void in between. It may be made up of intution, hunches and guesswork deductions in all sorts of combintations. It may well be full of unknows and questions (especially for the agnostic). This I'm sure is TOO simple a definition, but I have to go to work and time precludes!
quote:Yes, you and I agree it is a myth. It is unquestionable. Except an insane number of Americans (which Dawkins also is addressing if not in entirity) think, nay, know otherwise!
There is also the point about metaphor, which I think is very important. An obvious simple example is creation - whether or not you or I believe in the Biblical account, it's very hard to defend its interpretation being literal. It is a myth - a metaphor to make a wider point.
quote:I would wager that most Christians (closer to all than to none) believe that God is a chap. A big chap maybe, an awesome chap, but a chap. We anthropomorphise our cats and dogs for Zeus sake, you actually think we exmpt god?
But I was more thinking about even wider implications. Dawkins seems to imagine that monotheists imagnine God to be "some sort of chap" (in Terry Eagleton's marvellous phrass) - probably the Simpsonsesque caracature with a white beard sitting on a cloud.
quote:Zen Buddhism deasl in the here and now. That's very literal.
Add in his son Jesus literrally sitting at his right hand. I consider myself a theist, but I think there is a 0% chance of the above picture being literally accurate. Pictures of father / son etc are just that - pictures to make anthropomorphic sense of the imponderable. Personally I also think Budhism may better describe things in a more literal sense, though since it too is a metaphor I'm not sure it is a more helpful approach.
quote:Dawkins may be making sweeping generilzaitons, but that doesn't mean he deosn't have a point or three.
Arrrgh, gotta go to work.
But the final main point is the Dawkins quote kindly supplied by 206, which I did find incredibly illuminating. My reading of it is that under all the rhetoric, we are not nearly so far apart as it seems. But Dawkins is very keen on then a) continuing to use terms which he must know are widely understood to mean totally different things and b) making sweeping assumptions about the vast majority of people in the world.
quote:I do apologise. I see Dawkins hasn't said that it is the same thing. He has said that rasing your kids to believ in God is worse.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Yes, taking your child to church sure is the same as repeatedly raping them, is it not? So anyone who has ever taken their child to church (that'll be most shipmates with kids then, I assume) might as well have sexually molested their children?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Without wanting to detract from the trauma of physical child abuse, I'd have thought there are enough guilt-ridden Catholics about to suggest he may not be far wrong.
Originally posted by Callan:
Apparently, bringing one's child up as a Catholic may be more damaging than having your child tampered with by a Catholic priest.
I see. Exaggerate much?
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Read for comprehension. I did not say that you or indeed Japanese Zen Buddhists are saying mass (although you've obviously never experienced a full-blown Zen ritual, oh well...). I was talking about the intent behind the O-Bon festivities. Since your "Zen master" is a Western Catholic priest, it doesn't particularly surprise me that you've never even heard of O-Bon. But you could at least look it up on Wikipedia or something.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Since I can talk about my particular school of zen with some experience, we do not say any kind of mass over anything. We sit facing a wall and count our breaths, and if you can find some pseudotheological babble to work out of that I'll be entertained to point out where your argument is full of crap.
quote:I was practicing in an official Australian Zendo of the Sotoshu, the biggest Zen sect in Japan and the world, which has carried on the tradition of Dogen Zenji (and Keizan Zenji) for almost eight hundred years. My former teacher, a Japanese, was trained as monk in Japan at Eheiji, was assistant to and is Dharma heir of the former Abbot of Zuioji and Vice-Abbot of Eheiji, Ikko Narasaki Roshi. (Eheiji is one of the two head temples of Sotoshu, and its abbot is basically the head adminstrator of the entire sect.) My former teacher led a training monastery for foreign (non-Japanese) monks in Shogoji, was Practice Director at Zuigakuin Temple, etc. I think I've had a fairly authentic taste of the original Bendoho (way), Soto style. I was once part of the local Shika Ryo, i.e., I introduced basics of Zen practice to first timers. I did not get enlightened, but I sure have done enough time on a zafu to have an opinion.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Whatever sect of Buddhism you were ostensibly practicing was way more "religious" than any Zen I have heard about or experienced, so maybe you should specify the one you know (As I did) and stay away form the ones you clearly don't. Every time you talk about it, you arguments sound ignorant.
quote:I was actually trying to ask for your evidence that Dawkins is open about his belief in a "universally defensible reality of God", though your reply is also interesting.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:If you mean the universally defensible reality of God, I'm not sure I can directly. It may be something you either get or you don't. Dawkins seems to get it, as does Mad Geo, as do many Christians. The problem is we get it through different 'carriers' and are prone to confusing what is the reality with how we appreciate it. We especially seem to confuse the reality with the carrier we first detect it through.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:This is interesting. Can you elaborate?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yet when pushed not that hard by a journalist, he seems completely open about his belief in what I'd say is the universally defensible reality of God. He just objects to what I guess he might call the sophistry of religion.
The carrier might be religion, but it might also be art, or science, or philosophy, whatever gives meaning to our life. For me it's a metaphysical theory, a way of imagining how the universe is being created.
quote:Yeah, but if you read the book you'd know that by God he means his caricature of God. The one that's a dead ringer for the fundamentalist God, and is uncomfortably close to the one that an awful lot of non-fundamentalist Christians appear to believe in.
Originally posted by Papio:
I see Dawkins hasn't said that it is the same thing. He has said that rasing your kids to believ in God is worse.
quote:Inka shomei in the Yasutani Roshi line, that is?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
My "priest" is also an authorized Zen teacher.
quote:Good to know that 'way more "religious" than any Zen I have heard about or experienced', with which you characterized the Zen I was 'ostensibly practicing', was meant in an entirely neutral fashion. What I said about your sect is true, and the only value judgment I explicitly made was that Kapleau Roshi (RIP) was quite good. Let me ask you again, did you actually ever read anything by either Aitken Roshi or Kapleau Roshi?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
But then I am not badmouthing your flavor of zen either.
quote:I was thinking mainly of the interview that 206 quotes near the top of this page. But it's been there, and I've always thought carefully included, in most over what I've heard and read directly from him (as opposed to filtered through the comments of his detractors).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I was actually trying to ask for your evidence that Dawkins is open about his belief in a "universally defensible reality of God", though your reply is also interesting.
quote:The first page was the one I was thinking of.
Originally posted by Eliab:
a) While Dawkins does not explicitly say that the Tamil Tigers are atheist, they are mentioned as a contrast to the London bombers twice (page 303 and page 306).
quote:Yes, but if you analyse that statement logically, what it comes out as is:
b) If the question was “What can make someone a suicide bomber?” then this is his conclusion, more or less (though he includes love of country or ethnic group as other possible motivators). However that isn’t the question that is answered by “only religion”. That question is “When suicide bombing makes no tactical sense, will ruin your family, outrage the morals of your society, harm your cause, increase the vilification of your community, and gain no advantage for you or anyone you love in this world – what could possibly still make someone sane yearn to martyr themselves in this way?”. The answer, “religion”, is simply correct. The London bombings – the specific case in point – are simply inexplicable outside a religious world-view.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Inka shomei in the Yasutani Roshi line, that is?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
My "priest" is also an authorized Zen teacher.
quote:Good to know that 'way more "religious" than any Zen I have heard about or experienced', with which you characterized the Zen I was 'ostensibly practicing', was meant in an entirely neutral fashion. What I said about your sect is true, and the only value judgment I explicitly made was that Kapleau Roshi (RIP) was quite good. Let me ask you again, did you actually ever read anything by either Aitken Roshi or Kapleau Roshi?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
But then I am not badmouthing your flavor of zen either.
quote:I agree with you here, though I think Dawkins is a narrow-minded, arrogant academic.
