Winston Challenges Dawkins...
OlOlOl01
· IVF pioneer attacks 'patronising' evolutionist
· Claim that insulting tone damages public trust
James Randerson, science correspondent
Wednesday April 25, 2007
The Guardian
Lord Winston has condemned Professor Dawkins
for his attitude to religious faith. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod
His nickname is Darwin's Rottweiler and he earned it - and a reputation that
spans the globe - with his pugnacious defence of the theory of evolution.
But Professor Richard Dawkins' strident views, and the way with which they
are delivered, came under surprise attack yesterday from an equally eminent
scientist, though one better known for his more avuncular style.
Lord Winston condemned Prof Dawkins for what he called his "patronising" and
"insulting" attitude to religious faith, and argued that he and others like
him were in danger of damaging the public's trust in science. He
particularly objected to Prof Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, which
is an outright attack on religion.
"I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord
Winston, "I have a huge respect for Richard Dawkins but I think it is very
patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the
universe and everything a delusion. I don't think that is helpful and I
think it portrays science in a bad light."
Lord Winston, an IVF pioneer well known as the presenter of science
documentaries such as The Human Body, Superhuman and Human Instinct, will
argue for a more conciliatory approach to religion in a public lecture at
the University of Dundee tonight. Entitled The Science Delusion, it is part
of the university's Greatest Minds lecture series.
"The reason I've called it the Science Delusion is because I think there is
a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to
believe that science is the absolute truth and that religious and spiritual
values are to be discounted," said Lord Winston. "Some people, both
scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain.
That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and it is dangerous in the
fundamentalist scientists."
Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins
and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I
don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in
particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I
think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I
think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can
run the universe.
He added: "I have a huge admiration for Richard Dawkins. But I'm not sure
that his way of approaching his view of the universe is wise. Dawkins is not
an arrogant man, but I think he does portray certainty in a way that
sometimes sounds arrogant".
Prof Dawkins declined to comment on Lord Winston's criticisms until he had
seen the full text of the lecture.
However, Prof Dennett at Tufts University in the US, said, the dangers of
religion had been "swept under the rug" for centuries and needed to be
exposed. "[I] think it is time to risk offence and not mince words. Let's
find out just how good, or bad, religion actually is," he said.
The philosopher AC Grayling at Birkbeck College, London, dismissed Lord
Winston's arguments as "tiresome guff". "Belief in supernatural entities in
the universe ... is false, and in the light of increasing scientific
knowledge about nature has definitely come to be delusional," he said.
Full text at:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2064899,00.html
raven1
wrote:
>Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins
>and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I
>don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in
>particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I
>think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I
>think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can
>run the universe.
"These scientists say that they're working for us! But what they
really want is to rule the world!"
And we all know that such a thing has never applied to the religious.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Desertphile
<nospa...@all.thanks> wrote:
> The God [sic disunion: there is a place for
> faith in science, insists Winston
Er, ah, yeah..... and he's wrong.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Bobby Bryant
"OlOlOl01" <nospa...@all.thanks> writes:
> Lord Winston has condemned Professor Dawkins for his attitude to
> religious faith.
For some strange reason, I don't care any more about Winston's
opinion than I do about Dawkins'.
(If I wanted an opinion about faith, I'd ask Lenny's pizza delivery
boy.)
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
A.Carlson
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:12:07 GMT, "OlOlOl01" <nospa...@all.thanks>
>wrote:
>
>>Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins
>>and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I
>>don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in
>>particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I
>>think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I
>>think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can
>>run the universe.
>
>"These scientists say that they're working for us! But what they
>really want is to rule the world!"
>
>And we all know that such a thing has never applied to the religious.
What I find most bothersome about his criticisms is that they can all
be boiled down to a simple "what they are saying may not be taken well
by others" to which I would reply 'So what!"
His criticisms seem more political in nature than anything else but
then he is a politician. And since when should science strive to be
politically correct, particularly in deference to religious
mythologies? If scientists did not wish to offend then the Origin of
Species should never have been written or published. For scientists
to do their job to its fullest they must not be concerned with
offending others.
macaddicted
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:12:07 GMT, "OlOlOl01" <nospa...@all.thanks>
> wrote:
>
> >Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins
> >and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I
> >don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in
> >particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I
> >think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I
> >think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can
> >run the universe.
>
> "These scientists say that they're working for us! But what they
> really want is to rule the world!"
>
> And we all know that such a thing has never applied to the religious.
>
For myself the problem with Dennett and Dawkins is that they make
metaphysical extensions of science and call them "hard" science. I have
little complaint with their science, at least from the little of their
works I have read. However I have a great many problems with their
metaphysics
--
macaddicted
fides quaerens intellectum
Therion Ware
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:09:48 -0400, raven1 wrote in message
<u8kv23110pvcjqlnn...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:12:07 GMT, "OlOlOl01" <nospa...@all.thanks>
>wrote:
>
>>Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins
>>and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I
>>don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in
>>particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I
>>think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I
>>think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can
>>run the universe.
>
>"These scientists say that they're working for us! But what they
>really want is to rule the world!"
Fuck. Discovered!
>And we all know that such a thing has never applied to the religious.
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage.
-
www.eac-nudis.com = Evil Atheist Conspiracy NNTP / Usenet Distributed Intelligence System...
slothrop
I am just so SICK of religious people calling people like Dawkins
"arrogant". How many times a DAY do I have conversations with mystical
wackos who've just finished reading con-men like Chopra and are happy
talking to me about their knowledge of "infinity" and the
unquantifiable nature of purposely-vague terms like "love" and
"consciousness". They tell me patronizingly that science can NEVER
(does this word "never" even appear in "The God Delusion?") explain
this or that aspect of human nature because their mystical mentors
have told them so and institutions like churches need certain aspects
of human nature to remain mysteries in order to stay in existence.
They talk in absolutes so frequently without ever considering that
maybe there's a bit of arrogance in their own discourse that how can I
not conclude there's something purposely dishonest going on?
Of all the anti-Dawkinists I've yet talked to, the only thing I've
heard is that "The God Delusion" is arrogant. Damn it, I can't imagine
using that as my argument for not reading something or basing my
criticism solely on that. I'm sure there are factual or logical errors
in the book, as there are in other books of it's type, why is it
people aren't jumping on those? One of Dawkins' and Dennett's goals,
as far as I can see, is trying to find out how things work, to give
explanations for why we believe the things we believe. Many people
believe there are Mysteries that can't --no, that SHOULDN'T-- be
explained or quantified at all lest they get all sad and depressed and
frightened.
The hell with them.
It gets me upset because they're the majority and they push this whole
"You can never know this and this and this" with such authority. How
is that not arrogant?
I'm starting to compile a list of all the "You can never..."
Statements of Truth that have been claimed over the centuries, and I'm
amazed that people haven't learned from past mistakes. "People can
never master the power of flight" (pre-Wright Brothers) and "Genetic
material can never explain the complexities of human biology" (pre-
discovery of DNA) come to mind, but the list appears to be endless.
