The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (long)
alwaysaskingquestions
to be.
First of all, to make my own position clear, I am what is best generally as
a "Theistic Evolutionist" - I believe in God but accept the findings of
science in general and evolution in particular and don't find those things
incompatible. I wasn't sure initially whether I wanted to even bother
reading this book - I have great respect for Richard Dawkins as a scientist,
I have read several of his other books and he undoubtedly has a tremendous
gift for explaining science in a way that a layman can understand it, but I
generally find his vehement hatred of all forms of religion to be a
distraction from his scientific explanations. I suspected that this would be
the same case but went ahead anyway.
Alas, the book turned out much as I anticipated.
Dawkins does put forward some very good arguments against and ideas about
religion, particularly the structured forms of religion with which most of
us are familiar. As a Christian, I found much food for thought in some of
those arguments/ideas but had to work hard at this because of my irritation
at many of his other arguments.
Indeed, I almost gave up after reading the very first page when he talks of
his delight at a Channel 4 advertisement for his documentary 'Root of All
Evil?' As he describes it:
"It was a picture of the Manhattan Skyline with the caption 'Imagine a world
without religion' ... the Twin Towers were conspicuously present."
He goes on to say ""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' .".
Let me stop there, that one particularly annoyed me. I grew up in Northern
Ireland through 'the troubles' and to blame them simply on religion at best
shows a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the conflict
there and at worst is a deliberate and cynical attempt to misrepresent that
conflict to bolster an argument.
It is totally preposterous to suggest that in the absence of religion, most
of the wars and conflict in the world, past and present, would not have
existed without religion. The last century saw two major World Wars; I'd be
interested to hear Professor Dawkins theory on how religion caused them.
Yes, many of these things have been carried out in the name of religion or
using religion as an excuse but in seeking to condemn religion because of
its misuse, Dawkins becomes the mirror image of religious fundamentalists
who try to condemn all of science because of its misuse or misrepresentation
by some individual scientists.
And that is the overall problem I find with Dawkins - he is so passionate
about the values of atheism and so anti-religion that he becomes as much as
proselytiser as the Christian fundamentalists he despises and ends up using
their same techniques that he quite rightly castigates. Examples include:
Quote Mining
==========
He quotes from St. Augustine "There is another form of temptation, even more
fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which
drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are
beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should
not wish to learn."
This is the same St. Augustine who said:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the
stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he
hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topic . Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of
their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not
bound by the authority of our sacred books."
On a side note, some people, including myself, would regard St. Augustine as
a fore-runner of Charles Darwin - Augustine put forward the idea that man
was not created directly by God, that he was created by God breathing life
into one of a number of existing species; he also said that the universe was
created in a single instant but that it was a very different universe from
the one we know, which ties in nicely with the Big Bang theory!
Anecdotal Evidence
===============
In talking about the impact of religion on preparedness for death, he says
"A senior nurse of my acquaintance, with a lifetime's experience of running
a home for old people . has noticed over the years that the individuals who
are most afraid of death are the religious ones."
What a wonderfully scientific piece of evidence! Just the converse of the
sort of story we are used to haering from Christian evangelists.
Misstatement of Facts
=================
In his tirade against the concept of Purgatory and the scandal of
indulgences being sold by the Church in the middle ages, he completely
misrepresents the whole concept of indulgences - they do NOT represent "x
days off" from Purgatory.
He is quite right of course, that the selling of indulgences was a total
disgrace, but as a qualified scientist, Dawkins should know the importance
of getting the basic facts right before basing an argument on them.
Emotive Arguments
===============
Dawkins peppers his book with numerous anecdotes which appear designed to
tug at the reader's heartstrings and doesn't seem to mind how far back in
history he has to go to find them. For example, he tells the story of
Edgardo Mortara, a six year old child of Jewish parents legally seized by
papal police when the Catholic Church discovered that he been secretly
baptised by his Catholic nanny.
Dawkins admits that this happened in 1858 and that he is "not implying that
anything like this awful story could happen today". So why does he use the
story then? Maybe it's just me, but I find the use of stories like this
just as distasteful as those fundamentalist Christians who carry around
aborted fetuses in glass jars to show to schoolchildren.
Teaching Children
==============
The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to be
taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent bring up
their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that child? Good
parents, of course, will educate their children that there are other
opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but in other areas
such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously close to being in
the same category as those fundamentalists who do not want their children
taught about evolution.
----------------------------------
Overall, I think there *is* a good book to be written in this whole area
but, in my opinion, 'The God Delusion' is not that book.
ryan.st...@lycos.co.uk
Bunker/Alf Garnet.
Imagine a world without religion? Imagine a world without humans: No
Stalin, no Hitler, no Pol Pot no Chinese Communist Party. The Dodo and
the Sperm whale would still be around. The atmosphere would be
pristine.
Dawkins has been torn apart in the British press for the God Delusion.
Rod Liddle did an excellent hatchet job in the Sunday Telegraph I think
it was.
It was a big mistake for him to tread into laymans territory - made it
obvious he's a long way from being the genius he would have us believe.
Perplexed in Peoria
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4rri0nF...@mid.individual.net...
Nice posting. I would nominate for a POTM, except that it hasn't a
snowball's chance of winning.
But one quibble: You chastise Dawkins for characterizing indulgences
as "x days off from purgatory". Actually, if I recall correctly, that
is exactly the explanation I received from the nuns in Catholic schools
back in the 1950s. But, regarding your category "Misstatement of Facts",
I have little doubt that other examples can be found - my lack of
doubt arising from experience with comments regarding religion in Dawkins'
other books.
Chimp
>
> I've just finished this book and what a great disappointment in turned out
> He goes on to say ""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' .".
>
> Let me stop there, that one particularly annoyed me. I grew up in Northern
> Ireland through 'the troubles' and to blame them simply on religion at best
> shows a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the conflict
> there [. . .]
He doesn't blame it _simply_ on religion, he blames it
_partially_ on religion. Would the the conflict have been
sustained so long without the religious issue to keep
the two communities divided? Had there been mixed,
secular schools, rather than religious ones, surely it
might have died out a generation ago?
> It is totally preposterous to suggest that in the absence of religion, most
> of the wars and conflict in the world, past and present, would not have
> existed without religion.
He never said "most".
> Quote Mining
> ==========
> He quotes from St. Augustine "There is another form of temptation, even more
> fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which
> drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are
> beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should
> not wish to learn."
>
> This is the same St. Augustine who said:
>
> "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
> and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the
> stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
> eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
> the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he
> hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
> disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
> presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
> topic . Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
> trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of
> their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not
> bound by the authority of our sacred books."
How does your quote obviate Dawkins's quote?
If the first quote is not out of context or misleading
then it is not "quote mining" as usually understood.
> Anecdotal Evidence
> ===============
> In talking about the impact of religion on preparedness for death, he says
> "A senior nurse of my acquaintance, with a lifetime's experience of running
> a home for old people . has noticed over the years that the individuals who
> are most afraid of death are the religious ones."
>
> What a wonderfully scientific piece of evidence! Just the converse of the
> sort of story we are used to haering from Christian evangelists.
Decent point. However, has there been a proper study
for him to cite?
> Misstatement of Facts
> =================
> In his tirade against the concept of Purgatory and the scandal of
> indulgences being sold by the Church in the middle ages, he completely
> misrepresents the whole concept of indulgences - they do NOT represent "x
> days off" from Purgatory.
OK, so please tell us what they were.
> Emotive Arguments
> ===============
> Dawkins peppers his book with numerous anecdotes which appear designed to
> tug at the reader's heartstrings and doesn't seem to mind how far back in
> history he has to go to find them. For example, he tells the story of
> Edgardo Mortara, a six year old child of Jewish parents legally seized by
> papal police when the Catholic Church discovered that he been secretly
> baptised by his Catholic nanny.
>
> Dawkins admits that this happened in 1858
So that is 92% of the way from the origin of Christianity
to today. Why shouldn't he pick things from the
entire history of a religion in discussing what that
religion is like?
> and that he is "not implying that anything like this awful
> story could happen today". So why does he use the
> story then?
Because it illustrates some aspects of a Christian mindset.
> Teaching Children
> ==============
> The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to be
> taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent bring up
> their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that child?
His criticism wasn't about parents. It was about society and
schools presuming that a child will automatically follow
the religion of its parents. He didn't suggest that parents
should not tell their kids about their (the parents') religion.
> Good
> parents, of course, will educate their children that there are other
> opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but in other areas
> such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously close to being in
> the same category as those fundamentalists who do not want their children
> taught about evolution.
At no point does he say that children should be kept
in ignorance of their parents' religion. But he does
say that they should be exposed to an educational
variety of viewpoints, and that schools and society
should not presume that a child is automatically of
the same viewpoint as its parents.
Chimp
Chimp
>> but, in my opinion, 'The God Delusion' is not that book.
>
> Nice posting. I would nominate for a POTM, except that it hasn't a
> snowball's chance of winning.
>
> But one quibble: You chastise Dawkins for characterizing indulgences
> as "x days off from purgatory". Actually, if I recall correctly, that
> is exactly the explanation I received from the nuns in Catholic schools
> back in the 1950s. But, regarding your category "Misstatement of Facts",
> I have little doubt that other examples can be found - my lack of
> doubt arising from experience with comments regarding religion in Dawkins'
> other books.
>From wikipedia "Before the Second Vatican Council, partial
indulgences were stated as a term of days, weeks, months,
or years. This has resulted in Catholics and non-Catholics alike
believing that indulgences remit a specific period of time equal
to the length of the soul's stay in Purgatory. This was not true,
rather the stated length of time actually indicated that the
indulgence was equal to the amount of remission the
individual would have earned by performing a canonical
penance for that period of time. For example, the amount
of punishment remitted by a "forty day" indulgence would
be equal to the amount of punishment remitted by the
individual performing forty days of penance".
If I interpret that correctly, it suggests that it is indeed
time of purgatory, but not "x days". Overall, that is a
fairly minor correction, that doesn't really change any
of the discussion of it in the "God delusion".
Chimp
JPG
Ilas
news:4rri0nF...@mid.individual.net:
> Teaching Children
> ==============
> The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to
> be taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent
> bring up their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that
> child? Good parents, of course, will educate their children that there
> are other opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but
> in other areas such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously
> close to being in the same category as those fundamentalists who do
> not want their children taught about evolution.
That's a difficult one. I tend to agree with Dawkins that religion being
foisted on kids is a form of child abuse. I was brought up in a religious
Catholic household, sent to Catholic school, and spent a lot of my
childhood terrified that I was going to burn for eternity. My family and my
school was wrong to do that to me and my brothers. Kids believe that
nonsense because authority figures say it's true. You can't stop religious
parents foisting their irrational beliefs on kids; however, you can and
should stop religious schools. The government here (UK) seems sadly
determined to increase the number of religious schools though.