The antagonism and offense is completely irrational. On both sides. It comes (IMO) from trying to define in logical terms that which is not.
quote:I have seen miracles myself. Penn and Teller do them all the time.
Originally posted by Basket Case:
from Mad Geo:
quote:I agree with you here, though I think Dawkins is a narrow-minded, arrogant academic.
The antagonism and offense is completely irrational. On both sides. It comes (IMO) from trying to define in logical terms that which is not.
Here's why: When someone believes in God, the God who sent his son to redeem us and show us the way (I think every Christian religion would agree on those tenets) but then
thinks it is "unreasonable" to believe in modern miracles (such as well-documented Fatima),& thus rejects them out of hand, I wonder what they really believe in. I realize it may just be different personality types, but in this case, ISTM that their elevation of their own reason above their own faith might be more of a hindrance than a help to them (IMHO only, and I mean that sincerely and deeply)
quote:No. I simply think that trying to portray taking children to church as worse then sexual abuse is idiotic in the utmost extreme.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You think a life-time in fear of eternal damnation because of what and how you were taught from a young age by the Church is not something worth objecting to?
quote:Now you're on it!
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Yes, taking your child to church sure is the same as repeatedly raping them, is it not? So anyone who has ever taken their child to church (that'll be most shipmates with kids then, I assume) might as well have sexually molested their children?
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Without wanting to detract from the trauma of physical child abuse, I'd have thought there are enough guilt-ridden Catholics about to suggest he may not be far wrong.
Originally posted by Callan:
Apparently, bringing one's child up as a Catholic may be more damaging than having your child tampered with by a Catholic priest.
I see. Exaggerate much?
quote:This was the kind of thing I was thinking of.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I would certainly argue that bringing children up to believe that to commit sin is to invite an eternity in hell, or cancer in this life, is akin to child abuse, but those people are - fortunately - still in the severe minority.
quote:Ooh, I thought this was a fight to the death between those of us who have read the book and those of us who can't be bothered. Anyway, if you can think of a context that would justify such a remark do let me know. The only one I can think of is that it is a justified criticism. Which you've just conceded isn't the case.
But you're right. It wasn't a fair comparison. Neither I suspect was Callan's original comment without it's context.
quote:I not sure it is as straightforward as that, since atheism is not a self-contained system it becomes imperative to know which God is being rejected and why. The God some atheists reject, I reject as well. The atheist and theist have to agree on the meaning behind the proposition "God exists", in order to sort out whether the theist is affirming what the atheist is denying. There has to be some sort of conceptual ground-clearing here.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure that one follows from the other. It seems to me that there is one simple question 'Does a "God" exist?' to which there are three possible principle reactions: 'Yes' (theist), refusal of a clear answer (agnostic), and 'No' (atheist). But one reaction is not inherently more open than the other, even the agnostic reaction isn't really more open.
quote:No, this line of thinking reduces to absurdity. If you only have to show that beliefs are not false, you have no (logical) basis for not teaching your children to bow to the FSM on the way to school out of respect for the spirit of pasta.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Parents teaching children about (mortal) sin are just the same, except they are concerned with the eternal welfare of their children. Unless one can prove that there is no heaven and hell, then that would be like teaching traffic rules while living in the wilderness. But one cannot show that, and hence all this critique really boils down disbelief. It is not freedom if parents tell their children to play on the road however they please. It's gross negligence. Similarly it is not freedom if parents tell their children that sin has no consequence - if judgment, heaven and hell, is reality.
quote:I don't think anyone has suggested The God Delusion is a literary work of art. The question seems to be whether the book as whole misrepresents religion.
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm currently enjoying a lamentably bad examination of the Five Ways. This is shaping up to be the worst book I have read since Dembski's "Intelligent Design - A Bridge Between Science And Theology".
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you only have to show that beliefs are not false, you have no (logical) basis for not teaching your children to bow to the FSM on the way to school out of respect for the spirit of pasta.
quote:Actually I think we're all willing to concede that it's very well written. In fact, I think our worry is that Dawkins is a rather better writer than he is a logician. Wherever there is a hole in the argument, there comes a patch of fine writing denouncing irrationality and the hole is covered over.
I don't think anyone has suggested The God Delusion is a literary work of art.
quote:I call this absurdity "freedom of religion". I'm not aware of anyone developing the FSM from dimwit mockery to a full-blown religion which includes worship and morals. But if someone does, then neither you nor the state have any right to stop that person from teaching their children to bow to the spirit of pasta. The state has a right to limit religion where it represents a clear and present danger to the state and its governance. The state may have a right to limit the expression of religion in the public sphere, where that disrupts public order - although here the situation is getting far from clear (e.g., does the state have the right to force Muslim girls to attend co-ed sports lessons at school?). Finally, the state may interfere even with family life if the well-being and life of one of its citizens is clearly threatened - but here the danger must be so undeniable that the gross violation of privacy is justifiable (e.g., religious honor killings, refusal of life-saving blood transfusions, etc.). Other than that it's the state's job to protect the freedoms of its citizenry, not to take them away.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
No, this line of thinking reduces to absurdity. If you only have to show that beliefs are not false, you have no (logical) basis for not teaching your children to bow to the FSM on the way to school out of respect for the spirit of pasta.
quote:Dawkins (and perhaps you too?) is lacking a fundamental mental category: believing for sure. It is understandable that with such a mental handicap faith becomes difficult to grasp. It cannot be a requirement for religious parents to privilege their knowledge over their faith, for that would imply a doubt about the certainty of their beliefs which they simply do not have if they have faith. What is a requirement, as correctly worked out after centuries of struggle, is to make a distinction between knowledge and faith concerning what can be expected of other people. I can expect other people to know what I know, or at least to learn what I know once that becomes important, but I cannot expect other people to believe what I believe for sure. This is precisely why there must be freedom of religion. Hence parents are not required to teach their children that some belief is doubtful because it is not knowledge, rather they are required to teach their children that others can disagree with this belief without being insane or deceitful.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Sin, judgement, heaven and hell have no more universally defensible reality than anything else that has no empirical base. A parent who does not at the appropriate stage in the child's development distinguish between what is personal belief and what can (and cannot) be known for sure is the one who IMO (and I think Dawkins') is grossly negligent.
quote:I'm not comprehending you: would you explain exactly what 'believing for sure' means, and how its lack is a mental handicap?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Dawkins (and perhaps you too?) is lacking a fundamental mental category: believing for sure. It is understandable that with such a mental handicap faith becomes difficult to grasp.
quote:RE is necessary in its own right, taught by theology/RS graduates and not subsumed under history - but this will become a tangent.
Originally posted by IngoB:
For the sake of even further clarification, when I wrote of being able to reject further religious education at 14 years of age, I primarily meant RE by the parents at home (or RE through the direct agency of the parents, e.g., through sending their child to Sunday school). As far as RE at public schools is "indoctrination" (for the want of a better word), I would obviously also have the same law apply. Whether RE at public schools in the sense of learning about religion is necessary, and necessary as a separate course from for example history or philosophy, is a different question.
quote:It means assigning certainty to a particular mental concept or mental state by an act of will, in spite of not being able to determine this certainty sufficiently from known data by reason. This certainty is expressed through the concrete thoughts, words, and actions that flow from it - a serene emotional state is however not always implied. The act of will generally comes about through trusting information given by someone else.