And it appears mystical people will continue to add to it.
I want to hear Dawkins and Dennett tell us something that we can never
ever know or explain.
slothrop
alwaysaskingquestions
"slothrop" <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177599947.8...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 25, 3:12 pm, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks> wrote:
[...]
> Of all the anti-Dawkinists I've yet talked to, the only thing I've
> heard is that "The God Delusion" is arrogant. Damn it, I can't imagine
> using that as my argument for not reading something or basing my
> criticism solely on that. I'm sure there are factual or logical errors
> in the book, as there are in other books of it's type, why is it
> people aren't jumping on those?
Various people have, including myself on this newsgroup.
I think Winston summed it up very well when he said " Dawkins is not
an arrogant man, but I think he does portray certainty in a way that
sometimes sounds arrogant".
I might quibble whether 'sometimes' would be better as better changed to
'often'
I also suspect that Winston is reflecting the view of many scientists who
regard Dawkins very highly for his scientific skills but consider his
atheistic evangelism as distasteful.
[...]
OlOlOl01
"slothrop" <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177599947.8...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
digested Winston's full text. Ithink the key statement
in the Guardian article (and I do detect some bias in
there whwrin the word 'rottweiler' gets used in juxtaposition
with Dawkins and 'avuncular' with Winston) is:
"Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew..."
explains it all.
They might as easily have said: "Lord Winston, who was
brainwashed into repeating fantastical beliefs at a tender age..."
er...@swva.net
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:09:48 -0400, raven1
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:12:07 GMT, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks>
"Not being concerned with offending others" is not the same as "going
out of one's way to gleefully offend others."
Eric Root
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "slothrop" <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177599947.8...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 25, 3:12 pm, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Of all the anti-Dawkinists I've yet talked to, the only thing I've
> > heard is that "The God Delusion" is arrogant. Damn it, I can't imagine
> > using that as my argument for not reading something or basing my
> > criticism solely on that. I'm sure there are factual or logical errors
> > in the book, as there are in other books of it's type, why is it
> > people aren't jumping on those?
>
> Various people have, including myself on this newsgroup.
present one right here. just one. direct quotes only please.
>
> I think Winston summed it up very well when he said " Dawkins is not
> an arrogant man, but I think he does portray certainty in a way that
> sometimes sounds arrogant".
>
> I might quibble whether 'sometimes' would be better as better changed to
> 'often'
show dawkins being arrogant. direct quotes only please.
>
> I also suspect that Winston is reflecting the view of many scientists who
> regard Dawkins very highly for his scientific skills but consider his
> atheistic evangelism as distasteful.
but its perfectly acceptable for francis collins to evangelize by
saying waterfalls imply jesus christ. right!
>
> [...]
skyeyes
<Clapping> Good rant, kiddo, right on!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
alwaysaskingquestions
"snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 26, 1:31 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "slothrop" <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177599947.8...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Apr 25, 3:12 pm, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Of all the anti-Dawkinists I've yet talked to, the only thing I've
>> > heard is that "The God Delusion" is arrogant. Damn it, I can't imagine
>> > using that as my argument for not reading something or basing my
>> > criticism solely on that. I'm sure there are factual or logical errors
>> > in the book, as there are in other books of it's type, why is it
>> > people aren't jumping on those?
>>
>> Various people have, including myself on this newsgroup.
>
> present one right here. just one. direct quotes only please.
[...]
"Such is Dawkins's unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of
almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a
single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a
priori improbable as it is empirically false. The countless millions who
have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of
Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history - and this by a
self-appointed crusader against bigotry. He is like a man who equates
socialism with the Gulag. Like the puritan and sex, Dawkins sees God
everywhere, even where he is self-evidently absent. He thinks, for example,
that the ethno-political conflict in Northern Ireland would evaporate if
religion did, which to someone like me, who lives there part of the time,
betrays just how little he knows about it. He also thinks rather strangely
that the terms Loyalist and Nationalist are 'euphemisms' for Protestant and
Catholic, and clearly doesn't know the difference between a Loyalist and a
Unionist or a Nationalist and a Republican. He also holds, against a good
deal of the available evidence, that Islamic terrorism is inspired by
religion rather than politics."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
A.Carlson
The only thing that *should* matter in the end is whether or not a
particular argument is coherent and not whether or not it offends. Is
it your position that Dawkins' arguments are not coherent? That
doesn't even appear to be Lord Winston's position even if Dawkins may
or may not be 'gleeful' while his writings may or may not actually
"offend [some] others".
Perhaps the problem ultimately should lie with those who find
themselves feeling offended. It isn't as though Dawkins owes their
particular points of view some sort of respect from the get-go.
There is clearly a complex ideological battle going on at many
different levels of society simultaneously and a great many religious
people have chosen to put themselves and their ideology in the thick
of it. There is also a genuine issue of fighting ignorance involved
here as well.
Dawkins et al should not be required or expected to unilaterally give
up on arguments that are perfectly germane to the issues at hand
simply because others feelings might be hurt in the process.
Since it is often the forces of ignorance that are arrogantly
insisting on and pushing not only for acceptance but for dominance of
their ideology at the exclusion of all else it is only natural that
some may be a bit gleeful when they get their comeuppance. A certain
degree of offending others may simply be an unavoidable consequence.
Choosing to focus on whether or not someone may be 'gleeful' during
the process is, in my opinion, a red herring at best.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
the writer of this did not read dawkins' book, and neither did you.
present quotes BY DAWKINS that show logical or factual errors.
alwaysaskingquestions
"snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>> I think Winston summed it up very well when he said " Dawkins is not
>> an arrogant man, but I think he does portray certainty in a way that
>> sometimes sounds arrogant".
>>
>> I might quibble whether 'sometimes' would be better as better changed to
>> 'often'
>
> show dawkins being arrogant. direct quotes only please.
Talking about Stephen Jay Gould's writings, he says "I simply do
not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in
'Rock of Ages'. As I say, we have all been guilty of bending over backwards
to be nice to an unworthy but powerful opponent, and I can only think that
this is what Gould was doing."
Perplexed in Peoria
You realize, of course, that someone is going to ask for a direct quote from
Collins on that waterfall-Jesus thing. ;-)
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
whats the cite for this? and whats the context? and how is it
arrogant? seems to me that dawkins is saying gould pulled punches.
snex
wrote:
> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
gladly.
"On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains ...
the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As
I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen
waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next
morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to
Jesus Christ."
Perplexed in Peoria
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1177638772.4...@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
You know, I would have bet that the quote would say "God" rather than "Jesus".
but ... whadayaknow? ... you are right again. 'Jesus' is right there in the
same paragraph. And less than 24 hrs later by the clock. Close enough for
me. You win again. ;-)
Gee. I thought you meant some ordinary waterfall, but I can see how an
*unexpected frozen* waterfall *hundreds of feet high" might do the trick.