Northern Ireland is a prime example. A very good friend of mine grew up in
Derry and never met a protestant till he came to Scotland for University.
By his admission, leaving Derry, meeting all sorts of people and seeing
what was happening from afar changed his opinions drastically (although he
still carries an Irish rather then British passport). Religious schools
might not be the root of the troubles, but they certainly don't help.
Ilas
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Dawkins has been torn apart in the British press for the God Delusion.
> Rod Liddle did an excellent hatchet job in the Sunday Telegraph I think
> it was.
>
> It was a big mistake for him to tread into laymans territory - made it
> obvious he's a long way from being the genius he would have us believe.
It's still one of the top selling non-fiction books in the UK though, and
has been for weeks. Obviously struck a chord somewhere.
Ilas
news:hU06h.13864$B31....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
> But one quibble: You chastise Dawkins for characterizing indulgences
> as "x days off from purgatory". Actually, if I recall correctly, that
> is exactly the explanation I received from the nuns in Catholic
> schools back in the 1950s.
Same here, but make that the 70s rather than the 50s. I think it was "time
off" rather than "days off", but the principle was there.
rmj
"Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163435463.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
There was a discrepancy between the Church's interpretation of indulgences
and the understanding of indulgences by the laity. The hawkers of
indulgences would, of course, describe them as would best sell them.
Hoof-Hearted
ryan.st...@lycos.co.uk wrote:
> I read the first three chapters and thought they were written by Archie
> Bunker/Alf Garnet.
So you didn't read the rest, then. That seems par for the course for
Dawkins' detractors. I found the book informative and well-written.
It needed to be said, there is far too much unreason in the world.
>
> Imagine a world without religion? Imagine a world without humans: No
> Stalin, no Hitler, no Pol Pot no Chinese Communist Party. The Dodo and
> the Sperm whale would still be around. The atmosphere would be
> pristine.
Silly Strawman.
>
> Dawkins has been torn apart in the British press for the God Delusion.
> Rod Liddle did an excellent hatchet job in the Sunday Telegraph I think
> it was.
>
That's odd, I got the impression the book was rather favourably
reviewed in most of the British and a fair bit of the American press -
I guess we don't read the same newspapers.
> It was a big mistake for him to tread into laymans territory - made it
> obvious he's a long way from being the genius he would have us believe.
Isn't treading into layman's territory what he does, and he does it
extremely well - he is, after all, a Professor of the Public
Understanding of Science.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163435463.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>>From wikipedia "Before the Second Vatican Council, partial
> indulgences were stated as a term of days, weeks, months,
> or years. This has resulted in Catholics and non-Catholics alike
> believing that indulgences remit a specific period of time equal
> to the length of the soul's stay in Purgatory. This was not true,
> rather the stated length of time actually indicated that the
> indulgence was equal to the amount of remission the
> individual would have earned by performing a canonical
> penance for that period of time. For example, the amount
> of punishment remitted by a "forty day" indulgence would
> be equal to the amount of punishment remitted by the
> individual performing forty days of penance".
Yes, that is correct.
>
> If I interpret that correctly, it suggests that it is indeed
> time of purgatory, but not "x days".
Not exactly, the Catholic Church teaches that after death there is only
eternity, therfore there there is no concept of time in regard to Purgatory
> Overall, that is a
> fairly minor correction, that doesn't really change any
> of the discussion of it in the "God delusion".
My point, which I thought I'd made clear, was not his tirade agianst the
sale of indulgences - I agree with him on that - my gripe was that he didn't
bother to get the basic facts right which is careless (at best) for a
scientist.
Chimp
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163435463.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
>
>>From wikipedia "Before the Second Vatican Council, partial
>> indulgences were stated as a term of days, weeks, months,
>> or years. This has resulted in Catholics and non-Catholics alike
>> believing that indulgences remit a specific period of time equal
>> to the length of the soul's stay in Purgatory. This was not true,
>> rather the stated length of time actually indicated that the
>> indulgence was equal to the amount of remission the
>> individual would have earned by performing a canonical
>> penance for that period of time. For example, the amount
>> of punishment remitted by a "forty day" indulgence would
>> be equal to the amount of punishment remitted by the
>> individual performing forty days of penance".
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
>> If I interpret that correctly, it suggests that it is indeed
>
> Not exactly, the Catholic Church teaches that after death there is only
> eternity, therfore there there is no concept of time in regard to Purgatory
But isn't purgatory a period of time that ends once one
is sufficiently purged, after which one goes to heaven?
How do you reconcile that doctrine with the idea
"there is no concept of time in regard to Purgatory"?
>> Overall, that is a
>> fairly minor correction, that doesn't really change any
>> of the discussion of it in the "God delusion".
>
> My point, which I thought I'd made clear, was not his tirade agianst the
> sale of indulgences - I agree with him on that - my gripe was that he didn't
> bother to get the basic facts right which is careless (at best) for a
> scientist.
I agree, getting facts precisely right is always good.
But the difference between "x days off purgatory" and
"x-days-penance worth of time off purgatory" seems
somewhat minor (and it appears that many Catholics
have been confused on that also!).
Chimp
alwaysaskingquestions
"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987AA942...@195.188.240.200...
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:4rri0nF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>> Teaching Children
>> ==============
>> The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to
>> be taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent
>> bring up their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that
>> child? Good parents, of course, will educate their children that there
>> are other opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but
>> in other areas such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously
>> close to being in the same category as those fundamentalists who do
>> not want their children taught about evolution.
>
> That's a difficult one. I tend to agree with Dawkins that religion being
> foisted on kids is a form of child abuse. I was brought up in a religious
> Catholic household, sent to Catholic school, and spent a lot of my
> childhood terrified that I was going to burn for eternity. My family and
> my
> school was wrong to do that to me and my brothers. Kids believe that
> nonsense because authority figures say it's true.
No disrespect to your parents, but that was simply bad parenting. I was
brought up in a Catholic household and went to Catholic schools but was
taught from a young age to respect other people and their beliefs.
> You can't stop religious
> parents foisting their irrational beliefs on kids; however, you can and
> should stop religious schools. The government here (UK) seems sadly
> determined to increase the number of religious schools though.
I'm a practising Catholic, why should I be denied to right to send my
children to a school with a Catholic ethos, provide that ethos does not
interfere with their general education ? BTW, as I understand it, part of
the reason that the UK government wants to increase the number of religious
schools is that religious schools generally achieve better results than
non-religious schools; there have been many examples of parents moving
house and declaring themselves as Catholics in order to get their kids into
Catholic schools for that very reason.
> Northern Ireland is a prime example. A very good friend of mine grew up in
> Derry and never met a protestant till he came to Scotland for University.
> By his admission, leaving Derry, meeting all sorts of people and seeing
> what was happening from afar changed his opinions drastically (although he
> still carries an Irish rather then British passport). Religious schools
> might not be the root of the troubles, but they certainly don't help.
I grew up 14 miles from Derry and went to second level education school in
Derry. Before leaving school, I knew only a few Protestants and didn't have
any close relationships with them; it was really only when I left school and
started work that I started to make Protestant friends. You're right up to a
point when you say that religious segregation doesn't help, but it's not a
*root* cause of the problem, it's just one of the effects of what has
essentially been a tribal conflict.
Dawkins is particularly silly when he claims that religious integration
would get rid of the problems in a single generation.
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>> Not exactly, the Catholic Church teaches that after death there is only
>> eternity, therfore there there is no concept of time in regard to
>> Purgatory
>
> But isn't purgatory a period of time that ends once one
> is sufficiently purged, after which one goes to heaven?
>
> How do you reconcile that doctrine with the idea
> "there is no concept of time in regard to Purgatory"?
I don't think this is really the place to get into detailed debate on the
theology behind Purgatory - it's not really relevent to my original post -
but I think it's fair to say that the problem with explaining Purgaotory and
many other theological concepts is that we try to use human terms to
explain something that cannot be explained in human terms.
>>> Overall, that is a
>>> fairly minor correction, that doesn't really change any
>>> of the discussion of it in the "God delusion".
>>
>> My point, which I thought I'd made clear, was not his tirade agianst the
>> sale of indulgences - I agree with him on that - my gripe was that he
>> didn't
>> bother to get the basic facts right which is careless (at best) for a
>> scientist.
>
> I agree, getting facts precisely right is always good.
Particularly for a scientist trying to make a scientific argument - I would
be more forgiving of other writers.
Ilas
news:4rrn62F...@mid.individual.net:
>> My family and my
>> school was wrong to do that to me and my brothers. Kids believe that
>> nonsense because authority figures say it's true.
>
> No disrespect to your parents, but that was simply bad parenting. I
> was brought up in a Catholic household and went to Catholic schools
> but was taught from a young age to respect other people and their
> beliefs.
So was I. I was also told I'd burn in hell for eternity if I was bad. At
that age, that's not a good thing to be told.
>
>> You can't stop religious
>> parents foisting their irrational beliefs on kids; however, you can
>> and should stop religious schools. The government here (UK) seems
>> sadly determined to increase the number of religious schools though.
>
> I'm a practising Catholic, why should I be denied to right to send my
> children to a school with a Catholic ethos, provide that ethos does
> not interfere with their general education ?
In my opinion, because what you have is a belief. If you want to fund
that belief yourself, fine, but if you want the state to fund it, not so
fine. I would describe myself as a libertarian socialist (odd mix I know)
and I believe that I'm right as strongly as many religious people believe
they're right. I wouldn't expect the government to pay for a school to
push that belief on to children.
BTW, as I understand it,
> part of the reason that the UK government wants to increase the number
> of religious schools is that religious schools generally achieve
> better results than non-religious schools; there have been many
> examples of parents moving house and declaring themselves as
> Catholics in order to get their kids into Catholic schools for that
> very reason.
Indeed, and you've hit on the answer as to why they outperform other
schools. They're selective.
>
>> Northern Ireland is a prime example. A very good friend of mine grew
>> up in Derry and never met a protestant till he came to Scotland for
>> University. By his admission, leaving Derry, meeting all sorts of
>> people and seeing what was happening from afar changed his opinions
>> drastically (although he still carries an Irish rather then British
>> passport). Religious schools might not be the root of the troubles,
>> but they certainly don't help.
>
> I grew up 14 miles from Derry and went to second level education
> school in Derry. Before leaving school, I knew only a few Protestants
> and didn't have any close relationships with them; it was really only
> when I left school and started work that I started to make Protestant
> friends. You're right up to a point when you say that religious
> segregation doesn't help, but it's not a *root* cause of the problem,
> it's just one of the effects of what has essentially been a tribal
> conflict.
