The God Delusion - ongoing review

[(Q)]

If we disagree with nationalism, do we attack the concept of the nation-state or the chauvinism with which nationalism comports itself in the public realm?

We get this: http://www.secularism.org.uk/

Religion as such may be a force for good or evil. What will you make of my case, a humanist and Catholic who has not been indoctrinated as a child in any religion - and, in point of fact, was forbidden to attend religious services?

You too were indoctrinated. You were not educated in the various religions and they're historic pasts. You were forced to comply and accept uncritically a doctrine.

If you've come to accept Catholicism recently and readily, you perhaps did not, although I doubt it, research it's sordid past or accept it's present state.

"The main issues for discussion is that The Bishop Yvon Ambroise is becoming an alien to the fishermen community. Just like a politician he plays with the poor people misusing thier piety and faithfulness. Miss Carole STORA of France is garlended by Fishermen AssociationsThe fishermen are naturally pious and they built many churches and schools for them. They contributed money and labour for Meeting of Humanists in Humanist Centre in Satankulamestablishing schools. This Bishop does not respect their work and unity. He misused a lot of money which was obtained from various international support organizations for these people. It is nothing but cheating. He used the money for the luxuries of his pet priests and nothing was spent for the fishermen."

 

[(Q)]

Interesting points. I think his arguments look riddled with bias. It's an invective similar to what my father would use against religion; and no one ever doubted that his motivation was hate of religion, justified or not.

Are you sure you're not just using religion to get back at your father?

As a child growing up in a theist society being ostracized by your peers because you were forbidden to join them at church is a powerful motivator.

 

[(Q)]

I would say that sounds pretty abusive to me.:bugeye:

I wonder how many athiests provide their children with alternatives to choose a belief system.

How many of them impose their (lack of) belief on the children.

The equivalent of what happened to Geoff is the same thing that happened to you, a result of indoctrination. Yes, it is abusive.

The fact that you were coddled with religion while Geoff was beaten with it does not preclude the fact you were both expected to accept uncritically those doctrines.

 

[S.A.M.]

The equivalent of what happened to Geoff is the same thing that happened to you, a result of indoctrination. Yes, it is abusive.

The fact that you were coddled with religion while Geoff was beaten with it does not preclude the fact you were both expected to accept uncritically those doctrines.

lol at you for those assumptions.

Were you brought up theist or athiest?

 

[(Q)]

Were you brought up theist or athiest?

Neither.

Of course, that answer couldn't possibly have any meaning for you whatsoever. As a theist, there are no other alternatives. There is the cult and nothing else. The mind has been indoctrinated to accept uncritically there can be no other reality beyond the cult, hence even the concept of atheism is incomprehensible.

Theists use the term 'atheist' only to parrot.

 

[S.A.M.]

Neither.

Of course, that answer couldn't possibly have any meaning for you whatsoever. As a theist, there are no other alternatives. There is the cult and nothing else. The mind has been indoctrinated to accept uncritically there can be no other reality beyond the cult, hence even the concept of atheism is incomprehensible.

Theists use the term 'atheist' only to parrot.

Neither? Thats interesting. So was I.

So why are you atheist, rather than agnostic?

 

[KennyJC]

Neither? Thats interesting. So was I.

So why are you atheist, rather than agnostic?

Why do you believe that an 'angel' dictated the Koran to Mohammed and that he flew to heaven on a magical horse?

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do you believe that an 'angel' dictated the Koran to Mohammed and that he flew to heaven on a magical horse?

Why don't you tell me? You seem to know it all.

 

[James R]

Interesting points. I think his arguments look riddled with bias.

Of course. The God Delusion is a polemic against religion. Dawkins has never pretended it is anything else.

 

[KennyJC]

Why don't you tell me? You seem to know it all.

I didn't think you'd be able to answer it. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[S.A.M.]

I didn't think you'd be able to answer it. Thanks for proving my point.

I'm glad you're comforted by my nonresponse.