Not something you would expect to find in the 'Cascade Mountains'! ;-)
Is that quote from his book: "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents
Evidence for Belief"? Or from some interview?
snex
wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:1177638772.4...@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
it is allegedly from his book, however i havent read it and im getting
that second hand from various other sources.
Tachyglossus
>
> "Not being concerned with offending others" is not the same as "going
> out of one's way to gleefully offend others."
Yeah, right. As if people who spend their time and psychological energy
defending the myths of Bronze-age goat-herders against the impact of reality
*are ever gonna be able to notice the difference*...
T.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 26, 4:39 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
[...]
> the writer of this did not read dawkins' book,
I presume you have a citation for that accusation.
> and neither did you.
> present quotes BY DAWKINS that show logical or factual errors.
Posted separately
alwaysaskingquestions
The God Delusion, p57
>and whats the context?
The section 'Noma' dealing with whether or not science can make judgements
about the existence of God.
> and how is it
> arrogant? seems to me that dawkins is saying gould pulled punches.
He's accusing a fellow scientist, equally as eminent as Dawkins himself, of
telling lies - not because he has any evidence of it, simply because Gould
disagrees with him. That is supreme arrogance and particularly nasty when
Gould is no longer around to refute it.
alwaysaskingquestions
From the first page of the Preface to The God Delusion.
"Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion.
Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no
Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition" no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no
Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no
Northern Ireland 'troubles' ... "
Error of logic: all this warfare was simply down to religion therfore
without religion we would have very little war.
Error of fact: the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were not a religious war.
er...@swva.net
My concern about direct attacks on religion are primarily practical:
the old horror movie trope of the villagers with their torches and
pitchforks attacking the castle of the scientist is a good metaphor
for the prejudices and concerns of a lot of non-scientists. Yet the
number of wacko/fundamentalists that actually hate science and
scientists is no doubt small. I think that a broad-brush attack on
all religion, even modern, liberal, secularized religion, runs a real
risk of scaring the majority off the fence and into the anti-science
camp, and for no purpose beyond the self-stimulation of axe-grinding.
Eric Root
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177627558.1...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 26, 4:39 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > the writer of this did not read dawkins' book,
>
> I presume you have a citation for that accusation.
i have the fact that his criticisms dont address any of dawkins'
actual arguments. read dawkins' book for yourself if you dont believe
me.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
this claim was not made by dawkins.
>
> Error of fact: the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were not a religious war.
do you think religion helps, hurts, or is neutral on making the war go
away?
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
"pulling punches" is not "telling lies."
snex
thats a pretty low opinion of religious people you have.
>
> Eric Root
alwaysaskingquestions
Accusing a scientist of writing stuff he doesn't believe is accusing that
scientist of telling lies - but we all know that *your* definition of lies
is different from everyone else.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 27, 3:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177627558.1...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 4:39 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > the writer of this did not read dawkins' book,
>>
>> I presume you have a citation for that accusation.
>
> i have the fact that his criticisms dont address any of dawkins'
> actual arguments.
In other words, you're full of shit.
> read dawkins' book for yourself if you dont believe
> me.
I have read the book, it appears you haven't.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177692145....@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 3:08 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1177627558.1...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 26, 4:39 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> >> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > the writer of this did not read dawkins' book,
>
> >> I presume you have a citation for that accusation.
>
> > i have the fact that his criticisms dont address any of dawkins'
> > actual arguments.
>
> In other words, you're full of shit.
>
> > read dawkins' book for yourself if you dont believe
> > me.
>
> I have read the book, it appears you haven't.
then show me where exactly dawkins says things that the above
criticisms address.
snex
accusing a scientist of pulling punches is accusing that scientist of
being too intelligent to make the claims he is making. if you read
dawkins' entire chapter on NOMA, you can see why it is a bunch of
nonsense, and why dawkins thinks somebody as intelligent as gould
didnt believe it.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 27, 3:40 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
[...]
>> > the writer of this did not read dawkins' book, and neither did you.
>> > present quotes BY DAWKINS that show logical or factual errors.
>>
>> From the first page of the Preface to The God Delusion.
>>
>> "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion.
>> Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts,
>> no
>> Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition" no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no
>> Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers',
>> no
>> Northern Ireland 'troubles' ... "
>>
>> Error of logic: all this warfare was simply down to religion therfore
>> without religion we would have very little war.
>
> this claim was not made by dawkins.
What part of "Imagine ... a world with no religion ... imagine no [list of
wars/conflicts]" do you not understand?
>> Error of fact: the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were not a religious
>> war.
>
> do you think religion helps, hurts, or is neutral on making the war go
> away?
Religion had virtually no impact because it wasn't a religious war. (Hint:
the Pope came to Ireland in 1979 and pleaded *on his knees* for the men of
violence to stop. The *allegedly* Catholic IRA ignored him.)
BTW, I saw Dawkins being interviewed on TV a few weeks ago, he was
challenged about his description of the troubles in Northern Ireland and he
backed off at a rate of knots, admitting in his own words that weren't too
many people shot because they accepted or rejected transubstantiation.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 27, 12:15 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Accusing a scientist of writing stuff he doesn't believe is accusing that
>> scientist of telling lies - but we all know that *your* definition of
>> lies
>> is different from everyone else.
>
> accusing a scientist of pulling punches is accusing that scientist of
> being too intelligent to make the claims he is making. if you read
> dawkins' entire chapter on NOMA, you can see why it is a bunch of
> nonsense, and why dawkins thinks somebody as intelligent as gould
> didnt believe it.
Claiming that a fellow scientist simply couldn't have meant what he said is
utter arrogance.
alwaysaskingquestions
Read the book for yourself, you obviously haven't.
snex
well lookie lookie, you cant do it.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177692470....@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 27, 3:40 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> > the writer of this did not read dawkins' book, and neither did you.
> >> > present quotes BY DAWKINS that show logical or factual errors.
>
> >> From the first page of the Preface to The God Delusion.
>
> >> "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion.
> >> Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts,
> >> no
> >> Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition" no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no
> >> Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers',
> >> no
> >> Northern Ireland 'troubles' ... "
>
> >> Error of logic: all this warfare was simply down to religion therfore
> >> without religion we would have very little war.
>
> > this claim was not made by dawkins.
>
> What part of "Imagine ... a world with no religion ... imagine no [list of
> wars/conflicts]" do you not understand?
what part of that implies that other wars would not exist without
religion? where does dawkins claim that WW1 or WW2 or the american
civil war wouldnt have existed without religion? the very worst wars
in history had nothing to do with religion, and dawkins has never
stated otherwise. but just because eliminating religion wont eliminate
*all* wars does not mean it wont eliminate *some,* and as far as im
concerned, the fewer the wars, the better.
the only real argument one could make is that without religion, people
would still have the same amount of wars, just over different things.
of course, evidence would be required for this argument.
>
> >> Error of fact: the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were not a religious
> >> war.
>
> > do you think religion helps, hurts, or is neutral on making the war go
> > away?