Never having lived there, I'd go along with that.
Chimp
> children to a school with a Catholic ethos, provide that ethos does not
> interfere with their general education ?
The school should respect the kid's right to his own opinion
and the kid's right to disagree with his parents. That would
include declining to participate in religious rituals that the
kid doesn't agree with. But provided the school respects
that, I don't see a problem with the school being run by
Catholics.
> BTW, as I understand it, part of
> the reason that the UK government wants to increase the number of religious
> schools is that religious schools generally achieve better results than
> non-religious schools;
Because they are socially selective. Any selective schools
tend to have better results.
> I grew up 14 miles from Derry and went to second level education school in
> Derry. Before leaving school, I knew only a few Protestants and didn't have
> any close relationships with them; it was really only when I left school and
> started work that I started to make Protestant friends. You're right up to a
> point when you say that religious segregation doesn't help, but it's not a
> *root* cause of the problem, it's just one of the effects of what has
> essentially been a tribal conflict.
>
> Dawkins is particularly silly when he claims that religious integration
> would get rid of the problems in a single generation.
A "tribal conflict" needs some differentiation (different
religion, different skin color, different language, something)
to sustain it. The Northern Ireland "troubles" would have
been far less likely to have been sustained had there
beeing no religious differentiation between the communities,
and if there had been mixed, secular schooling than with
religiously-segregated schooling.
Chimp
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>> "Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I'm a practising Catholic, why should I be denied to right to send my
>> children to a school with a Catholic ethos, provide that ethos does not
>> interfere with their general education ?
>
> The school should respect the kid's right to his own opinion
> and the kid's right to disagree with his parents. That would
> include declining to participate in religious rituals that the
> kid doesn't agree with. But provided the school respects
> that, I don't see a problem with the school being run by
> Catholics.
>
>> BTW, as I understand it, part of
>> the reason that the UK government wants to increase the number of
>> religious
>> schools is that religious schools generally achieve better results than
>> non-religious schools;
>
> Because they are socially selective. Any selective schools
> tend to have better results.
Are you suggesting that religious people are more clever ? :)
FWIW, I believe it has more to do with an ethos of discipline than social
selection.
>> I grew up 14 miles from Derry and went to second level education school
>> in
>> Derry. Before leaving school, I knew only a few Protestants and didn't
>> have
>> any close relationships with them; it was really only when I left school
>> and
>> started work that I started to make Protestant friends. You're right up
>> to a
>> point when you say that religious segregation doesn't help, but it's not
>> a
>> *root* cause of the problem, it's just one of the effects of what has
>> essentially been a tribal conflict.
>>
>> Dawkins is particularly silly when he claims that religious integration
>> would get rid of the problems in a single generation.
>
> A "tribal conflict" needs some differentiation (different
> religion, different skin color, different language, something)
> to sustain it. The Northern Ireland "troubles" would have
> been far less likely to have been sustained had there
> beeing no religious differentiation between the communities,
> and if there had been mixed, secular schooling than with
> religiously-segregated schooling.
The tribes were originally 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 chose to exclude the indigenous
tribe as an ill-fated measure of self protection.
Chimp
>>> sale of indulgences - I agree with him on that - my gripe was that he
>>> didn't
>>> bother to get the basic facts right which is careless (at best) for a
>>> scientist.
>>
>> I agree, getting facts precisely right is always good.
>
> Particularly for a scientist trying to make a scientific argument - I would
> be more forgiving of other writers.
I think it is a mistake to view "The God Delusion" as an
attempt at a scientific argument. It isn't really (though it
brings science into it at times). Instead it is an atheist
explaining why he thinks the idea of "God" is a delusion.
Religion is not propounded as a scientific argument,
so why should critiques of it have to be "scientific"?
Chimp
alwaysaskingquestions
>> I'm a practising Catholic, why should I be denied to right to send my
>> children to a school with a Catholic ethos, provide that ethos does
>> not interfere with their general education ?
>
> In my opinion, because what you have is a belief. If you want to fund
> that belief yourself, fine, but if you want the state to fund it, not so
> fine. I would describe myself as a libertarian socialist (odd mix I know)
> and I believe that I'm right as strongly as many religious people believe
> they're right. I wouldn't expect the government to pay for a school to
> push that belief on to children.
Nor would I expect them to fund the teaching of my religious beliefs. I'm
not sure of how exactly it works in the UK, but here in (southern) Ireland
religious schools are only part funded, not fully funded, and IMO that's
fair enough, they are entitled for the costs of general education to be met.
> BTW, as I understand it,
>> part of the reason that the UK government wants to increase the number
>> of religious schools is that religious schools generally achieve
>> better results than non-religious schools; there have been many
>> examples of parents moving house and declaring themselves as
>> Catholics in order to get their kids into Catholic schools for that
>> very reason.
>
> Indeed, and you've hit on the answer as to why they outperform other
> schools. They're selective.
As I said to chimp, are you suggesting that religious people are more
clever? ;)
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> My point, which I thought I'd made clear, was not his tirade agianst
>>>> the
>>>> sale of indulgences - I agree with him on that - my gripe was that he
>>>> didn't
>>>> bother to get the basic facts right which is careless (at best) for a
>>>> scientist.
>>>
>>> I agree, getting facts precisely right is always good.
>>
>> Particularly for a scientist trying to make a scientific argument - I
>> would
>> be more forgiving of other writers.
>
> I think it is a mistake to view "The God Delusion" as an
> attempt at a scientific argument. It isn't really (though it
> brings science into it at times). Instead it is an atheist
> explaining why he thinks the idea of "God" is a delusion.
Yes, but it is due to his status as a scientist that Dawkins gets the
platforms that he does. I don't think he can - or, in fairness, attempts to
be - a part-time scientist.
Chimp
>>> the reason that the UK government wants to increase the number of
>>> religious
>>> schools is that religious schools generally achieve better results than
>>> non-religious schools;
>>
>> Because they are socially selective. Any selective schools
>> tend to have better results.
>
> Are you suggesting that religious people are more clever ? :)
Nope, I'm suggesting that the sort of parents who will
make the effort to choose a school and fullfill the school's
requirements will tend to have better-behaved and
better-supported kids than the parents who don't
care and whose kids just turn up at the local
"comprehensive" school.
The result is that the religiously-selective school will
have a higher fraction of kids with supportive parents
and a smaller fraction of the sort of kids that lower the
tenor of the school.
> FWIW, I believe it has more to do with an ethos of discipline than social
> selection.
If it were merely discipline policies that mattered then
they could be duplicated in any school, religious or
not. (And if the reply is that you wouldn't have the
parental support for the discipline policies in the
local comprehensive, then that supports the point
I've made just above, that it is social selection of
families that matters.)
Sure, the tribes were _originally_ an indigenous and an
invading tribe. But for that to be sustained over 300 years
requires some differentiation between the tribes. Without
some obvious difference (language, skin color, religion)
the likelihood is that they'd have merged into one long
ago.
Chimp
Andrew Arensburger
> Quote Mining
> ==========
> He quotes from St. Augustine "There is another form of temptation, even more
> fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which
> drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are
> beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should
> not wish to learn."
Actually, this charge may not be without merit. This quotation
appears on pp. 132-133 of "The God Delusion", and is a quotation from
C. Freeman, "The Closing of the Western Mind", London, Heinemann, 2002.
According to one source,
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?id=189
this comes from Augustine's "Confessions", book X. But a searchable
version of Augustine's confessions shows only one instance of the
phrase "disease of curiosity":
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.xi.xxxv.html?highlight=disease%20of%20curiosity#highlight
The full paragraph is:
But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure
and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for
pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant,
savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake, the contrary
as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of
the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure
hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you
shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to
be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid
to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or
any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the
other senses, which it were long to go through. From this
--> disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in
the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers
of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits
not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also,
if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be
enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted,
when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for
any good end, but merely to make trial of.
The quotation that alwaysaskingquestions points out does appear a lot
on the net, but usually without a useful citation (most people just
say "Augustine"). In addition, the quotation often includes ellipses
that are not present in Dawkins's book. If I have the time and energy,
I may track down Freeman's book at the library.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Yes, son, long ago, mail was written with pen and paper.
Chimp
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163439237....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
> >> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
>>>>> My point, which I thought I'd made clear, was not his tirade agianst
>>>>> the
>>>>> sale of indulgences - I agree with him on that - my gripe was that he
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> bother to get the basic facts right which is careless (at best) for a
>>>>> scientist.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, getting facts precisely right is always good.
>>>
>>> Particularly for a scientist trying to make a scientific argument - I
>>> would
>>> be more forgiving of other writers.
>>
>> I think it is a mistake to view "The God Delusion" as an
>> attempt at a scientific argument. It isn't really (though it
>> brings science into it at times). Instead it is an atheist
>> explaining why he thinks the idea of "God" is a delusion.
>
> Yes, but it is due to his status as a scientist that Dawkins gets the
> platforms that he does.
Hmmm, not so sure any more. I've seen as many
comments along the lines of "Richard Dawkins, the
well-known atheist . . ." as "Richard Dawkins, the
well-known scientist . . .".
> I don't think he can - or, in fairness, attempts to
> be - a part-time scientist.
That more or less says that any prominent
scientist is only allowed to speak scientifically.
That is somewhat harsh!
Chimp
alwaysaskingquestions
<ryan.st...@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1163433855.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I read the first three chapters and thought they were written by Archie
> Bunker/Alf Garnet.
>
> Imagine a world without religion? Imagine a world without humans: No
> Stalin, no Hitler, no Pol Pot no Chinese Communist Party. The Dodo and
> the Sperm whale would still be around. The atmosphere would be
> pristine.
>
> Dawkins has been torn apart in the British press for the God Delusion.
> Rod Liddle did an excellent hatchet job in the Sunday Telegraph I think
> it was.
I hadn't read it but I've found it since, it was actually in the Sunday
Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2101-2388270.html
The official Richard Dawkins website has posted the article for discussion.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,191,The-Need-to-Believe,Rod-Little---Sunday-Times
Again, again I find some of the comments eerily similar to the sort of stuff
I'd expect to find on a fundamentalist website; one example:
"Being passionate about spreading the truth is not the same, and can never
be rationally equated to, the belief in some kind of unprovable supernatural
entity. "
BTW, there were a couple of similar reviews in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/10/22/bodaw14.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/10/08/bodaw01.xml
> It was a big mistake for him to tread into laymans territory - made it
> obvious he's a long way from being the genius he would have us believe.