Of course. The God Delusion is a polemic against religion. Dawkins has never pretended it is anything else.

No he has not. Nor does he hide his opinion of theists

Professor Richard Dawkins has described religious believers as "sucking on dummies" for comfort and said that giving children a religious education was comparable to "erecting a firewall in their minds" against scientific truth.

Debating in London on the subject: "Are we better off without religion?", he said religion was like "a child with a dummy in its mouth. I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort."

When his opponents, who included Rabbi Julia Neuberger and philosopher Roger Scruton, argued that "the religious gene" is in all of us, and it was part of the human condition to search for meaning, Dawkins replied: "Speak for yourself. It is not a part of me. It is not a part of the great majority of my friends in universities in England and the US and elsewhere."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,810,Dawkins-says-religion-is-like-sucking-a-dummy,Times-Online

 

[James R]

And so...?

He doesn't hide his opinion of theists. Why should he? They don't hide their opinions of atheists like him.

 

[iceaura]

Whether faithful or fantastic, it still descends to the choice of common or multiple origin. The choice is dualistic, in this sense: does the one tradition (i.e. Luke) follow from the other (Mark) or is it independently arrived at via other previous tradition? Whether oral legend or written record, they must still obey common origin or multiple origin.

So? Common real events or personages, mutiple sources of legendary embroidery, mutually influential compilation over time.

You shall attend to his explicit dealing with exactly that objection, and show why it does not explain his approach or announce his intentions. ”
He says "I am not going to pick on any one God", and then he does.

I heard you the first time. Dawkins dealt explicitly, in that very book, demonstrating considerable foresight I am forced to recognise (but then he's been down this road before), with the prospect what seems to be a peculiarly stubborn insistence on mistaking the nature of his argument. I refer you to him.

Rebuttal? Ice - you still haven't responded to my question, and this is important: why is my "Clintonian example" above irrelevant?

The past few posts aren't a response? Then I have no idea what you meant by the "Clintonian example", and no way to respond.

- - So why would you expect Paul to recount every miracle of Jesus in a letter remonstrating Roman Christians?

I wouldn't. And neither would anyone reading the chart. But I would take note of his failure to recount - or even specifically reference - a single solitary one of them. And that fact would make a data point on the chart - {Paul date: 0}. I can't for the life of me figure out what your objection to that is - it's not that complicated.

further, Paul serves as the starting point for the whole argument: "How come Paul didn't write about the Gospels, eh? Must not have happened then?" which has been used in past to justify the "telephone analogy".

He's not a starting point, he's a data point. Just another data point, which is not used to jsutify the analogy - it's the other way around: the analogy was used in a puzzlingly confusing way to explain the implications of the chart.

If we disagree with nationalism, do we attack the concept of the nation-state or the chauvinism with which nationalism comports itself in the public realm?

Both, if you're me - to the extent I disagree with nationalism, anyway.

Thats another argument I have with Dawkins.

He ignores facts:

Not those facts, he doesn't. He argues from those - they are excellent support for one of his major points: More than half of all theistic affiliation is predicted down to the specific denomination of a specific religion by a person's parents' affiliation. That's a hell of a correlation. If more general categories are used - Christian, monotheist, etc - the correlation is even stronger. The implications for the actual foundation of common theistic belief are immediate.

e.g. addressing the criticisms of the selfish gene in the extended phenotype, he goes, in my opinion, more off base with paradigms where the behaviour of one animal is directed to saving the genes of another.

Which is why I asked you, is Wall Street an extended phenotype?

How would tht question follow from anything about an extended phenotype? And how do you find discussion of one animal - say an ant - behaving so as to help "the genes of another" (say the queen, with much the same genes, significantly), going off track?

Now what in hell are you talking about, or alluding to, or whatever ? ”
These statements:

So what about them evoked that odd and disconnected tangent ? If I point out that Collins is not always doing science - which I gave a specific relevant example of in the case of his beliefs concerning the origin of human morality, rather than relying on James's common sense notation that the guy has to sleep sometimes - how is that noteworthy ?