>
> Religion had virtually no impact because it wasn't a religious war. (Hint:
> the Pope came to Ireland in 1979 and pleaded *on his knees* for the men of
> violence to stop. The *allegedly* Catholic IRA ignored him.)
you didnt answer my question. yes, the war didnt start along religious
lines, but religiousity is an easy way to determine who "the bad guys"
are, and that is the line they are now drawing in order to do so.
religion didnt start the fire, but it is adding fuel rather than
making it die down.
>
> BTW, I saw Dawkins being interviewed on TV a few weeks ago, he was
> challenged about his description of the troubles in Northern Ireland and he
> backed off at a rate of knots, admitting in his own words that weren't too
> many people shot because they accepted or rejected transubstantiation.
and of course, a single piece of overblown rhetoric or a single
factual error doesnt necessarily destroy any of his arguments. perhaps
you could list something that is central to dawkins' core arguments
that completely invalidates them?
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177694950....@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 27, 12:15 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> Accusing a scientist of writing stuff he doesn't believe is accusing that
> >> scientist of telling lies - but we all know that *your* definition of
> >> lies
> >> is different from everyone else.
>
> > accusing a scientist of pulling punches is accusing that scientist of
> > being too intelligent to make the claims he is making. if you read
> > dawkins' entire chapter on NOMA, you can see why it is a bunch of
> > nonsense, and why dawkins thinks somebody as intelligent as gould
> > didnt believe it.
>
> Claiming that a fellow scientist simply couldn't have meant what he said is
> utter arrogance.
when a fellow scientist says something that is utterly stupid, you can
either denounce him as a quack, or hope he didnt really mean it.
would you prefer dawkins to take the former route?
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 27, 12:33 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> > then show me where exactly dawkins says things that the above
>> > criticisms address.
>>
>> Read the book for yourself, you obviously haven't.
>
> well lookie lookie, you cant do it.
Yes I can - I could type out Page 339 where he makes the errors about
Loyalists and Nationalists that Eagleton refers to in the quotation above,
or I could type out P304 where he makes the claim that Islamic terrorism is
due to religion rather religion as again referred to by Eagleton - but I
have better things to do with my time than typing out pages from a book that
you can get from Amazon for $16.20, or you can probably get it from your
local library if that's too expensive for you.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 27, 12:30 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
[...]
>> >> Error of fact: the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were not a religious
>> >> war.
>>
>> > do you think religion helps, hurts, or is neutral on making the war go
>> > away?
>>
>> Religion had virtually no impact because it wasn't a religious war.
>> (Hint:
>> the Pope came to Ireland in 1979 and pleaded *on his knees* for the men
>> of
>> violence to stop. The *allegedly* Catholic IRA ignored him.)
>
> you didnt answer my question. yes, the war didnt start along religious
> lines, but religiousity is an easy way to determine who "the bad guys"
> are,
FFS, so one can assume that all Catholics in Northern Ireland supported the
IRA and all Protestants supported the UDA/UVF.
As I said earlier, you're full of shit, I'm not going to waste any more time
on you.
Turner
This part of the argument seems to be going nowhere, but I have to
agree with snex about the review in the London Review of Books.
Professor Dawkins' ideas may come across as arrogant, but Eagleton's
scornful defense of theology was not only ten times as arrogant as
anything Dawkins has said, it was utterly ridiculous.
People have said that Richard Dawkins' contributions to biology have
been overrated, and maybe they have been, but, whether they agree with
him about religion or not, they admit that he has educated thousands
of people about evolution and made biological sciences accessible to
people who may not normally have cared. Terry Eagleton, on the other
hand, even acknowledges that his own field of academia (cultural
theory) is no use at all.
Of course, that's not to say that Eagleton doesn't make a few good
points. Perhaps it might even be good for people who think that
Dawkins' resoning is completely reliable to read his review. However,
one of the bad things about 'The God Delusion' is that it has allowed
unintelligent people to feel smug that they can spot small flaws in
it. Everywhere you look, morons are trying to get their lame rebuttals
heard. It's even happened on talk.origins more than once, where it's
not even strictly relevant.
Probably the only good answer to 'The God Delusion' is Alister
McGrath's book, despite its appalling name ('The Dawkins Delusion')
and the fact that it doesn't attempt to justify or provide reasons for
belief in God. But honestly, six months after its publication people
are still denouncing 'The God Delusion', and it's very, very boring.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Turner" <joebob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1177697849....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 27, 6:33 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> This part of the argument seems to be going nowhere, but I have to
> agree with snex about the review in the London Review of Books.
> Professor Dawkins' ideas may come across as arrogant, but Eagleton's
> scornful defense of theology was not only ten times as arrogant as
> anything Dawkins has said, it was utterly ridiculous.
Whilst I disagree with your opinion I fully accept your right to hold it -
such an opinion is very different from snex's stupid claim that Eagleton
didn't read the book and that Dawkins didn't say those things in it.
> People have said that Richard Dawkins' contributions to biology have
> been overrated, and maybe they have been, but, whether they agree with
> him about religion or not, they admit that he has educated thousands
> of people about evolution and made biological sciences accessible to
> people who may not normally have cared.
I don't know whether his contributions have been overrated but I certainly
agree with the latter part of what you're saying - Dawkins has a very
special talent for making biology and evolution understandable for the
average layman - 'The Selfish Gene' is on my own list of all-time favourite
books.
I've said elsewhere that, for me, the saddest thing about 'The God Delusion'
is that the whole tone of it may put many people off reading his other
workds and deprive them of the chance to learn how wonderful and stimulating
the world of biolgy and evolution really is.
>Terry Eagleton, on the other
> hand, even acknowledges that his own field of academia (cultural
> theory) is no use at all.
>
> Of course, that's not to say that Eagleton doesn't make a few good
> points. Perhaps it might even be good for people who think that
> Dawkins' resoning is completely reliable to read his review. However,
> one of the bad things about 'The God Delusion' is that it has allowed
> unintelligent people to feel smug that they can spot small flaws in
> it. Everywhere you look, morons are trying to get their lame rebuttals
> heard. It's even happened on talk.origins more than once, where it's
> not even strictly relevant.
>
> Probably the only good answer to 'The God Delusion' is Alister
> McGrath's book, despite its appalling name ('The Dawkins Delusion')
> and the fact that it doesn't attempt to justify or provide reasons for
> belief in God.
I actually found that book a very good rebuttal of many of Dawkins' claims.
I think the criticism (from many people, not just you) that he doesn't
attempt to justify or provide reasons for belief in God is not fully
warranted; McGrath doesn't set out to 'prove' God, he simply sets out to
show the underlying errors and weaknesses in Dawkins' assertions and does a
very good job of it.
Tachyglossus
>
> the
> number of wacko/fundamentalists that actually hate science and
> scientists is no doubt small.
Multiply 'small number' by 'big influence' and 'lasting damage', and you get
a lot of power to distort public policy, law-making, international politics,
medicine, science, education and everyday morality in appallingly
destructive directions.
> I think that a broad-brush attack on
> all religion, even modern, liberal, secularized religion, runs a real
> risk of scaring the majority off the fence and into the anti-science
> camp, and for no purpose beyond the self-stimulation of axe-grinding.