No, I think it's more a case of the human fallacy that if you're an expert
in one field, that makes you an expert in other fields.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
news:ejab42$jh9$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Quote Mining
>> ==========
>> He quotes from St. Augustine "There is another form of temptation, even
>> more
>> fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which
>> drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which
>> are
>> beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should
>> not wish to learn."
>
> Actually, this charge may not be without merit. This quotation
> appears on pp. 132-133 of "The God Delusion", and is a quotation from
> C. Freeman, "The Closing of the Western Mind", London, Heinemann, 2002.
> According to one source,
> http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?id=189
> this comes from Augustine's "Confessions", book X. But a searchable
> version of Augustine's confessions shows only one instance of the
> phrase "disease of curiosity":
I did some searching on it too and couldn't find it either, just the one you
found; it seemed a bit out of context to me but in the absence of a hard
copy of the "Confessions", I didn't want to throw it out as an accusation.
[...]
> If I have the time and energy,
> I may track down Freeman's book at the library.
I'd be interested in hearing how you get on with that - if you find the time
and energy ;)
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
[...]
>> Yes, but it is due to his status as a scientist that Dawkins gets the
>> platforms that he does.
>
> Hmmm, not so sure any more. I've seen as many
> comments along the lines of "Richard Dawkins, the
> well-known atheist . . ." as "Richard Dawkins, the
> well-known scientist . . .".
>
>> I don't think he can - or, in fairness, attempts to
>> be - a part-time scientist.
>
> That more or less says that any prominent
> scientist is only allowed to speak scientifically.
> That is somewhat harsh!
No, what I'm saying is that if somebody gets a public status due to their
profession and then seeks to use that status to promote alternative
viewpoints, they have to accept criticism if they abandon their professional
principles, especially if they have criticised other people for ignoring
those very same principles.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1163435463.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the correction. I am always happiest when I am corrected
regarding information which I had never really planned on using.
Ye Old One
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I've just finished this book and what a great disappointment in turned out
>to be.
I'm sure he would be sorry to hear that. From the remarks here,
including my own, I think the majority of readers have found it to be
very good.
>
>First of all, to make my own position clear, I am what is best generally as
>a "Theistic Evolutionist" - I believe in God but accept the findings of
>science in general and evolution in particular and don't find those things
>incompatible. I wasn't sure initially whether I wanted to even bother
>reading this book - I have great respect for Richard Dawkins as a scientist,
>I have read several of his other books and he undoubtedly has a tremendous
>gift for explaining science in a way that a layman can understand it,
That is true, but the God Delusion is not one of his scientific works,
although of course it is impossible to keep science out of it.
>but I
>generally find his vehement hatred of all forms of religion to be a
>distraction from his scientific explanations.
His anti-religious stance is because of the damage religion does.
> I suspected that this would be
>the same case but went ahead anyway.
>
>Alas, the book turned out much as I anticipated.
>
>Dawkins does put forward some very good arguments against and ideas about
>religion, particularly the structured forms of religion with which most of
>us are familiar. As a Christian, I found much food for thought in some of
>those arguments/ideas but had to work hard at this because of my irritation
>at many of his other arguments.
>
>Indeed, I almost gave up after reading the very first page when he talks of
>his delight at a Channel 4 advertisement for his documentary 'Root of All
>Evil?' As he describes it:
>
>"It was a picture of the Manhattan Skyline with the caption 'Imagine a world
>without religion' ... the Twin Towers were conspicuously present."
I would love to see that picture produced for sale - I would certainly
buy a copy.
>
>He goes on to say ""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' .".
>
>Let me stop there, that one particularly annoyed me. I grew up in Northern
>Ireland through 'the troubles' and to blame them simply on religion at best
>shows a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the conflict
>there and at worst is a deliberate and cynical attempt to misrepresent that
>conflict to bolster an argument.
But religion WAS the cause of the troubles. They may have been flamed
by criminal elements that exist in most societies, but without the
religious divide, without the segregated estates and the separate
schools indoctrinating hatred into the children, the troubles would
not have existed.
>
>It is totally preposterous to suggest that in the absence of religion, most
>of the wars and conflict in the world, past and present, would not have
>existed without religion.
And yet it is true.
> The last century saw two major World Wars; I'd be
>interested to hear Professor Dawkins theory on how religion caused them.
Christianity was largely responsible for the establishment of the
countries that went to war.
I remember, many years ago, seeing film of one of the big WWI battles.
It showed priests, on both sides, telling their troops that god was on
their side and that they were fighting with right on their side.
>
>Yes, many of these things have been carried out in the name of religion or
>using religion as an excuse but in seeking to condemn religion because of
>its misuse, Dawkins becomes the mirror image of religious fundamentalists
>who try to condemn all of science because of its misuse or misrepresentation
>by some individual scientists.
What he does is to show some of the damage religion is responsible
for,
>
>And that is the overall problem I find with Dawkins - he is so passionate
>about the values of atheism and so anti-religion that he becomes as much as
>proselytiser as the Christian fundamentalists he despises and ends up using
>their same techniques that he quite rightly castigates. Examples include:
>
>Quote Mining
>==========
>He quotes from St. Augustine "There is another form of temptation, even more
>fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which
>drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are
>beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should
>not wish to learn."
>
>This is the same St. Augustine who said:
>
>"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
>and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the
>stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable
>eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about
>the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he
>hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
>disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
>presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
>topic . Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
>trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of
>their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not
>bound by the authority of our sacred books."
>
>On a side note, some people, including myself, would regard St. Augustine as
>a fore-runner of Charles Darwin - Augustine put forward the idea that man
>was not created directly by God, that he was created by God breathing life
>into one of a number of existing species; he also said that the universe was
>created in a single instant but that it was a very different universe from
>the one we know, which ties in nicely with the Big Bang theory!
>
>
>Anecdotal Evidence
>===============
>In talking about the impact of religion on preparedness for death, he says
>"A senior nurse of my acquaintance, with a lifetime's experience of running
>a home for old people . has noticed over the years that the individuals who
>are most afraid of death are the religious ones."
That, from my own experience, is very true.
>
>What a wonderfully scientific piece of evidence! Just the converse of the
>sort of story we are used to haering from Christian evangelists.
>
>
>Misstatement of Facts
>=================
>In his tirade against the concept of Purgatory and the scandal of
>indulgences being sold by the Church in the middle ages, he completely
>misrepresents the whole concept of indulgences - they do NOT represent "x
>days off" from Purgatory.
>
>He is quite right of course, that the selling of indulgences was a total
>disgrace, but as a qualified scientist, Dawkins should know the importance
>of getting the basic facts right before basing an argument on them.
Do you dispute that indulgences were the sale, by what I would term
con-artists, of things they did not own and had no control over?
>
>
>
>Emotive Arguments
>===============
>Dawkins peppers his book with numerous anecdotes which appear designed to
>tug at the reader's heartstrings and doesn't seem to mind how far back in
>history he has to go to find them. For example, he tells the story of
>Edgardo Mortara, a six year old child of Jewish parents legally seized by
>papal police when the Catholic Church discovered that he been secretly
>baptised by his Catholic nanny.
Yes, a very heart rending story.
>
>Dawkins admits that this happened in 1858 and that he is "not implying that
>anything like this awful story could happen today". So why does he use the
>story then?
Because it exposes part of the evil of religion. I'm sure if they
could get away with it they would still try to do it today.
> Maybe it's just me, but I find the use of stories like this
>just as distasteful as those fundamentalist Christians who carry around
>aborted fetuses in glass jars to show to schoolchildren.
>
>
>Teaching Children
>==============
>The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to be
>taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent bring up
>their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that child? Good
>parents, of course, will educate their children that there are other
>opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but in other areas
>such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously close to being in
>the same category as those fundamentalists who do not want their children
>taught about evolution.
Well, we can start by banning religious schools. That way we can at
least ensure that all children are given a basic education that is
free of religious bias and lies.
>
>----------------------------------
>
>Overall, I think there *is* a good book to be written in this whole area
>but, in my opinion, 'The God Delusion' is not that book.
Keep reading. It is a complex area and one reading of the book is not
really enough. He does provide an excellent list of other books to
read - try some of them. The look at the evidence, and if you can find
any evidence for a god I would love to hear from you.
--
Bob.
Bobby Bryant
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> writes:
> Again, again I find some of the comments eerily similar to the sort
> of stuff I'd expect to find on a fundamentalist website; one
> example:
>
> "Being passionate about spreading the truth is not the same, and can
> never be rationally equated to, the belief in some kind of
> unprovable supernatural entity. "
Is there something wrong with that claim?
How is it like the stuff on fundamentalist web sites?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Andrew Arensburger
> "Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:ejab42$jh9$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> > I may track down Freeman's book at the library.
> I'd be interested in hearing how you get on with that - if you find the time
> and energy ;)
iF yOu WaNt To SeE yOuR rEfErEnCe, SeNd 12 hOuRs AnD 600
kIlOjOuLeS tO tHe FoLlOwInG aDdReSs: ...
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Quick! Don't act! Wait NOW!
Milan
Whenever we argue that we must disbelieve claims of the existence of an
entity on the basis that there is no evidence for the entity, we are making
a scientific argument.
regards
Milan
>
> >
Milan
>
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163439237....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>>> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> My point, which I thought I'd made clear, was not his tirade agianst
>>>>> the
>>>>> sale of indulgences - I agree with him on that - my gripe was that he
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> bother to get the basic facts right which is careless (at best) for a
>>>>> scientist.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, getting facts precisely right is always good.
>>>
>>> Particularly for a scientist trying to make a scientific argument - I
>>> would
>>> be more forgiving of other writers.
>>
>> I think it is a mistake to view "The God Delusion" as an
>> attempt at a scientific argument. It isn't really (though it
>> brings science into it at times). Instead it is an atheist
>> explaining why he thinks the idea of "God" is a delusion.
>
> Yes, but it is due to his status as a scientist that Dawkins gets the
> platforms that he does. I don't think he can - or, in fairness, attempts
> to be - a part-time scientist.
Dawkins has long ago transcended his status as a scientist to acquire a well
deserved status of intellectual. He speaks with depth, clarity and style
about a number of topics, and the God Delusion is not the first time he
discusses gods, religion and other forms of superstition. He has done so in
previous books, like A Devil's Chaplain, and in many articles in Free
Inquiry and other journals.
regards
Milan
CreateThis
>>Anecdotal Evidence
>>===============
>>In talking about the impact of religion on preparedness for death, he says
>>"A senior nurse of my acquaintance, with a lifetime's experience of running
>>a home for old people . has noticed over the years that the individuals who
>>are most afraid of death are the religious ones."
>
>That, from my own experience, is very true.