 

[S.A.M.]

And so...?

He doesn't hide his opinion of theists. Why should he? They don't hide their opinions of atheists like him.

So lets not confuse his opinions with secular humanism. More like athiest humanism.

Not those facts, he doesn't. He argues from those - they are excellent support for one of his major points: More than half of all theistic affiliation is predicted down to the specific denomination of a specific religion by a person's parents' affiliation. That's a hell of a correlation. If more general categories are used - Christian, monotheist, etc - the correlation is even stronger. The implications for the actual foundation of common theistic belief are immediate.

What are the figures for athiestic affiliation?

How would tht question follow from anything about an extended phenotype? And how do you find discussion of one animal - say an ant - behaving so as to help "the genes of another" (say the queen, with much the same genes, significantly), going off track?

Because its a false paradigm. Is the guy who is repairing my cable doing so to help my genes? If not, what differentiates one behaviour from another?

Are the people in Wall Street investing overseas and profiting themselves at the possible expense of local economy helping to select againt the local genes?

So what about them evoked that odd and disconnected tangent ? If I point out that Collins is not always doing science - which I gave a specific relevant example of in the case of his beliefs concerning the origin of human morality, rather than relying on James's common sense notation that the guy has to sleep sometimes - how is that noteworthy ?

Its like saying cholesterol free on soy oil. What you say is less important than what you imply.

 

[GeoffP]

We get this: http://www.secularism.org.uk/

Answer the question: If we disagree with nationalism, do we attack the concept of the nation-state or the chauvinism with which nationalism comports itself in the public realm? Is the problem the existence of any nation-state, or the peculiarties of a specific one? I agree that nation-states have a high potentiality for selifshness and self-aggrandizement, but the same could be said of almost any meme, really. Can there not be good ones? I think there have.

You too were indoctrinated. You were not educated in the various religions and they're historic pasts. You were forced to comply and accept uncritically a doctrine.

I shall be calling Jerry Springer forthwith.

If you've come to accept Catholicism recently and readily, you perhaps did not, although I doubt it, research it's sordid past or accept it's present state.

Actually I did. I recognize all too well the iniquities of its past and I am not the kind that would ever permit their repetition, nor their imposition. My feeling is and has been that the Catholics may be in the strongest tradition of current Christianity given their continued existence (please send hate PMs to "GeoffP" along with an SASE) and I admire their efforts in liturgy and religious research, if not always their outcomes. In point of fact, I might be a little heretical compared to the conservative outlook...well, not "might"...but I think you'll find an array of opinion in the church nonetheless, much as you might find in any nation or any organization. I'm not sure where the mean lies precisely, but in any event I intend to drive it continually in the properly humanistic direction.

"The main issues for discussion is that The Bishop Yvon Ambroise is becoming an alien to the fishermen community. Just like a politician he plays with the poor people misusing thier piety and faithfulness. Miss Carole STORA of France is garlended by Fishermen AssociationsThe fishermen are naturally pious and they built many churches and schools for them. They contributed money and labour for Meeting of Humanists in Humanist Centre in Satankulamestablishing schools. This Bishop does not respect their work and unity. He misused a lot of money which was obtained from various international support organizations for these people. It is nothing but cheating. He used the money for the luxuries of his pet priests and nothing was spent for the fishermen."

And Spitzer hired prostitutes.

Ergo: Ban the Senate.


Best,

Geoff P.

 

[GeoffP]

Of course. The God Delusion is a polemic against religion. Dawkins has never pretended it is anything else.