Wrong again. Truth should be told, and falsehood exposed, whether there's an
axe or not. The time-honoured insistence that we 'tiptoe and whisper' when
we approach the issue of religious falsehood has merely allowed 'faith' to
consider its lies and its nonsense to be something insulated from even the
mildest criticism. And 'modern, liberal, secularized religion' isn't less
inherently toxic than the other kinds. It's just been forcibly disarmed.
Religion is too fundamentally *unreasonable*, too intellectually corrosive
and morally dangerous, to be treated with kid gloves. What Dawkins et al
have begun is our civilisation's first serious attempt *ever* to make the
'general population' realise that the nonsense they were brought up to think
of as 'unquestionable' is in fact really, really silly -- and that only its
ancientness and the massive power and privilege that its institutions still
possess obscures the fact.
People can't be rationally persuaded out of an irrational belief that they
were irrationally persuaded into -- and maybe they can't be ridiculed out of
it, either. But ridicule is valuable because it changes the climate for the
next generation. If, in 20 years, an advocate of 'Islam' or 'Christianity'
is perceived as being every bit as ridiculous as an advocate for Zeus, then
we'll have made a great advance.
When a believer says "We must all respect each other!", what they really
mean is: "You let us keep our power, privilege, and freedom from
criticism -- and in return we'll describe you as the heirs of Hitler and
Stalin".
T.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177696061....@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 27, 12:30 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
> >> >> Error of fact: the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland were not a religious
> >> >> war.
>
> >> > do you think religion helps, hurts, or is neutral on making the war go
> >> > away?
>
> >> Religion had virtually no impact because it wasn't a religious war.
> >> (Hint:
> >> the Pope came to Ireland in 1979 and pleaded *on his knees* for the men
> >> of
> >> violence to stop. The *allegedly* Catholic IRA ignored him.)
>
> > you didnt answer my question. yes, the war didnt start along religious
> > lines, but religiousity is an easy way to determine who "the bad guys"
> > are,
>
> FFS, so one can assume that all Catholics in Northern Ireland supported the
> IRA and all Protestants supported the UDA/UVF.
the soldiers on each side certainly do make this assumption when
deciding who to target.
Turner
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Turner" <joebobjoe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177697849....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 27, 6:33 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > This part of the argument seems to be going nowhere, but I have to
> > agree with snex about the review in the London Review of Books.
> > Professor Dawkins' ideas may come across as arrogant, but Eagleton's
> > scornful defense of theology was not only ten times as arrogant as
> > anything Dawkins has said, it was utterly ridiculous.
>
> Whilst I disagree with your opinion I fully accept your right to hold it -
> such an opinion is very different from snex's stupid claim that Eagleton
> didn't read the book and that Dawkins didn't say those things in it.
Yeah, I wondered where that came from, seeing as Eagleton directly
quotes several paragraphs from 'The God Delusion'. On the other hand,
there are definitely parts where he clearly does not understand what
Dawkins is saying, and I don't think he quite appreciates the vacuity
of theological arguments (probably because he is an 'expert' in an
area almost equally vapid).
> > People have said that Richard Dawkins' contributions to biology have
> > been overrated, and maybe they have been, but, whether they agree with
> > him about religion or not, they admit that he has educated thousands
> > of people about evolution and made biological sciences accessible to
> > people who may not normally have cared.
>
> I don't know whether his contributions have been overrated but I certainly
> agree with the latter part of what you're saying - Dawkins has a very
> special talent for making biology and evolution understandable for the
> average layman - 'The Selfish Gene' is on my own list of all-time favourite
> books.
>
> I've said elsewhere that, for me, the saddest thing about 'The God Delusion'
> is that the whole tone of it may put many people off reading his other
> workds and deprive them of the chance to learn how wonderful and stimulating
> the world of biolgy and evolution really is.
I've noticed that as well. In fact, I've had trouble bringing across
to some of my friends how good his books on evolution are (I actually
like 'The Ancestor's Tale' better than 'The Selfish Gene', even though
it's less groundbreaking) because a couple of them now just see him as
an antitheist. I don't think it puts them off biology; the problem is
that they now see Dawkins as very arrogant when he's really not.
>
> >Terry Eagleton, on the other
> > hand, even acknowledges that his own field of academia (cultural
> > theory) is no use at all.
>
> > Of course, that's not to say that Eagleton doesn't make a few good
> > points. Perhaps it might even be good for people who think that
> > Dawkins' resoning is completely reliable to read his review. However,
> > one of the bad things about 'The God Delusion' is that it has allowed
> > unintelligent people to feel smug that they can spot small flaws in
> > it. Everywhere you look, morons are trying to get their lame rebuttals
> > heard. It's even happened on talk.origins more than once, where it's
> > not even strictly relevant.
>
> > Probably the only good answer to 'The God Delusion' is Alister
> > McGrath's book, despite its appalling name ('The Dawkins Delusion')
> > and the fact that it doesn't attempt to justify or provide reasons for
> > belief in God.
>
> I actually found that book a very good rebuttal of many of Dawkins' claims.
> I think the criticism (from many people, not just you) that he doesn't
> attempt to justify or provide reasons for belief in God is not fully
> warranted; McGrath doesn't set out to 'prove' God, he simply sets out to
> show the underlying errors and weaknesses in Dawkins' assertions and does a
> very good job of it.
I suppose it's not really warranted, and possibly the book is much
better for not having such justifications because all the ones I have
heard from McGrath before have been awful. I'm hardly a Dawkins-
supporter so I can appreciate that Prof McGrath dismantles some of
Prof Dawkins' more ridiculous assertions with some skill. I didn't
think the book was that great, but it's definitely the best there is,
especially when compared to the inane ramblings of some websites and
newspaper columns.
alwaysaskingquestions
"snex" <xe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177701110.2...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Like when they planted bombs in busy city centres?
Care to explain how approximately 1/3 of those killed by Republican groups
were Catholics and approximately 1/4 of those killed by Loyalists were
Protestants ?
>> As I said earlier, you're full of shit>
Confirmed
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 27, 7:39 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Turner" <joebobjoe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> I actually
> like 'The Ancestor's Tale' better than 'The Selfish Gene'
My understanding of Natural Selection was very fuzzy until I read The
Selfish Gene which really clarified it for me, plus things I had never
really thought about, such as how siblings can be genetically closer than
parents/offspring; his tracing of the genes causing haemophilia in the
British Royal Family was also fascinating.
On the other hand, I found the Ancestor's Tale very good for the first few
chapters but gradually becoming more and more laborious as it went on - to
be honest, I got bored with it and gave up about 2/3 of the way through.
Horses for courses I suppose.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 27, 12:33 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> Claiming that a fellow scientist simply couldn't have meant what he said
>> is
>> utter arrogance.
>
> when a fellow scientist says something that is utterly stupid, you can
> either denounce him as a quack, or hope he didnt really mean it.