Originally posted by 206:
I'm not comprehending you: would you explain exactly what 'believing for sure' means, and how its lack is a mental handicap?
quote:And somehow Dawkins (and perhaps Dave Marshall) doesn't do this?
And herein lies the mental handicap of those who find faith generally difficult or impossible. Sometimes one has to take a chance and act wholeheartedly as if something were true, or one will be reduced as a human being.
quote:Dave can answer for himself. I think likely that some people have more "talent for faith" than others, just as with all other human features. And I think it is quite possible that Dawkins is a the extreme "untalented for faith" end of spectrum, it would explain a lot (and excuse him to a large extent). Replace "talented for faith" by "gullible" and "untalented for faith" by "sceptical" to see that it is far from clear where the "optimum" concerning faith is. It seems very unlikely though that Dawkins would lead the life he is leading if he had no faith in anything, he certainly does not appear to be socially dysfunctional enough.
Originally posted by 206:
quote:And somehow Dawkins (and perhaps Dave Marshall) doesn't do this?
And herein lies the mental handicap of those who find faith generally difficult or impossible. Sometimes one has to take a chance and act wholeheartedly as if something were true, or one will be reduced as a human being.
quote:IMO that's as far as you can go.
Or is he simply too blinkered to see how much he depends on faith himself?
quote:You confuse a choice of explanation - created or accidental universe, God or no God - with theories about the nature of the creator God if that is our choice. The universal defensible reality of God - the fact of the universe and what can be shown to follow - is the limit of what we can reasonably claim is inferred by choosing the created explanation.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I fail to see why you think Dawkins' strictures against the Flying Spaghetti Monster fail to apply to your belief in the 'universally defensible reality of God'. If, as you say the universally defensible reality of God is only an assumption - and you could equally well assume another way - what makes it any more defensible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Nicene Creed? Nothing.
quote:I don't see how believing in the Nicene Creed makes you honest about anything. The evidence for your beliefs being fruitful in the way you suggest is all theory, the evidence circumstantial at best. As a philosopher or an historian you may well be able to construct in your mind a personal map of reality that includes the claims of the Nicene Creed as fact. To adapt your signature, that doesn't make it so.
as a believer in the Nicene Creed I can be honest about my historical roots, and I can point to areas in which my beliefs have been genuinely fruitful in generating innovations in ethics, philosophical anthropology, and in building the groundwork for the scientific method.
quote:I totally agree. I echoed your use of 'grossly negligent' for symmetry in my reply, not to suggest any state action. Apologies for missing the context in your post.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not aware of anyone developing the FSM from dimwit mockery to a full-blown religion which includes worship and morals. But if someone does, then neither you nor the state have any right to stop that person from teaching their children to bow to the spirit of pasta.
quote:No need to be offensive. I could equally suggest that your refusal to acknowledge the artificial nature of your particular believing for sure category indicates some kind of mental deficiency.
Dawkins (and perhaps you too?) is lacking a fundamental mental category: believing for sure. It is understandable that with such a mental handicap faith becomes difficult to grasp.
quote:Wow. You're a hard case, mate. On one hand, I was blown away by one of your posts the other day, then you come out with this, which is sheer and utter bullshit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Nobody seems to have a problem with parents teaching their children to look out for cars before crossing a road, or teaching them to obey traffic lights and pay attention to street signs. Because if they do not do that, there's a decent chance that the child will get run over by a car and be maimed or die. This does cause occasional guilt in adults who have just crossed a street in spite of a red light, and surely there are some pathological cases which cannot set a foot out of the house for fear of getting run over. Yet teaching the traffic rules generally is seen as a duty of parents, not as something terrible they do to their children.
Parents teaching children about (mortal) sin are just the same, except they are concerned with the eternal welfare of their children. Unless one can prove that there is no heaven and hell, then that would be like teaching traffic rules while living in the wilderness.
quote:Dawkins says that there is no such thing as a faith choice: either you stick to the evidence or you go beyond the evidence with faith. And if I had to choose between you and Dawkins, I'd have to choose Dawkins. Because if the choice is as you describe it, the intellectually honest thing is to do without God.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
We have no alternative about created or not: it has to be a faith choice. Describing and acknowledging as such the universally defensible reality of God requires no additional faith, only recognition.
quote:Then in that respect, as far as I can tell without any context, Dawkins, with IngoB, is wrong.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Dawkins says that there is no such thing as a faith choice: either you stick to the evidence or you go beyond the evidence with faith.
quote:Huh. I'm afraid you're less than convincing as a good judge of what is or is not intellectually honest.
if I had to choose between you and Dawkins, I'd have to choose Dawkins. Because if the choice is as you describe it, the intellectually honest thing is to do without God.
quote:Actually, it is certain. Just not by criteria which you accept as relevant, which however does not worry me one bit. You still believe that because I'm not stupid, I somehow must inhabit your world view. But I do not, at least anymore. Get over the culture shock already... But perhaps the analogy was not so helpful, because it made you - once more - reduce life to mere evidence. The point was rather about teaching one's children what one thinks is right and good.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
That is a proven and factual situation - child gets hit by Hummer doing 100 km/h = dead kid. If and what happens after death, is at this stage, at the very, very best, unproven.
quote:I'm always puzzled by this argument that everything must be wrong because some things are contradicting each other... It's a non sequitur and my experience in science tells me otherwise: most likely then one thing is right, and what contradicts it is wrong. I'm certain God will judge me with justice and mercy, even if I teach falsely about something of such tremendous importance as wanking...
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Even worse, christians could hardly be said to agree on what actually happens after death. From eternal hellfire to universal joy, what do you teach them? God's going to be pissed right off if he's a universalist and you go around teaching your kids that wanking will make you go to hell!
quote:I have no idea whether you'll go to hell or not. I hope not. But I believe that your atheism does not automatically doom you to hell.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Plus, I have this strange sense of deva vu that you're the bloke who belaboured me with not going to hell because ignorance is allowed.
quote:There's no such thing as "just being kids", Monsieur Rousseau. Humans never just are, that's their greatness and their tragedy.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
There is no reason, scriptural, commonsense or rational, to ram whatever version of "truth" is being rammed. Let 'em be kids.
quote:Well, your analogy's still exactly the same, because you've got a 100% death rate in one instance and a scenario based upon your faith on the other. As a scientist, you should know all about science and metaphysics and why never the twain may meet. I know you're certain of the outcome, but you're only as right as I am - within the confines of our own minds; what we think may influence others, but we can't think for them.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unfortunately, kids are sponges concerning social behavior, they soak up what's around them. If you go for a strict "hands off" approach, they will source their behavioral norm elsewhere.
]" approach, without any recourse to supernatural beings. Far better for kids to have morals because they're right than because a god might get uptight about it.
quote:First, science and metaphysics not only can, but must meet - that's why it's called metaphysics. Second, my belief in heaven and hell is not metaphysical. Metaphysics has some limited overlap with natural theology, but it cannot go that far. Third, I have never seen myself any traffic accident involving a child (lucky me). So the similarity is even stronger: in both cases my teaching is based on theory, not on experience. It is just that one theory has a faith component, the other has not.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Well, your analogy's still exactly the same, because you've got a 100% death rate in one instance and a scenario based upon your faith on the other. As a scientist, you should know all about science and metaphysics and why never the twain may meet.
quote:No. Either you are right, or I am, or neither of us. But two contradictory statements about the same thing at the same time cannot both be true. Just because I, or you, speak the truth does not necessarily mean that every reasonable listener will agree.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I know you're certain of the outcome, but you're only as right as I am - within the confines of our own minds; what we think may influence others, but we can't think for them.
quote:You say either/or, I say both/and. Further, there are topics where "Golden Rule" morals just do not say anything, but religious morals do. For example, is IVF moral?