Of course it is. Religious people are the ones still being taught
that everything unknown is to be feared - particularly death. This is
clearly reflected in the propensity of religious people to be
conservative.
CT
damnfine
> Dawkins has been torn apart in the British press for the God Delusion.
> Rod Liddle did an excellent hatchet job in the Sunday Telegraph I think
> it was.
Wow, a negative review from a sensationalistic crackpot. What are the odds?
OK, I've found the article. I read about as far as the totally
unsubstantiated, unqualified statement "it is a book based on faith".
--
damnfine
damnfine
> Again, again I find some of the comments eerily similar to the sort of
> stuff I'd expect to find on a fundamentalist website; one example:
>
> "Being passionate about spreading the truth is not the same, and can never
> be rationally equated to, the belief in some kind of unprovable
> supernatural entity. "
How is that similar to something you'd expect to find on a fundamentalist
website? It's the precise opposite of something I'd expect to find on a
fundamentalist website.
--
damnfine
noctiluca
Hmmm...a ransom note signed with a name and address. Don't think this
one is going to require overtime, boys.
damnfine
> No, what I'm saying is that if somebody gets a public status due to their
> profession and then seeks to use that status to promote alternative
> viewpoints, they have to accept criticism if they abandon their
> professional principles, especially if they have criticised other people
> for ignoring those very same principles.
There's a difference between abandoning your professional principles and
just working in a different field. The God Delusion is not a science book,
it's a political and philosophical polemic, and should be judged by those
standards. The fact that he is inaccurate about the precise role of
indulgences (in what really amounts to little more than simplification for
convenience) is not in the slightest bit important.
--
damnfine
Andrew Arensburger
> Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> > iF yOu WaNt To SeE yOuR rEfErEnCe, SeNd 12 hOuRs AnD 600
> > kIlOjOuLeS tO tHe FoLlOwInG aDdReSs: ...
> > --
> > Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
> > arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
> > Quick! Don't act! Wait NOW!
> Hmmm...a ransom note signed with a name and address. Don't think this
> one is going to require overtime, boys.
cUrSeS! fOiLeD aGaIn!
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Stamp out nouvelle cuisine in our lifetime!
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
I would also rather have an atheist nurse/doctor if possible. They
would realize I only have this life and want to hang on to it.
--
Bob.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:Em36h.1525$yE6...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <4rrqmcF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Again, again I find some of the comments eerily similar to the sort
>> of stuff I'd expect to find on a fundamentalist website; one
>> example:
>>
>> "Being passionate about spreading the truth is not the same, and can
>> never be rationally equated to, the belief in some kind of
>> unprovable supernatural entity. "
>
> Is there something wrong with that claim?
>
> How is it like the stuff on fundamentalist web sites?
Because the contributor is effectively saying "it's wrong for you to spread
your message bcause it's untrue, it's ok for Dawkins to do it because his
message is the truth". True/untrue here equates to "I agree/disagree with
it."
alwaysaskingquestions
"damnfine" <damn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12lhnqe...@corp.supernews.com...
See my reply to Bobby Bryant.
alwaysaskingquestions
I disagree with Dawkins views but perservered with his whole book to see if
he could change my mind or at least influence my thinking (which he actually
did in some minor ways.)
You read the first two and a bit paragraphs of Liddle's article and then
dismissed the rest as simply "a negative review from a sensationalistic
crackpot".
I guess that demonstrates some of the difference between us.
alwaysaskingquestions
> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>> No, what I'm saying is that if somebody gets a public status due to
>> their
>> profession and then seeks to use that status to promote alternative
>> viewpoints, they have to accept criticism if they abandon their
>> professional principles, especially if they have criticised other people
>> for ignoring those very same principles.
>
> There's a difference between abandoning your professional principles and
> just working in a different field.
I don't take issue with someone's right to work in a different field - I do
take issue with them abandoning their professional stnadrads *when* they are
working in that field, particularly when they are using their professional
expertise to justify their conclusions in that field..
> The God Delusion is not a science book,
In Dawkins' own words "there's a lot of science in it."
> it's a political and philosophical polemic, and should be judged by those
> standards. The fact that he is inaccurate about the precise role of
> indulgences (in what really amounts to little more than simplification for
> convenience) is not in the slightest bit important.
I do consider his carelessness as reproachable but anyway, his
misrepresentation of indulgences is only one of the points I made - do you
disagree with my other comments?
Free Lunch
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in
<4rsaufF...@mid.individual.net>:
damnfine
> Because the contributor is effectively saying "it's wrong for you to
> spread your message bcause it's untrue, it's ok for Dawkins to do it
> because his message is the truth". True/untrue here equates to "I
> agree/disagree with it."
Uh, no it doesn't. If you want to open yourself up to a truth comparison
then since you're obviously not a biblical literalist I'm sure you'll agree
that the theist has the burden of proof, so until he proves - or indeed
offers any evidence at all - that God exists then the overwhelming weight of
truth lies on the atheist's side. That's what makes it a perfectly valid
statement.
--
damnfine
damnfine
>>> Dawkins has been torn apart in the British press for the God Delusion.
>>> Rod Liddle did an excellent hatchet job in the Sunday Telegraph I think
>>> it was.
>>
>> Wow, a negative review from a sensationalistic crackpot. What are the
>> odds?
>>
>> OK, I've found the article. I read about as far as the totally
>> unsubstantiated, unqualified statement "it is a book based on faith".
>
> I disagree with Dawkins views but perservered with his whole book to see
> if he could change my mind or at least influence my thinking (which he
> actually did in some minor ways.)
>
> You read the first two and a bit paragraphs of Liddle's article and then
> dismissed the rest as simply "a negative review from a sensationalistic
> crackpot".
Well no that's not quite true, I already knew he was a sensationalistic
crackpot.
> I guess that demonstrates some of the difference between us.
You have respect for Dawkins as a scientist, as you said, but I do not have
any respect whatsoever for Liddle as a journalist, so I feel no more
obligation to read his review than I do to read Ann Coulter's latest
steaming pile.
If, for example, an esteemed theistic scientist like Ken Miller were to
publish a critique of The God Delusion, I'd be happy, nay eager, to read it.
--
damnfine
damnfine
>> The God Delusion is not a science book,
>
> In Dawkins' own words "there's a lot of science in it."
Yes, and he says that by way of explaining that it's not a science book!
> I do consider his carelessness as reproachable but anyway, his
> misrepresentation of indulgences is only one of the points I made - do you
> disagree with my other comments?
Yes, but I didn't post a full response because most of the same things have
already been said.
--
damnfine
alwaysaskingquestions
> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>> Because the contributor is effectively saying "it's wrong for you to
>> spread your message bcause it's untrue, it's ok for Dawkins to do it
>> because his message is the truth". True/untrue here equates to "I
>> agree/disagree with it."
>
> Uh, no it doesn't. If you want to open yourself up to a truth comparison
> then since you're obviously not a biblical literalist
That's correct, and the points I am arguing are not about creationism as
such, they are about the existence of a God.
> I'm sure you'll agree
> that the theist has the burden of proof,
I actually don't think there is any burden on proof as there is no
scientific way of settling this either way. Belief or non-belief in God
comes down to personal opinion, not any form of evidential proof. That's why
I think the example quoted boils down to "True/untrue here equates to 'I
agree/disagree with it.' "
> so until he proves - or indeed
> offers any evidence at all - that God exists then the overwhelming weight
> of
> truth lies on the atheist's side.
That's a non-sequiter - 'absence of evidence not being evidence of absence'
and all that.
> That's what makes it a perfectly valid
> statement.
I disagree - "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both statements of
belief, not scientific conclusions
damnfine
> That's correct, and the points I am arguing are not about creationism as
> such, they are about the existence of a God.
Yep, I realise that.
>> I'm sure you'll agree
>> that the theist has the burden of proof,
>
> I actually don't think there is any burden on proof as there is no
> scientific way of settling this either way.
So you refuse to offer any evidence whatsoever that you're right. The
evidence I offer that I'm right is that I just went outside and looked up
and didn't see God. So far, I win, and the statement you quoted remains
eminently reasonable.
> That's a non-sequiter - 'absence of evidence not being evidence of
> absence' and all that.
Rendering the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God no more or less likely to exist
than, as Dawkins has recently become fond of saying, fairies, elves, Zeus,
the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn... it never fails to
amuse me how you people try to use your total lack of evidence to your
advantage. What bizarre behaviour.
>> That's what makes it a perfectly valid
>> statement.
>
> I disagree - "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both statements of
> belief, not scientific conclusions
"There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God" is a
scientific statement, however.
--
damnfine
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>>
>> I've just finished this book and what a great disappointment in turned
>> out
>
>> He goes on to say ""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' .".
>>
>> Let me stop there, that one particularly annoyed me. I grew up in
>> Northern
>> Ireland through 'the troubles' and to blame them simply on religion at
>> best
>> shows a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the
>> conflict
>
> He doesn't blame it _simply_ on religion, he blames it
> _partially_ on religion. Would the the conflict have been
> sustained so long without the religious issue to keep
> the two communities divided? Had there been mixed,
> secular schools, rather than religious ones, surely it
> might have died out a generation ago?
Nope, because the religious issue was a symptom, not a cause.
>> It is totally preposterous to suggest that in the absence of religion,
>> most
>> of the wars and conflict in the world, past and present, would not have
>> existed without religion.
>
> He never said "most".
He gave a hell of a lot of examples!
> How does your quote obviate Dawkins's quote?
> If the first quote is not out of context or misleading
> then it is not "quote mining" as usually understood.
Because Augustine clearly embraced the reality of science yet Dawkins is
using a specific quote - without giving any context - to portray Augustine
as anti-science. I'm also somewhat dubious about the quote itself, I can't
find it in any of the online editions of Augusine's writings. I've found the
quote itself in several places on the Internet but without a source
reference except for one site that refers to Confessions Book X and it
certainly doesn't appear in that book. I also find it somewhat curious that
Dawkins doesn't quote it directly from Augustine's writings, he puts in what
appears to be little more than a disclaimer by just saying "(quoted in
Freeman 2002)".
Another example, not exactly quote-mining but very much in the same vein, is
where he tries to re-interpret what other scientists have said - for
example, 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." I find those comments to be breathtakingly
arrogant of Dawkins.
>> Anecdotal Evidence
>> ===============
>> In talking about the impact of religion on preparedness for death, he
>> says
>> "A senior nurse of my acquaintance, with a lifetime's experience of
>> running
>> a home for old people . has noticed over the years that the individuals
>> who
>> are most afraid of death are the religious ones."
>>
>> What a wonderfully scientific piece of evidence! Just the converse of the
>> sort of story we are used to haering from Christian evangelists.