*Hoping* he didn't mean it and *saying* he didn't mean it are two entirely
different things
>
> would you prefer dawkins to take the former route?
It would have been more honest, I get the impression that Dawkins thought he
was a quack in this regard but didn't have the balls to say it.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
first hes arrogant, now he doesnt have any balls. which is it??
A.Carlson
>On Apr 26, 11:05 am, slothrop <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 3:12 pm, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks> wrote:
>>
<Clip>
Yes, the ignorant masses can sometimes be easily roused, especially if
they are stirred up with anti-intellectualism. A good counter to this
just might be to educate the general public in the true value of sound
science and a good education and warn them of those who play to the
lowest common denominator.
>Yet the
>number of wacko/fundamentalists that actually hate science and
>scientists is no doubt small.
And yet they themselves do not choose to play by the very same rules
you seem to be advocating here. You seem to be advocating unilateral
disarmament in the face of an intransigent opponent. It also only
takes a few zealots to stir up a lot of resentment and you are
severely underestimating the willingness of a vast ignorant audience
who are primed to be led by the nose if the issue relates directly to
their religious mythologies.
>I think that a broad-brush attack on
>all religion, even modern, liberal, secularized religion, runs a real
>risk of scaring the majority off the fence and into the anti-science
>camp, and for no purpose beyond the self-stimulation of axe-grinding.
So, would acquiescing to the mob be the best answer then? And I would
think that "modern, liberal, secularized religio[us people]" would
already be far enough along to either not be too overly concerned or
actually share in our resentment of religious zealotry.
er...@swva.net
That would be nice, but the anti-science side is not just sitting on
their butts, but also on a of powerful aspect of ancient human nature.
> >Yet the
> >number of wacko/fundamentalists that actually hate science and
> >scientists is no doubt small.
>
> And yet they themselves do not choose to play by the very same rules
> you seem to be advocating here.
Well, if we are the good guys (which I must believe), then we should
_expect_ our opponents to behave worse. If they acted _better_ than
we do, they would be the good guys and we would _deserve_ to lose.
Sheesh.
> You seem to be advocating unilateral
> disarmament in the face of an intransigent opponent.
I beg your pardon, but that's sheer hallucination on your part (okay,
I guess it's technically a delusion). How is it even possible to
mistake refusal to attack unnecessarily with disarmament? What beside
some sort of spiteful revenge do you hope to accomplish?
> It also only
> takes a few zealots to stir up a lot of resentment and you are
> severely underestimating the willingness of a vast ignorant audience
> who are primed to be led by the nose if the issue relates directly to
> their religious mythologies.
>
I'm not underestimating it, it's what I'm warning you about!
> >I think that a broad-brush attack on
> >all religion, even modern, liberal, secularized religion, runs a real
> >risk of scaring the majority off the fence and into the anti-science
> >camp, and for no purpose beyond the self-stimulation of axe-grinding.
>
> So, would acquiescing to the mob be the best answer then?
What the!? In all due respect, are you on crack? Do you just make
this stuff up? If you seriously think that is what all other choices
amount to, then I would like you to try to make a case for angry
bellicosity. Tell us why it is so much better than, say, "skilled
diplomacy" and "advanced socio-political interaction skills." While
you are at it, tell us why boxing is superior to aikido.
> And I would
> think that "modern, liberal, secularized religio[us people]" would
> already be far enough along to either not be too overly concerned or
> actually share in our resentment of religious zealotry.
We do very much share your resentment of religious zealotry, heck,
they are trying to take over Christianity out from under us! but you
are painting us with the same brush as them, and we plain don't like
it. Crap, at least have the basic manners (if not the tactical sense)
to wait until the fundamentalists are defeated before you turn on us!
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
I think human nature is marvelous and a bit scary.
Eric Root
Tachyglossus
>
> Yeah, I wondered where that came from, seeing as Eagleton directly
> quotes several paragraphs from 'The God Delusion'. On the other hand,
> there are definitely parts where he clearly does not understand what
> Dawkins is saying, and I don't think he quite appreciates the vacuity
> of theological arguments (probably because he is an 'expert' in an
> area almost equally vapid).
Eagleton manages to be a cultural theorist/literary critic *and* a
theologian: the theology in his Dawkins review was embarrassing, but it was
not 'amateur'..
T.
A.Carlson
If I read you correctly (NOTE: This isn't a spelling flame) you seem
to be attributing their actions to human nature. If lying and
deception, for example, can be ascribed to human nature, that is still
no reason to let such things go and not try to supplant such things
with reason and honest discourse even if the people in question are
reluctant themselves to be honest. All the more reason to publicly
challenge them.
>> >Yet the
>> >number of wacko/fundamentalists that actually hate science and
>> >scientists is no doubt small.
>>
>> And yet they themselves do not choose to play by the very same rules
>> you seem to be advocating here.
>
>Well, if we are the good guys (which I must believe), then we should
>_expect_ our opponents to behave worse. If they acted _better_ than
>we do, they would be the good guys and we would _deserve_ to lose.
>Sheesh.
It isn't a question of 'good' or 'bad' but of not being reluctant to
use perfectly valid arguments that are germane to the discussion even
if some do choose to find them offensive.
>> You seem to be advocating unilateral
>> disarmament in the face of an intransigent opponent.
>
>I beg your pardon, but that's sheer hallucination on your part (okay,
>I guess it's technically a delusion). How is it even possible to
>mistake refusal to attack unnecessarily with disarmament?
Not making a valid argument for fear of offending certainly is a form
of disarmament even if only partial disarmament.
>What beside
>some sort of spiteful revenge do you hope to accomplish?
It isn't a matter of 'spiteful revenge' but of not unilaterally tying
your own hands behind your back in respect for an opponent who shows
no reluctance to viciously attack your own position no matter how
offensive or ridiculous. Simply stating or suggesting that there is a
certain degree of naivete or ignorance associated with religion is
tame compared with even your garden variety of acerbic remarks typical
of fundamentalists ranting about atheists. More to the point a lot of
verbal attacks against religion that religious people complain about
have a lot more truth to them than many of them are willing to admit
and are a lot more likely to be defensible.
>> It also only
>> takes a few zealots to stir up a lot of resentment and you are
>> severely underestimating the willingness of a vast ignorant audience
>> who are primed to be led by the nose if the issue relates directly to
>> their religious mythologies.
>
>I'm not underestimating it, it's what I'm warning you about!
And I'm saying don't be afraid to take them head on and that truth
should not be sacrificed in order to 'keep the peace'.
>> >I think that a broad-brush attack on
>> >all religion, even modern, liberal, secularized religion, runs a real
>> >risk of scaring the majority off the fence and into the anti-science
>> >camp, and for no purpose beyond the self-stimulation of axe-grinding.
>>
>> So, would acquiescing to the mob be the best answer then?
>
>What the!? In all due respect, are you on crack? Do you just make
>this stuff up? If you seriously think that is what all other choices
>amount to, then I would like you to try to make a case for angry
>bellicosity. Tell us why it is so much better than, say, "skilled
>diplomacy" and "advanced socio-political interaction skills." While
>you are at it, tell us why boxing is superior to aikido.