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I'd much rather kids were taught their moralistic viewpoint from a "Do unto others... [before they do you
quote:There's a quotation from Dawkins on the subject earlier in the thread.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Then in that respect, as far as I can tell without any context, Dawkins, with IngoB, is wrong.
quote:Discussing these things with you would be much more fruitful if you didn't throw in remarks like that from time to time.
Huh. I'm afraid you're less than convincing as a good judge of what is or is not intellectually honest.
quote:Yep, that was my point.
Originally posted by IngoB:
No. Either you are right, or I am, or neither of us. But two contradictory statements about the same thing at the same time cannot both be true. Just because I, or you, speak the truth does not necessarily mean that every reasonable listener will agree.
quote:Sure it is. The golden rule certainly applies there - science allows childless couples (and women) to have children. People generally want to have children and I wouldn't want to deny someone the opportunity. Why should those couples miss out on all the fun? The dirty nappies, puddles of puke, all-night watches over sick ones, bad school reports & suspensions, fights, head lice... it's only fair that people who would otherwise escape this torture should share it with the rest of us!
Originally posted by The Atheist:
You say either/or, I say both/and. Further, there are topics where "Golden Rule" morals just do not say anything, but religious morals do. For example, is IVF moral?
quote:Okay, I've finished it. Nowhere near as bad as Dembski, I'm pleased to report. Something of a curate's egg of a book. Most of his protests against fundamentalism are justified. He is incapable of writing badly on the science involved. So probably worth the fiver I forked out for it.
I don't think anyone has suggested The God Delusion is a literary work of art. The question seems to be whether the book as whole misrepresents religion.
My reading is that from the point of view of a religious outsider, it does not. And expecting Dawkins to write from any other point of view seems unreasonable. Taken like that, whatever the book's literary limitations (and I appreciate you'll be more sensistive to these than me), I suggest it can provide the church with insights it rarely if ever sees, let alone has to consider, in its own internally-generated thinking.
quote:That doesn't help me decide whether in it's original context your quote reflects what Dawkins actually said.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a quotation from Dawkins on the subject earlier in the thread.
quote:You've yet to provide evidence for any of your claims that Dawkins' opposition to religion is unfair or intellectually dishonest.
Discussing these things with you would be much more fruitful if you didn't throw in remarks like that from time to time.
quote:No, I'm fairly sure you've not called my position 'wacky'. Until now, of course.
Hmm... I think I did use some language about your position (like 'wacky') which I shouldn't have used. Could you consider whether that language is really stronger than the language you regularly feel free to use about creedal Christianity?
quote:That's not the issue. Nobody is doubting that the end (having children) is good, or at least can be. The question is whether the means used to attain that end are morally good. It's clearly not moral to use bad means for a good end (e.g., rape is an evil means for the good end of having offspring). But how to judge the immorality of the means? Is it all just a matter of the consensus of the moral agents? Or is there such a thing as an "objective" morality? Golden Rule arguments run into trouble with systemic evil. For example, take genital mutilation, where many older women who were mutilated themselves are actually keen to carry on the tradition. They do unto their girls what has been done unto them, and if you asked them if they are following the Golden Rule, they are likely to affirm that. Yet we sense that a moral evil is being committed. What is the reference point from which we tell these women that they are being misled into propagating evil? And how do we know that we are not in a similar position concerning other moral issues? Usually everybody participating in an IVF procedure is a consenting adult, but is that really sufficient to determine that it is a morally good (or at least neutral) act?
Originally posted by The Atheist:
The golden rule certainly applies there - science allows childless couples (and women) to have children. People generally want to have children and I wouldn't want to deny someone the opportunity.
quote:Agreed - and I think this is a logical flaw. As CS Lewis points out somewhere, to have the idea of progress you need to have the idea of some fixed standard by which progress is measured. Otherwise it is merely change. Dawkins doesn't merely observe as a neutral anthropologist that our society is more tolerant and liberal than past societies in (for example) condemning racism and homophobia, he thinks that this is a genuine advance. Which would imply that there is an objective morality that stands outside society. It may well be that an atheist viewpoint can accommodate a transcendent morality that remains true whatever people universally happen to think, but he doesn't explain why he seems to hold this.
On the other hand the book is characterised by a number of quite bizarre assertions. For example Dawkins subscribes to the Whig view of history - the history of humanity is the history of progress.
quote:He does explicitly disavow any intention to do more against believers than argue with them - and equally explicitly deplores the historical taking-into-care / kidnapping of a Jewish child to ‘protect' him from a Jewish religious upbringing, so I'd feel fairly safe under his personal premiership. He supports scientific (and secular) education as being the fundamental right of every child - I don't think he supports witch-hunts.
Dawkins havers on the extent to which groups will be subject to having their children re-educated by the state but things look bleak for the Amish, the Hasidim and Gypsies and given that being raised Catholic is tantamount to child abuse I'd advise Catholics not to be complacent in the (admittedly unlikely) event of Dawkins ever being invited by HM the Queen to form a government of national unity.
quote:I thought this point of Dawkins' harsh, but fair. Gould's real point in RoA is that religion asks questions upon which science has no grounds for commenting - they are outside the scientific magisterium altogether. But he does address this AS IF he were conceding that religion does in fact have an effective mechanism for answering such questions comparable to the scientific mechanism for answering scientific questions, that is, not only are the fields of enquiry distinct but equally vital (as Gould clearly thought) but that the established disciplines for conducting that enquiry are equally developed and useful in their respective fields.
No book by Richard Dawkins would be complete without the continuation of the many academic feuds he maintains. Steven Jay Gould, we are told, could not possibly have believed what he wrote in 'Rock of Ages'. Gould, being conveniently dead, can hardly respond to this.
quote:I'm not sure that Dawkins would necessarily concede that falsifiability is absolutely determinative of whether a hypothesis is scientific. I think (judging by his other writings) that he uses ‘scientific hypothesis' to mean a factual claim about the real world that is either true or false - not any particular philosphy-of-science definition. In any case, the converse of the God hypothesis is something he thinks falsifiable (in that God could prove his own existence - although I'm not sure he's right about that), and it would be curious if proposition A is scientific but not-A is not.
He insists that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and then, rather grumpily, concedes Alister McGrath's point that the existence of God cannot be falsified. But the whole point of a scientific hypothesis is that it can be falsified.
quote:I can't blame him for that. I'm a Christian and I don't understand what is meant by calling God "simple", so I don't wonder that an atheist sees it as an absurd claim.
He's rather cross with the theologians who maintain that God is [...] simple
quote:I find I edited the word out. What I was going to say was that to an outside observer your position was just as wacky as creedal Christianity.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
No, I'm fairly sure you've not called my position 'wacky'. Until now, of course.
quote:I am glad to learn that.
I am regularly very careful not to give unnecessary offence.
quote:I said that, if you accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, then it applies equally to your position as to creedal Christianity - and therefore if Dawkins is right about the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument then your position is just as intellectually dishonest as creedal Christianity.
If you wanted to suggest reasons for the position outlined in my last two posts being less than intellectually honest, I'd welcome the opportunity to think further about it.
quote:The claim is that God isn't composed of any smaller parts, since anything composed of smaller parts wouldn't be an ultimate explanation.