>
> Decent point. However, has there been a proper study
> for him to cite?
Apparently not, he adds the rider "Her observation would need to be
substantiated statistically" and then goes on "but, assuming she is right,
what is going on here?" In other words, he doesn't really know whether it is
true or not but is still quite happy to use it to back up his argument
anyway.
>
>> Misstatement of Facts
>> =================
>> In his tirade against the concept of Purgatory and the scandal of
>> indulgences being sold by the Church in the middle ages, he completely
>> misrepresents the whole concept of indulgences - they do NOT represent "x
>> days off" from Purgatory.
>
> OK, so please tell us what they were.
Dealt with elsewhere.
>
>> Emotive Arguments
>> ===============
>> Dawkins peppers his book with numerous anecdotes which appear designed to
>> tug at the reader's heartstrings and doesn't seem to mind how far back in
>> history he has to go to find them. For example, he tells the story of
>> Edgardo Mortara, a six year old child of Jewish parents legally seized by
>> papal police when the Catholic Church discovered that he been secretly
>> baptised by his Catholic nanny.
>>
>> Dawkins admits that this happened in 1858
>
> So that is 92% of the way from the origin of Christianity
> to today. Why shouldn't he pick things from the
> entire history of a religion in discussing what that
> religion is like?
>
>> and that he is "not implying that anything like this awful
>> story could happen today". So why does he use the
>> story then?
>
> Because it illustrates some aspects of a Christian mindset.
It illustrates some aspects of a Christian mindset a century and a half ago
when the mindset of society as a whole - and, indeed, science - was very
different from what it is today. As I originally noted, Dawkins accepts
that point when he says that he is "not implying that anything like this
awful story could happen today"
>> Teaching Children
>> ==============
>> The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to be
>> taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent bring
>> up
>> their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that child?
>
> His criticism wasn't about parents. It was about society and
> schools presuming that a child will automatically follow
> the religion of its parents. He didn't suggest that parents
> should not tell their kids about their (the parents') religion.
>
>> Good
>> parents, of course, will educate their children that there are other
>> opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but in other areas
>> such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously close to being in
>> the same category as those fundamentalists who do not want their children
>> taught about evolution.
>
> At no point does he say that children should be kept
> in ignorance of their parents' religion. But he does
> say that they should be exposed to an educational
> variety of viewpoints, and that schools and society
> should not presume that a child is automatically of
> the same viewpoint as its parents.
>
He very clearly wants religion abolished and atheism taught in its place.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:7ldhl25iqrdmt38om...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:41:08 -0000, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[...]
>>He goes on to say ""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' .".
>>
>>Let me stop there, that one particularly annoyed me. I grew up in Northern
>>Ireland through 'the troubles' and to blame them simply on religion at
>>best
>>shows a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the
>>conflict
>>there and at worst is a deliberate and cynical attempt to misrepresent
>>that
>>conflict to bolster an argument.
>
> But religion WAS the cause of the troubles.
No it wasn't - religion was a sympton of the conflict, not a cause of it
>They may have been flamed
> by criminal elements that exist in most societies, but without the
> religious divide, without the segregated estates and the separate
> schools indoctrinating hatred into the children, the troubles would
> not have existed.
No offence meant but you don't really have a clue what you are talking about
on this particular subject. The conflict in Northern Ireland was a tribal
conflict, not a religious one, the religious lables used were simply that -
lables to differentiate the tribes.
>>
>>It is totally preposterous to suggest that in the absence of religion,
>>most
>>of the wars and conflict in the world, past and present, would not have
>>existed without religion.
>
> And yet it is true.
So, if religion could be abolished, there would be no wars?
>> The last century saw two major World Wars; I'd be
>>interested to hear Professor Dawkins theory on how religion caused them.
>
> Christianity was largely responsible for the establishment of the
> countries that went to war.
Ah, if you can't show that religion was the cause of the wars, then move the
argument back to religion being the cause of the people who caused the wars.
Now, let's see, what group of people does that approach remind me of ......
> I remember, many years ago, seeing film of one of the big WWI battles.
> It showed priests, on both sides, telling their troops that god was on
> their side and that they were fighting with right on their side.
So it was the priests who really started the wars?
>>Yes, many of these things have been carried out in the name of religion or
>>using religion as an excuse but in seeking to condemn religion because of
>>its misuse, Dawkins becomes the mirror image of religious fundamentalists
>>who try to condemn all of science because of its misuse or
>>misrepresentation
>>by some individual scientists.
>
> What he does is to show some of the damage religion is responsible
> for,
Sorry, Dawkins unapologetically blames religion for most of the evil in the
world. That, to me, is little different from blaming car manufacturers for
the deaths of all the people who get killed in car crashes, or drink
manufacturers for all the alcoholism and other drink-related problems in
society.
[...]
>>Anecdotal Evidence
>>===============
>>In talking about the impact of religion on preparedness for death, he says
>>"A senior nurse of my acquaintance, with a lifetime's experience of
>>running
>>a home for old people . has noticed over the years that the individuals
>>who
>>are most afraid of death are the religious ones."
>
> That, from my own experience, is very true.
As it so happens, I can see reasons for many religious people to be
apprehensive of death, they anticipate some form of judgement and may worry
about how well they will measure up. But that's not my real point here -
Dawkins use of an unsubstantiated claim (he doesn't even name the nurse) to
bolster his argument
>>Misstatement of Facts
>>=================
>>In his tirade against the concept of Purgatory and the scandal of
>>indulgences being sold by the Church in the middle ages, he completely
>>misrepresents the whole concept of indulgences - they do NOT represent "x
>>days off" from Purgatory.
>>
>>He is quite right of course, that the selling of indulgences was a total
>>disgrace, but as a qualified scientist, Dawkins should know the importance
>>of getting the basic facts right before basing an argument on them.
>
> Do you dispute that indulgences were the sale, by what I would term
> con-artists, of things they did not own and had no control over?
What bit of "He is quite right of course, that the selling of indulgences
was a total disgrace" did you not understand?
>>Emotive Arguments
>>===============
>>Dawkins peppers his book with numerous anecdotes which appear designed to
>>tug at the reader's heartstrings and doesn't seem to mind how far back in
>>history he has to go to find them. For example, he tells the story of
>>Edgardo Mortara, a six year old child of Jewish parents legally seized by
>>papal police when the Catholic Church discovered that he been secretly
>>baptised by his Catholic nanny.
>
> Yes, a very heart rending story.
>>
>>Dawkins admits that this happened in 1858 and that he is "not implying
>>that
>>anything like this awful story could happen today". So why does he use the
>>story then?
>
> Because it exposes part of the evil of religion. I'm sure if they
> could get away with it they would still try to do it today.
Which reflects your total ignorance of how the Catholic Church has moved on
in the last century and a half. Maybe you're too young to remember for
example a little thing called the Second Vatican Council but I thought you
would at least have heard of it.
>>Teaching Children
>>==============
>>The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to be
>>taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent bring up
>>their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that child? Good
>>parents, of course, will educate their children that there are other
>>opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but in other areas
>>such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously close to being in
>>the same category as those fundamentalists who do not want their children
>>taught about evolution.
>
> Well, we can start by banning religious schools. That way we can at
> least ensure that all children are given a basic education that is
> free of religious bias and lies.
Ah, back to the fundamentalist approach, if you don't agree with it, get it
banned.
>>----------------------------------
>>
>>Overall, I think there *is* a good book to be written in this whole area
>>but, in my opinion, 'The God Delusion' is not that book.
>
> Keep reading. It is a complex area and one reading of the book is not
> really enough.
Enough for me, I found it a real struggle to finish.
>He does provide an excellent list of other books to
> read - try some of them. The look at the evidence, and if you can find
> any evidence for a god I would love to hear from you.
I've read a lot of stuff in this area from both sides of the debate but I
haven't yet found a book that really gives a balanced view but maybe a
balanced view simply isn't possible.
alwaysaskingquestions
> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>> That's correct, and the points I am arguing are not about creationism as
>> such, they are about the existence of a God.
>
> Yep, I realise that.
>
>
>>> I'm sure you'll agree
>>> that the theist has the burden of proof,
>>
>> I actually don't think there is any burden on proof as there is no
>> scientific way of settling this either way.
>
> So you refuse to offer any evidence whatsoever that you're right.
Why do I need to produce 'evidence' - Have I tried to convince you that I'm
right and you're wrong about the existence of God?
>The evidence I offer that I'm right is that I just went outside and looked
>up
> and didn't see God. So far, I win, and the statement you quoted remains
> eminently reasonable.
I just went ouside and looked up and didn't see Jupiter so Jupiter doesn't
exist. I reckon that just about makes us equal on points :)
>> That's a non-sequiter - 'absence of evidence not being evidence of
>> absence' and all that.
>
> Rendering the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God no more or less likely to exist
> than, as Dawkins has recently become fond of saying, fairies, elves, Zeus,
> the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn... it never fails to
> amuse me how you people try to use your total lack of evidence to your
> advantage. What bizarre behaviour.
Ahem, where have I said that the God I believe in is any more or less likely
to exist than any of the other examples you give?
My position, for what it is worth, is that the God I choose to believe in
provides me with an adequate explanation for many of the things science
cannot (at least yet) explain and I have found nothing in science to
undermine that belief.
>>> That's what makes it a perfectly valid
>>> statement.
>>
>> I disagree - "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both statements
>> of
>> belief, not scientific conclusions
>
> "There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God" is a
> scientific statement, however.
I disagree - change it to "There is no scientific basis to belive that there
is a God" and I will agree totally.
dkomo
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:41:08 -0000, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>>I've just finished this book and what a great disappointment in turned out
>>to be.
>
Fortunately, I don't think most people share your opinion. The book is
becoming a bestseller, and may eventually become a nonfiction classic
like _Guns, Germs and Steel_ and _Selfish Gene_. It's on the New Times
Best Seller list already. It seems to be making big waves, judging from
the outraged squeals of the religious community, of which you seem to be
one rather minor spokesman.
I was disappointed in one section of the book, the one on the roots of
religion, but the parts you criticized I found were the best parts in
the book. Namely, Dawkins makes an eloquent case that religion is a
detriment to mankind and it's high time that the whole sorry set of
weird beliefs and fairy tales were tossed into the scrapbin of history.
Dawkins proposes that it's time for mankind to grow up, and leave its
childhood behind. Are *you* ready?
dkomo
> I've just finished this book and what a great disappointment in turned out
> to be.
>
[oops, ignore my previous reply. I replied to the wrong post -- I agree
with Ye Old One on _The God Delusion_]
damnfine
>> So you refuse to offer any evidence whatsoever that you're right.