But that's not the issue, or not entirely: he pretends to a sort of chauvinistic equanimity but in fact his thrust is limited to a few specific targets - not in the hope of delimiting damage from them, but in hopes of damaging their faith altogether. He starts out by saying that he's not confining his attacks to any one religion, and then goes off on only two. Where is his condemnation of Thor, or how about even Kali-Mal, whose religion of stranglers could easily be said to be a little violent? It's disingenuous, and many of his arguments are specious. He pretends to ecumenitality in attack, but then constructs straw men (or straw men with little straw men in their hands) and dances naked and gibbering around their burning carcasses, with his atrocious wife egging him on.

I've no doubt he actually thinks himself that even-handed, but obviously he's not: and as I listen further to the tracks, I find myself distancing from his opinion both as a scientist and naturalist. He engages in all those petty natures which he accuses his opponents of: now, I appreciate that some of the sly attacks on him - by puerile men with a zealot's appreciation of fair play themselves - but his base insults about theists frankly boils me a little as he lines himself up with the likes of Bell and Watson.

If he really wants to make discussion a eugenicist's playground, then by all means and whether from the want of fairhanded discussion or sheer bloodymindedness, it's only fair I have a go at him, too. After all, it's only a private conceit that any man's wife is beautiful, or his children smart...innit? So he says. So why should I respect his views or subjects, then? I think a more reasoned treatment would have been possible, and appreciable, but it just isn't there and pretending that it is won't change anything.

At any rate, my treatment of his work will be far more evenhanded; as you will see.

Geoff

 

[(Q)]

At any rate, my treatment of his work will be far more evenhanded; as you will see.

Geoff

It has been the furthest thing from that so far. I have no idea what book you're reading, but it doesn't appear to be the same book I've read. :shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Well, then Q, I'm sorry for your opinion. Mine is the audiobook and it's quite explicit, down to the scorn in his voice and that of his Hammer Films Harridan. I can't give you a link, as my version is an audio book, though I expect it could be purchased. And I'm afraid that my comments are more than fair; I would recommend you examine some of his statements, reverse them to your position, and consider again whether or not you might be insulted. Or possibly not. After all, it's a well-known fact that atheists have lower IQs than theists, isn't it? :shrug:

En avant!

I'm going to skip largely over the entire "name-dropping" theme, although I'm a fan of the "Spinozan God" in part, which he mentions.

Dawkins' main theme appears to be, as he puts it, that "not presently grasped does not mean forever ungraspable". Now here he and I do actually agree, and not for the purposes of pointing out what I consider errors in Dawkins' formula and brain, which I have to admit in fairness is his style so far. (Sorry Q: it's true.) I'll simply leave it there, though my sense of fairness prompts me to point out that above difference again.

A comment about “Undeserved respect”:

I agree that some verbiage about religious conflict is indeed buried in PC terminology, but that the cases Richard and his wife, the absurd Lala, rears up are not deliberate or even subconscious evasions of criticism: “ethnic cleansing” is meant as a carry-all and used in that font, not as fodder to annoy Richard Dawkins. And granting religion increased freedoms is part and parcel of the American experience – as some of his examples deal with that country specifically. This is part of their Constitution. Some other of his examples are cherry-picked: it is manifestly unrealistic to believe that religious types get a pass in debate, and it is probably intended as a verbal ploy. I certainly know of no one that happily admits to any kind of faith and is given, let alone praise, a pass in critical evaluation of that statement. I mentioned to a colleague – a fine fellow, well-spoken, friendly and undeniably benign in every aspect – that I was going to a little talk about faith and evolution and consigning the two. He clapped me on the back and told me to “give them hell”; he assumed I was going there to break up the meeting with atheistic sniping from the gallery. This is a common – very common – sentiment in my field. So there is religious discrimination, and religious tolerance, but it is far from the uniform picture that Richard paints.

But the kind of prejudice that Richard evidently feels is manifest in his treatment of the “nauseating” children’s rhyme

Christian children all must be
Mild, obedient, good as He

And bizarrely, Dawkins denies this comes from the actual description of Jesus himself. He wasn’t good? There’s a lot of side-allusion here, which is a recurrent problem in the book: never the phrase passes without some unfounded side-shot or not-too-subtle triumphalism. Why? To what end? To convince me, the apparently atrocious believer and naturalist, of his eminent wisdom? Or to antagonize?