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I think it means is that God isn't divisible - that we might for convenience talk about God's justice as if it were opposed to God's compassion, but we should not think of bits of God's character being separable from and acting independently of the divine nature.
quote:OK, I can't see how I could reasonably have got this meaning from what you posted before, but I think I can reply without over-heating.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I said that, if you accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, then it applies equally to your position as to creedal Christianity - and therefore if Dawkins is right about the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument then your position is just as intellectually dishonest as creedal Christianity.
quote:What the church could learn is the inadequacy of its official statements of belief in the light of Dawkins' critique. That doesn't imply I have nothing to learn from him. The difference is that his criticisms don't invalidate the basis of my faith; I have simply seen value in theorising about metaphysical questions it seems Dawkins only considers when pushed.
You keep saying that the church needs to learn from Dawkins, but you also say that Dawkins' arguments don't in any way apply to your position. If you have nothing to learn, why isn't it valid for the people you're addressing to reject Dawkins in exactly the same way?
quote:I've not dismissed any opinion of yours until you've indicated it's not been up for discussion. I don't mind a little heat, but I understand if you have other priorities.
I don't think the reasons you gave are adequate but I don't see any point in trying to convince you of the fact. Sorry to deprive you of my opinions - but as you're dismissive of them you're not losing out. I try to avoid getting heated in discussions, as it seems we both are getting.
quote:Surely the FSM argument (in Dawkins' hands) is that the existence of God can in no way be disproved but that there are no better grounds for holding it than for holding the FSM. So I don't think Dawkins is happy to acknowledge a beyond and I think he would take the view that you (and I) by holding what he would describe as 'moderate religion' legitimise the beliefs of those who hold 'extreme religion'.
Dawkins' FSM criticism does not apply equally to my position for two reasons:
1) I make no claim to know, to 'believe for sure', without empirical evidence. The faith element, my choosing to act as if God is real, is a result of my personal experience and what sense I make of it. It's non-empirical evidence that is not directly available to anyone else, so I don't use it as grounds for expecting anyone else to make the same choices.
2) This universally defensible reality of God idea is not some alternative to the Jesus story, it's simply a label that it occurred to me connects the hypothetical creator with the physical universe described by science. It introduces no new information to a scientific world view, but articulates a connection to what might lie beyond, something Dawkins seems happy to acknowledge.
quote:So this brings us back to the OP - does anyone have any evidence, anywhere, that this is true? On what basis does Dawkins conclude that the overwhelming majority of people in the world are idiots, incabable of comprehending something as basic as 6 day creation not being literally true? One might quote the alarming statistic about how many Americans believe in YEC (although I undestand there are problems with that particular survey), but even this hardly comes close to representing an "overwhelming majority" of all religious people. I have yet to see any evidence that Dawkins isn't working on his own hunches when it comes to this matter and, as has already been pointed out, actually ignored contrary evidence.
“I do think that intelligent, sophisticated theologians are almost totally irrelevant to the phenomenon of religion in the world today. Regrettable as that may be.” Why so? “Because they’re outnumbered by vast hordes of religious idiots.”
quote:This may be getting close to the real nub of it. My view (as already stated) is that the void actually keeps expanding. As compared with 100 years ago, we have to wrestle with quantum theory and the possibility of infinite numbers of universes and / or another 7 dimensions to play about with. We have to face the fact that we do not have a clue regarding 94% of the matter in the universe.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Faith is what fills the voids." that is not reason-able. A scientist such as Dawkins trys to fill the voids with data and theories and then tries to prove them. They have filled many god-voids over the years and many more will fall in our lifetimes. Some may not, but the scientist should naturally be suspicious of attempts to fill voids with "Here there be dragons". It's just not a reasonable step to take, unless you are religous and look at the void filling as an Art.
quote:Yes, but we actually know about quantum theory, which is a form of answer in and of itself. And I do not agree that we "do not have a clue" about that. We have another 100 years to get a clue and answer more questions. Then another 100. Religion had thousands of years to attempt to answer it's questions. Give science a little time, dude. It's not much to ask.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:This may be getting close to the real nub of it. My view (as already stated) is that the void actually keeps expanding. As compared with 100 years ago, we have to wrestle with quantum theory and the possibility of infinite numbers of universes and / or another 7 dimensions to play about with. We have to face the fact that we do not have a clue regarding 94% of the matter in the universe.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
"Faith is what fills the voids." that is not reason-able. A scientist such as Dawkins trys to fill the voids with data and theories and then tries to prove them. They have filled many god-voids over the years and many more will fall in our lifetimes. Some may not, but the scientist should naturally be suspicious of attempts to fill voids with "Here there be dragons". It's just not a reasonable step to take, unless you are religous and look at the void filling as an Art.
quote:The problem with metaphors, is that they are metaphors. Just look at the way metaphors are abused here on the Ship. Someone states "Here's a metaphor X". Response "Metaphor X is crap because of Y". Someone replies "Yes, because it's a METAPHOR" and so on.
And yet I passionately believe in science and the scientific method. I rather suspect that Dawkins likes to believe that a theist like me simply crosses his or her arms and is content with saying "it is all a mystery, and we'll call that mystery God". I think central to Dawkins' charge against religion is a misunderstanding regarding what religion (or much of it, anyway) actually claims.
Noiseboy's final thought (for today!) - I have been reading Karen Armstrong's excellent A History Of God, which has put me right on more than a fair few things. I was staggered to learn about the origin of Islam, and how The Prophet's original intent was to reunite the seeker with their original God. He never intended to start a new religion, but would exhort the Jew to become a more devout Jew, or the Christian to be a more devout Christian. And of course Jesus remained a devout Jew in his lifetime, and did not form his own church. I am still reflecting on all this, not least because it is the antidote to the fundamentalist view (including that, I still believe, of Dawkins). How could The Prophet reconcile the contradictory teachings in the different faiths, unless the teachings themselves were metaphors?
It does not follow that there is no literal truth in any religious story, far from it. But the history of the origins of religion demonstrates that literal, dogmatic interpretations are not what the religious leaders had in mind. And I think the evidence shows that a good number of religious people in the world still subscribe to this.
quote:That, on the other hand, is not even remotely a fair summary of anything in TGD (or any other works by Dawkins that I have read).
Originally posted by Callan:
Remember that, for Dawkins, Roman Catholics and Muslims (and probably Orthodox Jews and, indeed, Christians although this isn't explicitly stated) all count as 'religious idiots'. Sensible theologians seem to be confined to the C of E which, you will agree, in the scheme of things is rather limited.
This has less to do with statistical analysis and more to do with which denomination provides the greatest number of Public School and Oxbridge chaplains. It's an atheist spin on nineteenth century crown-and-altar Toryism. If you're not C of E you're below the salt, dear boy. This is a man, after all, who when he wants a synonym for a third world country with superstitious practices, falls back on 'Bongoland'. Not content with being the poor man's Bertrand Russell he's also aiming for the gig of being the poor man's Alan Clark.
quote:I thought you'd read that book a bit quick. What Dawkins means by God is the fundamentalist caricature. I thought the whole of chapter 1 was describing (with a bit of help from Einstein and others) what he refuses to name but that is very close to what I, and perhaps you, mean by God.
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely the FSM argument (in Dawkins' hands) is that the existence of God can in no way be disproved but that there are no better grounds for holding it than for holding the FSM.
quote:Have another look at what he said in this much linked to interview not too long ago:
I don't think Dawkins is happy to acknowledge a beyond
quote:Sounds like beyond to me.