>
> Why do I need to produce 'evidence' - Have I tried to convince you that
> I'm right and you're wrong about the existence of God?
You've implied that belief and non-belief are factually equivalent, which is
the same for all intents and purposes.
> I just went ouside and looked up and didn't see Jupiter so Jupiter doesn't
> exist. I reckon that just about makes us equal on points :)
Very well. Jupiter is visible thorough a telescope. Is God?
> Ahem, where have I said that the God I believe in is any more or less
> likely to exist than any of the other examples you give?
So do you think all of them exist? I can't imagine how you could believe in
God without believing in quite literally anything and everything. It's just
logically untenable.
> My position, for what it is worth, is that the God I choose to believe in
> provides me with an adequate explanation for many of the things science
> cannot (at least yet) explain and I have found nothing in science to
> undermine that belief.
Ah, God of the Gaps, we meet again. I suggest you re-read that particular
passage of The God Delusion. God does not explain ANYTHING about the gaps in
our scientific knowledge, rather he acts as an excuse NOT to explain them.
Your parenthetical qualification interests me, too. If you acknowledge that
some, theoetically all, of those gaps may be filled by science in the
future, then why the need to "choose to believe" in God at all?
>> "There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God" is a
>> scientific statement, however.
>
> I disagree - change it to "There is no scientific basis to belive that
> there is a God" and I will agree totally.
Why would you believe anything without a rational basis for belief?
--
damnfine
Andrew Arensburger
> "Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:ejab42$jh9$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> > appears on pp. 132-133 of "The God Delusion", and is a quotation from
> > C. Freeman, "The Closing of the Western Mind", London, Heinemann, 2002.
[...]
> > If I have the time and energy,
> > I may track down Freeman's book at the library.
> I'd be interested in hearing how you get on with that - if you find the time
> and energy ;)
Well, that was an annoying waste of time.
I found the book easily enough, and looked up "Augustine" in
the index. Unfortunately, as this is a history of early Christianity,
he tends to come up quite often, even outside of the 25-page section
dedicated to him. Still, I worked my way though the entries for
"Augustine", then the entries for "Augustine, <topic> and", as well as
assorted promising endnotes. Then I skimmed through the entire section
dedicated to him, in case I had missed something earlier.
I was just about at the point where I thought I'd have to
start from the beginning and work my way through that I started
leafing through the first pages and found the quotation as an epigram,
sandwiched between the dedication and the table of contents.
For what it's worth, that entire page reads:
Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no
impulse to harm his countrymen or to pursue wrongful actions,
but perceives the order of immortal and ageless nature, how it
is structured.
Euripides, fragment from an unnamed play, fifth
century B.C.
There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with
danger. This is the disease of curiosity ... It is this which
drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those
secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us
nothing and which man should not wish to learn.
Augustine,
late fourth/early fifth century A.D.
The only difference between Freeman and Dawkins is that Freeman has an
ellipsis between "curiosity" and "It is this". So there may be
quote-mining going on, but I don't think we can fault Dawkins, unless
it is for trusting another source.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
What's the point of being fascinatingly crazy, if you don't enrich the
world with it?
Milan
> do take issue with them abandoning their professional stnadrads *when*
> they are working in that field, particularly when they are using their
> professional expertise to justify their conclusions in that field..
Which professional standards do you claim Dawkins has abandoned?
>> The God Delusion is not a science book,
>
> In Dawkins' own words "there's a lot of science in it."
Indeed. Just saying something like "we must disbelieve the claim there is a
god because there is no evidence for such a thing" is part of the ABC of the
scientific methodology
>> it's a political and philosophical polemic, and should be judged by those
>> standards. The fact that he is inaccurate about the precise role of
>> indulgences (in what really amounts to little more than simplification
>> for
>> convenience) is not in the slightest bit important.
>
> I do consider his carelessness as reproachable but anyway, his
> misrepresentation of indulgences is only one of the points I made - do you
> disagree with my other comments?
>
The book is extraordinary. The only criticism I would make is that in a way
it is a bit of a waste of time. One could wonder why waste time debunking
ancient superstitions without any basis? The fact that the faith in such a
preposterous thing like a god is a delusion should be blindingly obvious and
require no more than a couple of pages. However, the book is highly
entertaining and, as usual with Dawkins works, beautifully written and
stimulating. There are also many interesting anecdotes. I liked particularly
the one in the preface, about his wife, who hated the school she went to but
never complained about it because "she didnt know she could".
regards
Milan
Milan
>> alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
>
>>> Not exactly, the Catholic Church teaches that after death there is only
>>> eternity, therfore there there is no concept of time in regard to
>>> Purgatory
>>
>> But isn't purgatory a period of time that ends once one
>> is sufficiently purged, after which one goes to heaven?
>>
>> How do you reconcile that doctrine with the idea
>> "there is no concept of time in regard to Purgatory"?
>
> I don't think this is really the place to get into detailed debate on the
> theology behind Purgatory - it's not really relevent to my original post -
> but I think it's fair to say that the problem with explaining Purgaotory
> and many other theological concepts is that we try to use human terms to
> explain something that cannot be explained in human terms.
The problem is to try to apply reason to a concept that is fictional and
nonsensical. And, by the way, an invention that became official dogma only
in the 16th century.
regards
Milan
Andrew Arensburger
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163434822.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > If the first quote is not out of context or misleading
> > then it is not "quote mining" as usually understood.
> Because Augustine clearly embraced the reality of science yet Dawkins is
> using a specific quote - without giving any context - to portray Augustine
> as anti-science. I'm also somewhat dubious about the quote itself, I can't
> find it in any of the online editions of Augusine's writings. I've found the
> quote itself in several places on the Internet but without a source
> reference except for one site that refers to Confessions Book X and it
> certainly doesn't appear in that book. I also find it somewhat curious that
> Dawkins doesn't quote it directly from Augustine's writings, he puts in what
> appears to be little more than a disclaimer by just saying "(quoted in
> Freeman 2002)".
Dawkins quotes the passage exactly as it appears in Freeman
(see my other post in this thread).
I also did a bit more digging online, and found this:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.xi.xxxv.html
which contains:
Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go
through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange
sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out
the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which
to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to
know.
(despite what it may seem from the URL, this is actually in book X,
not XI). It seems plausible that this and Freeman's epigram are
translations of the same passage. I'll let others read the whole thing
to see whether it constitutes quote-mining.
> Another example, not exactly quote-mining but very much in the same vein, is
> where he tries to re-interpret what other scientists have said - for
> example, 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." I find those comments to be breathtakingly
> arrogant of Dawkins.
Didn't Dawkins know Gould personally? I'm sure he's familiar
with Gould's work. Could it be that he's drawing upon his knowledge of
Gould's personality?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Bludgeoning moribund Equidae for fun and profit.
Bobby Bryant
Sounds like you're redefining the message, and then objecting to what
it "means".
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> writes:
8<
> I actually don't think there is any burden on proof as there is no
> scientific way of settling this either way. Belief or non-belief in
> God comes down to personal opinion, not any form of evidential
> proof. That's why I think the example quoted boils down to
> "True/untrue here equates to 'I agree/disagree with it.' "
8<
> I disagree - "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both
> statements of belief, not scientific conclusions
I actually agree with you. Presumably we could live in a universe
where there were one or more Gods *and* they left evidence of
themselves. But we don't. So we can't tell whether no Gods exist, or
whether they exist but don't do anything that would leave any evidence
of their existence.
Presumably you know that that position is called agnosticism.
OTOH, given how many Gods have been claimed to exist (hundreds?
thousands? millions?) and how many conflicting claims have been made
about the one that's in vogue in our society these days (thousands?
millions? billions?), and that all those Gods/variants have *exactly*
the same amount of evidentiary support... why would anyone entertain
any of them for the merest moment?
You might as well argue over which author describes the "real" elves.
Don Cates
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>"damnfine" <damn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:12li1lp...@corp.supernews.com...
>> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>>> That's correct, and the points I am arguing are not about creationism as
>>> such, they are about the existence of a God.
>>
>> Yep, I realise that.
>>
>>
>>>> I'm sure you'll agree
>>>> that the theist has the burden of proof,
>>>
>>> I actually don't think there is any burden on proof as there is no
>>> scientific way of settling this either way.
>>
>> So you refuse to offer any evidence whatsoever that you're right.
>
>Why do I need to produce 'evidence' - Have I tried to convince you that I'm
>right and you're wrong about the existence of God?
>
>>The evidence I offer that I'm right is that I just went outside and looked
>>up
>> and didn't see God. So far, I win, and the statement you quoted remains
>> eminently reasonable.
>
>I just went ouside and looked up and didn't see Jupiter so Jupiter doesn't
>exist. I reckon that just about makes us equal on points :)
>
You weren't looking in the right place. Some very simple research would
tell you when and where to look and if you do, you will see Jupiter.
The most common formulations of God (not necessarily your's) holds that
God is everywhere. {takes quick look over shoulder} Nope, nothing
there. I've tried a few of the other suggested ways of finding God as
well, no luck.
>
>>> That's a non-sequiter - 'absence of evidence not being evidence of
>>> absence' and all that.
>>
>> Rendering the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God no more or less likely to exist
>> than, as Dawkins has recently become fond of saying, fairies, elves, Zeus,
>> the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn... it never fails to
>> amuse me how you people try to use your total lack of evidence to your
>> advantage. What bizarre behaviour.
>
>Ahem, where have I said that the God I believe in is any more or less likely
>to exist than any of the other examples you give?
>
>My position, for what it is worth, is that the God I choose to believe in
>provides me with an adequate explanation for many of the things science
>cannot (at least yet) explain and I have found nothing in science to
>undermine that belief.
>
Now that makes me curious. Can you please give me an example of a thing
"science cannot (at least yet) explain", how "the God I choose to
believe in" explains it, and why you consider that explanation
"adequate"? Thank you.
>>>> That's what makes it a perfectly valid
>>>> statement.
>>>
>>> I disagree - "There is a God" and "There is no God" are both statements
>>> of
>>> belief, not scientific conclusions
>>
>> "There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God" is a
>> scientific statement, however.
>
>I disagree - change it to "There is no scientific basis to belive that there
>is a God" and I will agree totally.
>
Fair enough, but perhaps he has a rather restrictive definition for the
term "reason" in his statement?