Diplomacy only works to a point. If biting one's tongue means that
the truth is muzzled in order to keep the peace, especially if it
concerns peace with people who themselves are under no restraint to
hold back blatant falsehoods, then diplomacy itself is a form of
surrender.
If the truth can still be gotten out in a less offensive but equally
effective manner then that is a completely separate question but some
things that either must or should be said are just going to end up
being offensive to some no matter how it's said.
>> And I would
>> think that "modern, liberal, secularized religio[us people]" would
>> already be far enough along to either not be too overly concerned or
>> actually share in our resentment of religious zealotry.
>
>We do very much share your resentment of religious zealotry, heck,
>they are trying to take over Christianity out from under us! but you
>are painting us with the same brush as them, and we plain don't like
>it.
A delusion is a delusion no matter how mild or severe. Some delusions
may be less likely to be confrontational in and of themselves but they
can still contribute to the overall problem nevertheless.
>Crap, at least have the basic manners (if not the tactical sense)
>to wait until the fundamentalists are defeated before you turn on us!
It isn't a question of turning on anyone as much as it is saying what
needs to be said. To accept a deity simply at face value without
going so far as to accept the more obvious false mythologies
associated with it just to keep some sort of peace is still giving way
too much credibility to something that is still baseless from the
get-go at least from an evidentiary standpoint.
I have seen major concessions being made completely unnecessarily and
unjustifiably when some theistic evolutionist tries to debate your
garden variety creationist. Since they are both believers to one
degree or another, both essentially accept as fact that the Bible
indeed does contain some sort of divine knowledge. Arguing about
which is the correct interpretation that should be relied on often
leaves no room for 'neither' even if that is what the correct answer
actually appears to be.
alwaysaskingquestions
<er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:1177690613.1...@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> I think that a broad-brush attack on
> all religion, even modern, liberal, secularized religion, runs a real
> risk of scaring the majority off the fence and into the anti-science
> camp, and for no purpose beyond the self-stimulation of axe-grinding.
William Demski agrees with you, he has said that says Dawkins'
inflammatory rhetoric helps the I.D. cause by making evolution sound
un-Christian.
OlOlOl01
"A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8m53355nimvat7oq...@4ax.com...
Quite.
Anyone who claims to find the question:
"Show me your (tangible) evidence."
'offensive' usually has none and feigns offence in order
to obfuscate and shift logical debate into an alternative
emotional frame.
er...@swva.net
> "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, if the subject is keeping creationism out of schools, or
preventing the religious pollution of science, or even preventing
theocracy, for you to argue about/attack _religion in general_ is to
accept the reference frame of the fundamentalists and that's a
battlefield they would rather fight on. In other words, you are
playing their game. They are glad when atheists attack religion
instead of defending science.
Eric Root
Martin Hutton
On 27-Apr-2007, "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com>
wrote:
To say that:
"Religion had virtually no impact because it wasn't
a religious war."
is somewhat disengenuous. Yes, it's not *now* a religious
war, and no, religion has a great deal of impact on maintaining
a difference between the two sides whose members would
otherwise find their interests coinciding.
The fact is that "Protestant" and "Catholic" have been
identifying labels since the Irish supported the Catholic
Charles Stuart and the English supported the Protestant
husband of James Stuart's daughter (William and Mary of
Orange). This was definitely a religious conflict...Charles
Stuart, if successful, would have returned England to the
Catholic Church.
[One could say it all began with Henry VIII and started
to come to head when Elizabeth I died childless thus paving
the way for the Catholic Stuarts]
After the Battle of the Boyne the defeated Irish rebels had
English (and Scottish) landlords imposed on them. Thus, in
Ireland the "rebel" downtrodden caste were Catholic and the
"loyal" oppressive caste were Protestant.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries the rebel Irish self
identified with the Catholic label rather than the working
class label that contemporary revolutions adopted. This is
exemplified by the "too close to home" joke whose punch line
is:
"But are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".
--
Martin Hutton
Martin Hutton
On 26-Apr-2007, snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 6:46 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in
> > messagenews:1177621116.7...@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Apr 26, 1:31 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "slothrop" <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:1177599947.8...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > > On Apr 25, 3:12 pm, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks> wrote:
> >
> > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > Of all the anti-Dawkinists I've yet talked to, the only thing I've
> > > > > heard is that "The God Delusion" is arrogant. Damn it, I can't
> > > > >imagine
> > > > > using that as my argument for not reading something or basing my
> > > > > criticism solely on that. I'm sure there are factual or logical
> > > > >errors
> > > > > in the book, as there are in other books of it's type, why is it
> > > > > people aren't jumping on those?
> >
> > > > Various people have, including myself on this newsgroup.
> >
> > > present one right here. just one. direct quotes only please.
> >
> > > > I think Winston summed it up very well when he said " Dawkins is not
> > > > an arrogant man, but I think he does portray certainty in a way that
> > > > sometimes sounds arrogant".
> >
> > > > I might quibble whether 'sometimes' would be better as better
> > > > changed to
> > > > 'often'
> >
> > > show dawkins being arrogant. direct quotes only please.
> >
> > > > I also suspect that Winston is reflecting the view of many
> > > > scientists who
> > > > regard Dawkins very highly for his scientific skills but consider
> > > > his
> > > > atheistic evangelism as distasteful.
> >
> > > but its perfectly acceptable for francis collins to evangelize by
> > > saying waterfalls imply jesus christ. right!
> >
> > You realize, of course, that someone is going to ask for a direct quote
> > from
> > Collins on that waterfall-Jesus thing. ;-)
>
> gladly.
>
> "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains ...
> the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As
> I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen
> waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next
> morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to
> Jesus Christ."
Didn't Collins also mention that because there were
three strands to the waterfall he knew that the god
he had found was the three-in-one god of the Christians?
Lucky for him the waterfall didn't have 20 or 30 strands
otherwise he would have been forced to be a Hindu! Two
strands would make him a Zoroastrian, and one strand,
a Muslim or JW (yer pays yer money...).
--
Martin Hutton
alwaysaskingquestions
"Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:f0vrff$1bf$1...@news.datemas.de...
> To say that:
> "Religion had virtually no impact because it wasn't
> a religious war."
> is somewhat disengenuous. Yes, it's not *now* a religious
> war, and no, religion has a great deal of impact on maintaining
> a difference between the two sides whose members would
> otherwise find their interests coinciding.
>
> The fact is that "Protestant" and "Catholic" have been
> identifying labels since the Irish supported the Catholic
> Charles Stuart and the English supported the Protestant
> husband of James Stuart's daughter (William and Mary of
> Orange).
Precisely - religion has been used as labels of convenience for what is
essentially an ethnic/tribal conflict.
gregwrld
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f0vrff$1bf$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27-Apr-2007, "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > To say that:
> > "Religion had virtually no impact because it wasn't
> > a religious war."