[Dawkins] reads [from a dictionary]: “Numinous: divine, spiritual, revealing or indicating the presence of a divinity, awe-inspiring.” A moment’s pause. Then: “I’ll go along with awe-inspiring. Also, aesthetically appealing, uplifting. I’ll go along with aesthetically appealing and uplifting. Those aspects of it, yes. Let’s look for transcendent.”
He finds a definition to do with lying beyond the ordinary range of perception. “That’s probably all OK and I could go along with that. Going beyond the range and grasp of the presently experienced. Maybe transcendent would be a good word to adopt.”
quote:I don't see any moral issue at all with IVF. To me, it's no different from any other couple who decide to have children. We're simply using medical technology to assist, exactly as we do with a variety of procedures which were likely to be fatal in earlier times.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And how do we know that we are not in a similar position concerning other moral issues? Usually everybody participating in an IVF procedure is a consenting adult, but is that really sufficient to determine that it is a morally good (or at least neutral) act?
quote:Umm, no. Chapter one distinguishes between pantheism (sexed up atheism to use Dawkins' term, what Einstein believed), deism (watered down theism, God lights blue touch paper and retires immediately) and theism (God continues to take an interest in His creation). Dawkins makes it clear that all of them are unsatisfactory but that pantheism and deism are preferable to theism. The title of the book is "The God Delusion", after all, and not "My Search For The Unnameable".
quote:I thought you'd read that book a bit quick. What Dawkins means by God is the fundamentalist caricature. I thought the whole of chapter 1 was describing (with a bit of help from Einstein and others) what he refuses to name but that is very close to what I, and perhaps you, mean by God.
Originally posted by Callan:
Surely the FSM argument (in Dawkins' hands) is that the existence of God can in no way be disproved but that there are no better grounds for holding it than for holding the FSM.
quote:Sorry Bongolese, not Bongoland (p319). Still, if that isn't a coded Clarkism then what the hell is?
That, on the other hand, is not even remotely a fair summary of anything in TGD (or any other works by Dawkins that I have read).
quote:I do not want to get into a tangent on IVF, but it serves as an example for the general moral problem: you do not see an issue, I do. Who is right? Who will be the judge, and what will this be judged by? Appeal to moral consensus doesn't work if there is no consensus, and might does not make right. You judge IVF moral because it does not violate the Golden Rule concerning the adults involved. I think the Golden Rule is not the only law of morals, and judge IVF immoral because it severs the connection between marriage, sex, and procreation. Dinghy Sailor thinks the Golden Rule is actually being violated concerning the destroyed embryos, hence it's immoral. Now what? Who is the moral authority we are going to appeal to? The majority opinion of the masses? History suggests that this can be a very bad idea...
Originally posted by The Atheist:
I don't see any moral issue at all with IVF.
quote:It's only baffling if you buy into the anti-Dawkins rhetoric. It confirms for me what I've suspected since I first took an interest, and is consistent with the odd paragraph or comment he always seems to include in his output but that his opponents like to overlook.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
206's Dawkins quote at the top of page 6 baffles me completely.
quote:I think this is where he's deliberately careless with his use of language for effect. I imagine by religious idiots he means people, in all other respects as intelligent or whatever as anyone else, who when it comes to religion behave like idiots. Reason goes out the window. Reading the Ship, I often find it hard not to agree with him.
On what basis does Dawkins conclude that the overwhelming majority of people in the world are idiots
quote:These simplistic classifications were the first weakness I picked up in the book. He only provides himself with these options, so he lumps Einstein in with pantheism. My reading of Einstein, which seems very close to Dawkins' own understanding in the interview, seems not at all pantheistic. He's using the wrong label; what Einstein and he actually describe is very close to what I think of as an appreciation of God.
Originally posted by Callan:
Chapter one distinguishes between pantheism (sexed up atheism to use Dawkins' term, what Einstein believed), deism (watered down theism, God lights blue touch paper and retires immediately) and theism (God continues to take an interest in His creation).
quote:I think there probably is an objective morality, but no moral way of enforcing it. If it depends on belief in God as creator, and I suspect it does, we can't legitimately appeal to it when talking to non-believers. So in practice we have no alternative but to rely on negotiated agreement and try to learn from history what works. And what doesn't.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Who is the moral authority we are going to appeal to? The majority opinion of the masses? History suggests that this can be a very bad idea...
quote:What 'Bongolese' is, is a silly, made-up word used in the context of giving a made-up example of something that would be a silly thing to say.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Sorry Bongolese, not Bongoland (p319). Still, if that isn't a coded Clarkism then what the hell is?
That, on the other hand, is not even remotely a fair summary of anything in TGD (or any other works by Dawkins that I have read).
quote:I'm a lawyer. Condescension is part of my normal discourse. Why should I object to it in others?
Are you really saying that you managed to read the God Delusion without ever noting the occasional condescending tone in Dawkins' voice?
quote:History suggests its a worse idea to let a extreme minority opinion dictate morality.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Who is the moral authority we are going to appeal to? The majority opinion of the masses? History suggests that this can be a very bad idea...
quote:And
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
It's only baffling if you buy into the anti-Dawkins rhetoric.
quote:There. Right there is the problem. With one hand, you dismiss considered criticism of Dawkins as "rhetoric". When we try and pin down what, underneath the bluster, he actually means then, it turns out he is actually deliberately careless with his language.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I think this is where he's deliberately careless with his use of language for effect.
quote:No, I've disagreed with your criticism, and said why.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
With one hand, you dismiss considered criticism of Dawkins as "rhetoric".
quote:Who do you mean, we? I hadn't noticed anyone appointing you to speak for them...
When we try and pin down what, underneath the bluster, he actually means then, it turns out he is actually deliberately careless with his language.
quote:Er, wait, hasn't he written a book explaining that in some detail? Some people have read that, plus the links to the interview. What exactly are you thinking is missing? How could you get more accurate information about what Richard Dawkins thinks without doing a PhD on him?
no-one has supplied any evidence to suggest that Dawkins' sweeping rejection of the overwhelming majority of the faith of religious people in the world is based on anything more than a hunch
quote:Who would clap and cheer? Are you a cheerleader now?
I think most of us on this forum would clap and cheer if Dawkins wrote a book vilifying fundamentalism in all its forms and praising the more common non-fundamentalist expressions of faith - I know I would.
quote:Without reading the book, you don't know how he defines 'faith' or 'God'. It is confusing, but there's no way round it if want to know what he means.
But this is not what Dawkins does - he claims faith is irrational and God is a delusion.
quote:Er, why should he be able to? He might work with people who think for themselves and don't always tell him when or why they disagree.
He cannot explain why colleagues disagree with him (many of whom have written careful explanations regarding faith and religion)
quote:And you assess Dawkins on the basis of what they think, rather than make up your own mind based on, oh, I don't know, what Dawkins says himself?
Many times I have asked of people "yeah, but doesn't he really mean fundamentalism?" And back comes the answer - "No. He doesn't".
quote:Get eating.
I'll get round to eating that humble pie.
quote:A final piece of bullshit to top a pile of crap. It's OK, you don't need to make special mention that you're only speaking for you. Most people never seem to imagine they're speaking for anyone else. I should probably have left your post to speak for itself, but there you go. I won't be replying to you again.
But at the moment (purely from my perspective, Mr Marshall, lest you take offence) Dawkins' arguments have fallen, and the charges against him that started the thread very much stand.
quote:Er... but this is exactly the same point that he made in the Times article which started this thread, and (crucially) is also his new introduction to the paperback edition. Which was my original point - those words were carefully considered. And ARE in the book.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you look at the context, what I suggested was deliberate carelessness was a throw-away comment, perhaps said with a smile to the journalist he'd been talking to for an hour, at the end of the interview that's been linked to. Different situation, different context to the book
quote:I admire Dawkins because he's a 'player' who managed to devise for himself a public platform and IMO he makes some points theists should consider.