This too is the point where he deviates from the plan as stated: he denies all particular bias, then treats it with complete bias. Chapter 2 shows no deviation from the plan, for it is at the start of this that he presents the statement which concerns much of my complaining to this point:

“I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or any other specific god such as Belial, Zeus or Wotan [Odin]. Instead, I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensively: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”

Now, this position (alluding to neoLiteralism more than the “Spinozan God” of which I a fond) is more, as he says, defensive, and seems more reasonable. Yet, I have suspicion he will deviate a bit from his central tenet, and I think the succeeding passages will prove me right or, perhaps more accurately, associate me with correctness at a probability greater than 95%.

Anyway, we round up Chapter 1.

Geoff

 

[(Q)]

I would recommend you examine some of his statements, reverse them to your position, and consider again whether or not you might be insulted. Or possibly not.

I have sat and pondered on each occasion any one of my "beliefs" from the positions Dawkins stands and have found this position to be very much the same.

I'm going to skip largely over the entire "name-dropping" theme, although I'm a fan of the "Spinozan God" in part, which he mentions.

By "name dropping," I'm assuming you're referring to where Dawkins talks about Einstein and the fallacious arguments that he was a theist? Dawkins goes on to say why he had to get these arguments out of the way at the beginning of "Undeserved Respect," that it had the proven capacity to confuse.

A comment about “Undeserved respect”:

... his wife, the absurd Lala...

:shrug:

Some other of his examples are cherry-picked: So there is religious discrimination, and religious tolerance, but it is far from the uniform picture that Richard paints.

Dawkins uses this chapter to argue the statement "faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect." He closes the chapter with, "It is in the light of the unparalleled presumption of respect for religion that I make my own disclaimer for this book. I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently then I would handle anything else."

Why? To what end? To convince me, the apparently atrocious believer and naturalist, of his eminent wisdom? Or to antagonize?

Since none of what Dawkins wrote in that chapter had the same effect on me, or any other atheist for that matter, I would wonder whether or not you were personally offended, as many theists were?

he denies all particular bias, then treats it with complete bias.

Where are you getting that?

Chapter 2 shows no deviation from the plan, for it is at the start of this that he presents the statement which concerns much of my complaining to this point:

“I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or any other specific god such as Belial, Zeus or Wotan [Odin]. Instead, I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensively: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.”

Here is the quote immediately following:

"This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."

It is these exact statements and claims that should be scrutinized here Geoff, not your opinion of his wifes alleged absurdity.

 

[GeoffP]

And were I to instruct you that your intelligence was at deficit compared to my own on basis of your beliefs, you would simply wave your hand at this? Dubious, my good Q. As to personal offense: of course. Who would be surprised at this? He presents a case that he has absolutely no evidence for at this point - perhaps he's saving it for some other work - and calls me stupid for not accepting his version, and for believing otherwise; indeed, he also goes out of his way to criticize any other scientist following NOMA as being partially dishonest. Who would not be insulted - and not merely at a personal level, either, but also as a naturalist. Again: he has no evidence whatsoever to abrade the idea of any supernatural entity, save comparison to unrooted ideas. If he cannot see this, then I'm irritated by his presumption as well, as I well should be.

As for what I'm scrutinizing: you shall have it, as soon as he presents something of more substance to be considered. And as for his wife's absurdity, I am making a point: as he says himself, no one respects anything beyond the extent they themselves value it, including beautiful wives and smart children as his examples. I've seen his ridiculous wife act solely and only so far as I can tell in 1960s exploitation films and on a dubiously acclaimed science fiction show, where her fame resides less in her skill on the stage than behind it in the arms of Tom Baker. What shall we not have a go at, if nothing deserves respect greater than our permission of it?

Geoff