> > is somewhat disengenuous. Yes, it's not *now* a religious
> > war, and no, religion has a great deal of impact on maintaining
> > a difference between the two sides whose members would
> > otherwise find their interests coinciding.
>
> > The fact is that "Protestant" and "Catholic" have been
> > identifying labels since the Irish supported the Catholic
> > Charles Stuart and the English supported the Protestant
> > husband of James Stuart's daughter (William and Mary of
> > Orange).
>
> Precisely - religion has been used as labels of convenience for what is
> essentially an ethnic/tribal conflict.
Those "labels of convenience" are also used by the parties to the
conflict. The
fact that there are nominal "Catholic" and "Protestant" districts in
Belfast has
certainly contributed to the use of these labels over the years.
gregwrld
OlOlOl01
<er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:1177772602.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
incidentally a paraphrase of the motto of the Royal Society)
than I am attacking belief in Father Christmas, flying saucers,
Daleks, the infallibilty of Tony Blair or the transmutation of
lead into gold.
The problem common to all such ideas is 'belief' - acceptance
of something n the say so of some authurity, without repeatable,
supporting tangible evidence.
Moving debate into the realm of (tangible) evidence based logic
does not accept any fundamentalist viewpoint, rather it reveals (and in
doing so destroys) the false scaffold upon which such views are
constructed.
Grandbank
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Care to explain how approximately 1/3 of those killed by Republican groups
> were Catholics and approximately 1/4 of those killed by Loyalists were
> Protestants ?
>
Care to apply that reasoning to Islamic bombings? The water-testing
of witches? The endless other examples of belief in an afterlife
leading to careless disregard for the death of innocents in this
one?
To the believer, collateral damage is irrelevant since injustices can
be sorted out in the afterlife.
KP
alwaysaskingquestions
"OlOlOl01" <nospa...@all.thanks> wrote in message
news:6RLYh.1279$s35...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
[...]
> I am no 'attacking' religion with that question (which is
> incidentally a paraphrase of the motto of the Royal Society)
> than I am attacking belief in Father Christmas, flying saucers,
> Daleks, the infallibilty of Tony Blair or the transmutation of
> lead into gold.
It's kinda hard to find people who believe in those things in order to
insult them.
alwaysaskingquestions
"gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1177782749.1...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The withdrawal into ethnic areas has certainly exacerbated the situation but
it's only to be expected when people feel threatened due to their ethnicity.
The basic problem in Northern Ireland comes from the fact that there were
(and still are, to some extent) the descendants of two tribes - an
indigenous tribe and an invading tribe which is as strong a differentiation
as you can get. The tribal differences were maintained mainly because the
invading tribe were conquerors and chose to exclude the indigenous tribe as
an ill-fated measure of self protection. This approach resulted in very
little intermingling of the tribes as each of them considered the other as
an enemy. In this type of situation, tribes tend to hold on very tightly to
their cultural identities - in Ireland, adherence to a particular religion
was one aspect of those cultural identities.
Fortunately, a lot of the traditional barriers have gone down now and
hopefully politics in the future will move more and more away from a
religious influence.
snex
<mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
actually, had he seen a waterfall with 20 or 30 strands, he would have
ignored that feature. he might not even think the entire thing
significant at all.
>
> --
> Martin Hutton
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <e...@swva.net> wrote in message
why do you take dembski's word for it? we all agree hes an idiot. do
you have any tangible evidence that dawkins contributes to religious
fundamentalism?
AC
Unlike Dembski, I don't recall Dawkins ever saying that the issue of
the existence of the Divine can be scientifically determined. Dawkins
may be an aggressive and caustic character, but I think that kicking
sacred cows in the ass ought to be congratulated, even when those attacks
miss the mark. He's largely wrong that all those religious wars can
actually be demonstrated to have been caused by religion. His tact
is wrong. Instead of blaming the conflicts on religion, he ought to
be pointing out just how incapable religions have been at preventing
horrible attrocities. Heck, the Pope can't even stop Catholics from
wearing French Ticklers are the johnsons, let alone actually prevent
conflicts, allegedly religious or otherwise.
And that to me is the true lesson of history. Religions and their
trappings (divine moral codes, rituals, dogma and theological meanderings)
have, by and large, been slaves to the societies in which they existed.
If slavery is a part of the economic system, you suddenly have theological
justifications popping up and churches being formed to protect that
economy. If folk prejudices against Jews are the norm of the day,
it seems trivially easy to produce religious justifications for abusing
them, kicking them out and in some rather notorious cases killing them
in large numbers. If socio-political ambitions are to dominate a large
chunk of the world where the populace by and large worship the same
holy book as you do, calling for suicidial individuals to kill
themselves in the name of God to kill those that stand in the way
of your imperialistic interests is incredibly effective.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Martin Hutton
Ah! Yes...I was forgetting the "selective evidence for
the god I believe in" syndrome.
Anyway, he's wrong. Because as we all know from a piece
of 60s grafitti that "Clapton is God!"....therefore God
exists.
--
Martin Hutton
Noelie S. Alito
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:38:26 +0100,
> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <er...@swva.net> wrote in message
>> news:1177690613.1...@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I think that a broad-brush attack on
>>> all religion, even modern, liberal, secularized religion, runs a real
>>> risk of scaring the majority off the fence and into the anti-science
>>> camp, and for no purpose beyond the self-stimulation of axe-grinding.
>> William Demski agrees with you, he has said that says Dawkins'
>> inflammatory rhetoric helps the I.D. cause by making evolution sound
>> un-Christian.
>
> Unlike Dembski, I don't recall Dawkins ever saying that the issue of
> the existence of the Divine can be scientifically determined. Dawkins
> may be an aggressive and caustic character, but I think that kicking
> sacred cows in the ass ought to be congratulated, even when those attacks
> miss the mark. He's largely wrong that all those religious wars can
> actually be demonstrated to have been caused by religion. His tact
> is wrong.
I believe you mean his _tack_ is wrong.
His tact is...nonexistent. ;-)
<snip>
Noelie
--
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during
that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer,
a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico
safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba
a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International
Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the
Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped
make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China
in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
--US Marine General S. Butler, 1935
Luddite
> Lord Winston has condemned Professor Dawkins
> for his attitude to religious faith. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod
>
> His nickname is Darwin's Rottweiler and he earned it - and a reputation that
> spans the globe - with his pugnacious defence of the theory of evolution.
> But Professor Richard Dawkins' strident views, and the way with which they
> are delivered, came under surprise attack yesterday from an equally eminent
> scientist, though one better known for his more avuncular style.
> Lord Winston condemned Prof Dawkins for what he called his "patronising" and
> "insulting" attitude to religious faith, and argued that he and others like
> him were in danger of damaging the public's trust in science. He
> particularly objected to Prof Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion, which
> is an outright attack on religion.
> "I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord
What is wrong with attacking religion or religious faith?
Perhaps it is a little like applying a hammer to a nut. well a lot of
nuts. but I see nothing wrong except the nuts may be destroyed
inadvertently.