I hope that other posters who are admirers of Dawkins do have a go at answering the questions though, since they are sincerely asked.
quote:A dilemma, perhaps. But by making outlandish statements of course he undermines his scientific reputation. Would a (much more justifiable) attack on fundamentalism have been SO bad? It could certainly be supported from science, and it would no doubt generate headlines without compromising his reputation.
Originally posted by 206:
I admire Dawkins because he's a 'player' who managed to devise for himself a public platform and IMO he makes some points theists should consider.
Unfortunately, ISTM, in this 'media age' hyperbole is nearly a necessity in order to get attention and Dawkins understands that well; perhaps too well.
I'm not sure we'd be discussing him if he wasn't willing to make outlandish statements. From his standpoint: what's a guy to do?
quote:I know you'll be disappointed, but not replying doesn't mean I won't be correcting errors and misrepresentations.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Despite repeatedly asking - specifically - if Dawkins has any evidence that the views of the overwhelming majority of religious people are idiots, you chose to respond with a "go and read the book".
quote:Again, not something to worry about, but there's no mention of religious idiots in The Times article. Dawkins says "the melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible" (discussed earlier I think) but not what you say he's said. Why am I not surprised?
quote:Er... but this is exactly the same point that he made in the Times article which started this thread, and (crucially) is also his new introduction to the paperback edition. Which was my original point - those words were carefully considered. And ARE in the book.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you look at the context, what I suggested was deliberate carelessness was a throw-away comment, perhaps said with a smile to the journalist he'd been talking to for an hour, at the end of the interview that's been linked to. Different situation, different context to the book
quote:I don't know quite how to put this, but I've only reflected what's been in your posts. If you think that's said anything about your character, maybe it's not me that's responsible. I've said nothing bizarre; it's only been the blatant half-truths and untruths that litter your posts that have had me offering a view on their lack of usefulness.
Although it is not particularly edifying, I will confess I shan't miss any more of your character assasinations and, er, bizarre lashings out.
quote:
I never think I'm speaking for anyone but me, but since you have it in your head that I do, I made the reference in the last post.
Hmm. Now that is bizarre.quote:I'll just note after that message that what with your attempt to dredge up dirt on what was for many people an uncomfortable episode (Chris Brain and the NOS), your anti-Martin Durkin crusade with the Climate Change thread, and your continuing efforts at fermenting hostility here towards Richard Dawkins (after people who have read the book and interview have articulated a fairly clear picture of his actual position), I'm a little unsure what you mean by sincere.
I hope that other posters who are admirers of Dawkins do have a go at answering the questions though, since they are sincerely asked.
quote:Of course there fucking are.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Yeah it was only number 4 on the New York Times best seller list for 16 weeks. Apparently there are enough athiests to drive a book to number 4.
Yeah, right.
quote:We know what he has said in his approximatel;y 545421757541451753415671375 newspaper articles on the fucking subject. Why would the book be different?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
weigh in as if you know what it says is the stupid part.
quote:I think you might be missing the situation in USA. It's been well established that they are unpopular and untrustworthy in the eyes of the general population. That in itself is a form of persecution: saying someone is untrustworthy because he/she's an atheist.
Originally posted by Papio:
Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
quote:Ok, I agree with not derailing this - even though the Dawkins aspect is becoming a little repetitive - but this is why we have ethics committees. Someone definitely has to decide these questions and I agree that seeking a consensus is hopeless. Pity is for your crowd that the vast majority of medical doctors are on my team.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not want to get into a tangent on IVF, but it serves as an example for the general moral problem: you do not see an issue, I do. Who is right? Who will be the judge, and what will this be judged by? Appeal to moral consensus doesn't work if there is no consensus, and might does not make right.
Objective morality from a subjective perspective - atheists are great!
quote:Didn't work for Kant, and with all due respect, he's a zillion times smarter than any atheists I've ever met.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Objective morality from a subjective perspective - atheists are great!
quote:From the article:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
quote:I think you might be missing the situation in USA. It's been well established that they are unpopular and untrustworthy in the eyes of the general population. That in itself is a form of persecution: saying someone is untrustworthy because he/she's an atheist.
Originally posted by Papio:
Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
They are unquestionably a tiny minority in USA.
Gallup Poll results
quote:It would be interesting to see comparable figure for the UK. Personally, not a single one of those things would make either a positive or a negative difference in how I voted. Likewise, I couldn't really care less whether the person is a Christian or not. I don't personally vote for an individual anyway. I'll vote the party who in my estimation have the most sensible policies...
Catholic
95
4
Black
94
5
Jewish
92
7
A woman
88
11
Hispanic
87
12
Mormon
72
24
Married for the third time
67
30
72 years of age
57
42
A homosexual
55
43
An atheist
45
53
quote:Oh, goody. Morals by committee. It's our finest and brightest who love sitting on committees. Whatever could go wrong...
Originally posted by The Atheist:
but this is why we have ethics committees. Someone definitely has to decide these questions and I agree that seeking a consensus is hopeless.
quote:Great at what? Self-contradictory slogans? The ethics committees at universities and medical centers are practical affairs. Mostly it's about limiting harm to what is necessary, informed consent, etc. And about obeying a thousand rules and regulations... Ethics committees are not much engaged in advancing philosophical ethics, actually. Which brings us to the point: whether for example IVF is immoral or not in our system ends up as the question whether it is deemed illegal or not. And that question is eventually put to parliament, at least if enough people feel concerned. So if you feel confident that politicians on the lookout for re-election are good guardians of morals, then everything is fine.
Originally posted by The Atheist:
Unlucky; you've had 1900-odd years of doing the morality bit, it's our turn now!
quote:Bollocks!
Disagreement in a few points today doesn't change the fact that historically Western humanism derives from Christian morals,
quote:No
I think you'd struggle to demonstrate that the Enlightenment had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.
quote:That might be true of Galileo, but it wouldn't be true of Newton. Rousseau's 'Confession of a Savoyard Preacher' owes rather a lot to Pascal and to the fideism of his native Geneva. And I'll see your David Hume and raise you an Immanuel Kant.
If you read much of Galileo's writings, it is evident that he may well have been non-religious had he lived in a more civilized time (when they didn't burn atheists); His discoveries are clearly motivated by curiosity and a sense of wonder - not by any desire to proclaim the majesty of God; Locke may have utilised a religious motif to germinate his concept of rights, but Rousseau arrived at a similar conclusion by simple observation of the natural world and conjecture on its implications; It is completely irrelevant to the work of David Hume; and whatever Christian acknowledgement certain notable characters might make, their contributions may well be said to be despite this, than because of it.
quote:Right ... because there was no significant Christian involvement in the movements for the emancipation of slaves or the rights of women, was there?
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I don't recall any passage in the Bible saying Thou Shall Not Own Slaves - although I am aware of a number of passages in support; not to mention persecution of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Our modern morality has come about despite Christianity - not because of it !
quote:If you assumed that Christian thought is limited to transcribing passages from the Bible, then that would be a valid argument.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
I don't recall any passage in the Bible saying Thou Shall Not Own Slaves - although I am aware of a number of passages in support; not to mention persecution of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Our modern morality has come about despite Christianity - not because of it !
quote:Ah, the Christian's favorite... So how go the endeavours in discovering the philosopher's stone???
That might be true of Galileo, but it wouldn't be true of Newton.
quote:And that significant Christian involvement came about because of discussion between people despite what was written in the Bible - which sort of leads to:
Right ... because there was no significant Christian involvement in the movements for the emancipation of slaves or the rights of women, was there?
quote:Most of these thinkers, it is true, set out their work as if they were arguing from simple observation of the natural world and human behaviour. Any intelligent undergraduate philosopher will be able to point out where they read into the natural world features of the morality that they already believe.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Locke may have utilised a religious motif to germinate his concept of rights, but Rousseau arrived at a similar conclusion by simple observation of the natural world and conjecture on its implications; It is completely irrelevant to the work of David Hume; and whatever Christian acknowledgement certain notable characters might make, their contributions may well be said to be despite this, than because of it.
quote:Just as christianity gets its own morals from judaism... Not to mention, as Socratic has, that morality has arisen in many places without Jesus' input.
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the "us vs. them" crap doesn't really cut it for an atheist humanist, as I thought you were. Disagreement in a few points today doesn't change the fact that historically Western humanism derives from Christian morals, and that it still agrees to 95% with its source.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Did you miss out on a 21st???
At what age does this take place?
quote:I resent that! I definitely have an something...
I belabour the point often enough that atheists don't have an anything.
quote:Gosh it's nice to actually have facts to support your assertions....
Originally posted by Papio:
....Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
quote: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.
"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."
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:I would think that someone called Socratic-Enigma would appreciate the difficulty in considering the Athenian democracy a protector of human rights.
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: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.
Did you miss out on a 21st???
quote: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.
[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]
quote:I agree with that.
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.
quote:Interesting that you equate "least trusted" with "persecuted". What other words do you use in ways completely different from other folks?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:Gosh it's nice to actually have facts to support your assertions....
Originally posted by Papio:
....Oh, and athiests are a persecuted and tiny minority?
quote: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).
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:Did you miss out on a 21st???
At what age does this take place?
(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 resent that! I definitely have an something...
I belabour the point often enough that atheists don't have an anything.
(I just haven't worked out what it is yet!)
You're getting very predictable in your old age.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Certainly you have misprepresented me, and I am very bored and pissed off with it.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:And that significant Christian involvement came about because of discussion between people despite what was written in the Bible - which sort of leads to:
Right ... because there was no significant Christian involvement in the movements for the emancipation of slaves or the rights of women, was there?
"Do you need the Bible at all?"
quote:An athiest would have gone to prison.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - Bush, the Greater
quote:He wouldn't sell anywhere near as many books.
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.
quote:Bought, I don't doubt, by exactly the same people that pushed Dawkins into the bestseller list.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:New York Times Bestseller List, Hardcover Non-Fiction, for June 1, 2007:
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.
quote:I don't.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
quote:I agree with that.
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.
quote:I did actually mention this in an earlier post (albiet somewhat tongue in cheek
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).
):quote: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'.
Christianity's greatest contribution to the Enlightenment was to splinter as a result of squabbling over doctrine which somewhat mitigated its power and influence.
quote: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?"
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.
quote: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
4. * PLATO AND A PLATYPUS WALK INTO A BAR, by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein
quote: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?
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.
quote:A fair question, but no, it is simply implicit within the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:A fair question, but no, it is simply implicit within the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
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?
quote:Sheesh. I didn't say TODAY for Zeus sake. What a cheater.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:New York Times Bestseller List, Hardcover Non-Fiction, for June 1, 2007:
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.
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.
quote:57 million (and that's probably old news). Pulllllease.
<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.
quote:Spare me the rhetorical tactics. Christianity has plenty of press here.
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......
quote:Pssst. IngoB.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:I'd just tell him I have a shotgun, 40 acres, and a shovel. Apparently you are more trusting.
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?"
quote:What ever.
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:An athiest would have gone to prison.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - Bush, the Greater
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.
quote:Feel free to read the University Study.
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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:Which is I think, a reasonable summary of Dawkins' position.
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.
quote:No, Dawkins specifically excludes what he calls Einsteinian religion. Eliab's point was that Dawkins attacks 'faith' that relies on what is not true.
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.
quote:This only makes sense if you ignore what has already been discussed and not refuted. It's unhelpful rhetoric.
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.
quote:Yes, but we have shown he isn't (chapter 1), so you're perpetuating a straw man argument.
Now, if Dawkins is using the term "faith" to encompass all religious and spiritual belief
quote: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.
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.
quote:Honest questions? I'm not sure what that means, but they seem irrelevent to this particular discussion.
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)
quote: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.
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.
quote:I am yet to be convinced that you know what a coherent case is.
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.
quote:All your questions have been answered in the only way they could be without you reading the book or talking to Dawkins.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I would have thought that for anyone with honest questions, that would have been the place to start.
When my bulging pile-of-books-to-read has become smaller, I may well give the library a go, though.
quote: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...
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?
quote: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???
And your postmodern view of significant research projects by Universities that you happen to also disagree with is fascinating.
quote:This is where I'm getting
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.
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.quote:Whoof!!!!!!!!!!
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)...
quote: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).
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.
quote: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.
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
quote:I see your point (now). I personally think that persecution is a much bigger word than nazi death camps and Darfur.
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: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...
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?
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: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.
quote: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???
And your postmodern view of significant research projects by Universities that you happen to also disagree with is fascinating.
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'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.
quote:This is where I'm getting
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.
quote: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.
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???
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.)
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?
quote: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.)
And if so, how does this square with the whole atheists as despised minority scenario?
quote:Not very useful, IMHO. McGrath tackles this head on in Dawkins' God, and references it with this in The Dawkins Delusion:
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.
quote:Which I think sums it up pretty well.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Theology? Reason?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
You have rejected every opportunity now to engage in helpful debate
quote: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.
I think an atheist also makes a choice to believe there's no god, but the atheist doesn't know for sure either.
quote:Noiseboy,
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Not very useful, IMHO.
quote:No, they're not.
Alister McGrath - The Dawkins Delusion:
So are all ideas viruses of the mind?
quote:Because he says it is??!! I often accuse myself of hubris - but this is breath-taking!
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.
quote:Which doesn't answer the question: I will repeat -
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.
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: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).
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Theology? Reason?
quote:Logic? Is this even worthy of a response?
By exactly the same logic all socialism is appeasment of Stalin or all sex is appeasement of rape.
quote: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.
Again the subject is raised on how we should all read the book... so I am aversed to giving him any money.
quote:(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......)
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.
quote: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.
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).
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote: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.
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).
quote: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").
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'.
quote:What do you think is the reason for the change?
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.
quote:Good to see Ship of Fools officially recognising Richard Dawkins' contribution to Christian unrest.
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.
quote:Here here. The Dawkins site pointed me to a couple of George Carlin routines that had me...
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:Good to see Ship of Fools officially recognising Richard Dawkins' contribution to Christian unrest.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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)
quote:I think that is a key distinction to make MouseThief.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
It's not that religious people believe things "without evidence." It's that their evidence isn't sufficiently "scientific."
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
A more "subtle, nuanced" faith is likely not to be in conflict with science, or reason.
quote: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':
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?
quote:the full interview is at:
(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)
quote:'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)
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:As MouseThief says a lot of the evidence for Christianity is rational and not just intuitive.
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.
quote:We have scientific evidence that Jesus wasn't resurrected? Do tell.
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.
quote:Dawkins on his intended targets:
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Have/belive is semantics in this case.
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote: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.
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.
Nice try.
quote: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?
Originally posted by MouseThief:
There isn't "evidence" for "faith" as faith is something I have, not something I believe in.