Don Cates
John Wilkins
The Imago edition of the Confessions has this passage there (and you are
right it is in book X, sect 35, or 10.35.55)
"Thus also with regard to the other senses, but it is a long task to
review them all. Because of this morbid curiosity, monstrous sights are
exhibited in the show places. Because of it, men proceed to search out
the secrets of nature, things beyond our end, to know which profits us
nothing, and of which men desire nothing but the knowing. Such curiosity
is also the motive when things are investigated by magic arts anbd with
the same purpose of perverted science. Because of this, God is tempted
in religion itself, when signs and wonders are demanded of him, and are
desried not for wholesome purpose but only for experience of them."
and here's the Latin:
"ita et in ceteris sensibus, quae persequi longum est. ex hoc morbo
cupiditatis in spectaculis exhibentur quaeque miracula. hinc ad
perscrutanda naturae, quae praeter nos est, operta proceditur, quae
scire nihil prodest et nihil aliud quam scire homines cupiunt. hinc
etiam si quid eodem perversae scientiae fine per artes magicas
quaeritur. hinc etiam in ipsa religione deus temptatur, cum signa et
prodigia flagitantur non ad aliquam salutem, sed ad solam experientiam
desiderata."
The phrase "disease of curiosity" is "morbo cupiditatis", so the
translation is at best biased. But Augustine clearly thought science was
subject to theological rules, or else it is "empty curiosity".
>
> > Another example, not exactly quote-mining but very much in the same vein, is
> > where he tries to re-interpret what other scientists have said - for
> > example, 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." I find those comments to be breathtakingly
> > arrogant of Dawkins.
>
> Didn't Dawkins know Gould personally? I'm sure he's familiar
> with Gould's work. Could it be that he's drawing upon his knowledge of
> Gould's personality?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Perplexed in Peoria
"Don Cates" <ca...@mts.net> wrote in message news:1163478520.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cute. Nice catch. And it illustrates something about anecdotes.
Tell an anecdote about what motivates death squad participants
in Rwanda, say, and people take it with a grain of salt. But
tell an anecdote about, say, how women react to stress, and a
good fraction of the population will be nodding their heads in
agreement. One thing people consider themselves experts on is
their own experiences, but they are still hungry for confirmation
that their experiences are typical.
Perplexed in Peoria
It occurs to me that this is actually a double-credit Chez Watt.
The OP is criticizing Dawkins' book for presumably using too much
anecdotal evidence, and offers one example in support of this
criticism.
Ilas
news:4rrp05F...@mid.individual.net:
> Nor would I expect them to fund the teaching of my religious beliefs.
> I'm not sure of how exactly it works in the UK, but here in (southern)
> Ireland religious schools are only part funded, not fully funded, and
> IMO that's fair enough, they are entitled for the costs of general
> education to be met.
They're "voluntarily aided" here, which means that they are largely
government funded. My point is that there should be *no* state funding for
religious schools any more than there should be state funding for political
schools, because you are funding a belief system, not an education. State
schools should be nuetral as far as religion goes, as they are supposed to
be politically neutral. Would you accept state funding for BNP schools,
even if wasn't full funding? Or in Ireland, how about for DUP schools? Or
Sinn Fein schools? What's the difference?
>> Indeed, and you've hit on the answer as to why they outperform other
>> schools. They're selective.
>
> As I said to chimp, are you suggesting that religious people are more
> clever? ;)
Nope. Middle class parents know how to play the system. At my old school in
the 70s, most of us were from Irish or Italian backgrounds (both in my case
- I make pizzas with Tayto crisps on them). Talking to a friend the other
day whose kids are at the same school, he said half the parents had
converted or joined the church (which is worse in a way - the kids were
going to get away scot free, and now they're getting brainwashed. Poor
sods).
alwaysaskingquestions
> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>>> So you refuse to offer any evidence whatsoever that you're right.
>>
>> Why do I need to produce 'evidence' - Have I tried to convince you that
>> I'm right and you're wrong about the existence of God?
>
> You've implied that belief and non-belief are factually equivalent, which
> is
> the same for all intents and purposes.
>
>
>> I just went ouside and looked up and didn't see Jupiter so Jupiter
>> doesn't
>> exist. I reckon that just about makes us equal on points :)
>
> Very well. Jupiter is visible thorough a telescope. Is God?
'Visible' is only one way of showing something exists, I would regard myself
as 'aware' of God in other ways, but they are non-scientific ways so I don't
think discussion of them is particularly appropriate here.
>> Ahem, where have I said that the God I believe in is any more or less
>> likely to exist than any of the other examples you give?
> So do you think all of them exist?
No - but that's a personal opinion, I have no way of proving they don't
exist.
> I can't imagine how you could believe in
> God without believing in quite literally anything and everything. It's
> just
> logically untenable.
Untenable in scientific terms, perhaps, but not in other terms.
>> My position, for what it is worth, is that the God I choose to believe in
>> provides me with an adequate explanation for many of the things science
>> cannot (at least yet) explain and I have found nothing in science to
>> undermine that belief.
> Ah, God of the Gaps, we meet again. I suggest you re-read that particular
> passage of The God Delusion. God does not explain ANYTHING about the gaps
> in
> our scientific knowledge, rather he acts as an excuse NOT to explain them.
I don't accept that logic, I don't see God being an excuse to fill the gaps
any more than multiverses are an excuse to fill the gaps created by quantum
theory - they are both *possible* explanations but both suffer from lack of
real evidence..
> Your parenthetical qualification interests me, too. If you acknowledge
> that
> some, theoetically all, of those gaps may be filled by science in the
> future, then why the need to "choose to believe" in God at all?
Because I see my own faith as something that is constantly evolving, I look
at all new evidence to see whether it changes my beliefs in any way.
>>> "There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God" is a
>>> scientific statement, however.
>>
>> I disagree - change it to "There is no scientific basis to belive that
>> there is a God" and I will agree totally.
>
> Why would you believe anything without a rational basis for belief?
I consider my own beliefs to be perfectly rational.
damnfine
>> Very well. Jupiter is visible thorough a telescope. Is God?
>
> 'Visible' is only one way of showing something exists, I would regard
> myself as 'aware' of God in other ways, but they are non-scientific ways
> so I don't think discussion of them is particularly appropriate here.
I would've thought it's ENTIRELY appropriate here, though I think I can
understand your reluctance.
>> I can't imagine how you could believe in
>> God without believing in quite literally anything and everything. It's
>> just logically untenable.
>
> Untenable in scientific terms, perhaps, but not in other terms.
No, just logically untenable. And you're not going to win an argument
without logic.
>> Ah, God of the Gaps, we meet again. I suggest you re-read that particular
>> passage of The God Delusion. God does not explain ANYTHING about the gaps
>> in our scientific knowledge, rather he acts as an excuse NOT to explain
>> them.
>
> I don't accept that logic,
Why?
> I don't see God being an excuse to fill the gaps any more than multiverses
> are an excuse to fill the gaps created by quantum theory - they are both
> *possible* explanations but both suffer from lack of real evidence..
But you SAID you used God to fill gaps in scientific knowledge! And since
you keep insisting that God is something aside from logic and empiricism,
how can one read that as anything other than you preferring to cram God into
crevices which you admit could easily be filled by science in the future?
>> Your parenthetical qualification interests me, too. If you acknowledge
>> that
>> some, theoetically all, of those gaps may be filled by science in the
>> future, then why the need to "choose to believe" in God at all?
>
> Because I see my own faith as something that is constantly evolving, I
> look at all new evidence to see whether it changes my beliefs in any way.
So what, pray tell, is the use of such a faith?
>> Why would you believe anything without a rational basis for belief?
>
> I consider my own beliefs to be perfectly rational.
But you refuse to argue for them in a rational manner.
--
damnfine
alwaysaskingquestions
[...]
>>>The evidence I offer that I'm right is that I just went outside and
>>>looked
>>>up
>>> and didn't see God. So far, I win, and the statement you quoted remains
>>> eminently reasonable.
>>
>>I just went ouside and looked up and didn't see Jupiter so Jupiter doesn't
>>exist. I reckon that just about makes us equal on points :)
>>
> You weren't looking in the right place. Some very simple research would
> tell you when and where to look and if you do, you will see Jupiter.
> The most common formulations of God (not necessarily your's) holds that
> God is everywhere. {takes quick look over shoulder} Nope, nothing
> there.
Ok, then, take gravity - it too is everywhere but I've taken a quick look
over my shoulder and can't see it - but I can certainly *feel* its presence.
[...]
>>My position, for what it is worth, is that the God I choose to believe in
>>provides me with an adequate explanation for many of the things science
>>cannot (at least yet) explain and I have found nothing in science to
>>undermine that belief.
>>
> Now that makes me curious. Can you please give me an example of a thing
> "science cannot (at least yet) explain", how "the God I choose to
> believe in" explains it, and why you consider that explanation
> "adequate"? Thank you.
Hmmm.. I'm a bit uneasy about getting into personal interpretations of God
in this ng but seeing that you asked ....
Science can't explain to me where the primeval atom came from and why it
exploded. Science can't explain to me why atoms decided to come together to
undertake the arduous task of creating a life when it would have been so
much easier for them to settle for the simple life of a rock. Science can't
explain to me how man has evolved a level of consciousness far above any
other species - the debate we're having right now being one example of that
consciousness. Science can't explain the intense emotions that humans
undergo like passionate love, intense hatred or overwhelming grief. (I've
avoided the pedantry of adding "yet" to each example.)
In terms of 'God' as an explanation, I believe that there is an underlying
force that, for a lack of a better word, 'drives' the universe, a force that
we can't identify in scientific terms but can see the effects of - a bit
like gravity in some ways. That's what I choose to call God. The rational of
interpreting that 'force' as - in my case - the Judaic/Christian God is well
outside the realms of science and therefore not really relevent to this
discussion.
[...]
damnfine
> Ok, then, take gravity - it too is everywhere but I've taken a quick look
> over my shoulder and can't see it - but I can certainly *feel* its
> presence.
Got a pencil on your desk? Pick it up, then drop it.
> Science can't explain to me where the primeval atom came from and why it
> exploded.
Can God?
> Science can't explain to me why atoms decided to come together to
> undertake the arduous task of creating a life when it would have been so
> much easier for them to settle for the simple life of a rock.
Can God?
> Science can't explain to me how man has evolved a level of consciousness
> far above any other species - the debate we're having right now being one
> example of that consciousness.
Can God?
> Science can't explain the intense emotions that humans undergo like
> passionate love, intense hatred or overwhelming grief.
Can God?
> In terms of 'God' as an explanation, I believe that there is an underlying
> force that, for a lack of a better word, 'drives' the universe, a force
> that we can't identify in scientific terms but can see the effects of - a
> bit like gravity in some ways.
Where did this underlying force come from?
> That's what I choose to call God. The rational of interpreting that
> 'force' as - in my case - the Judaic/Christian God is well outside the
> realms of science and therefore not really relevent to this discussion.
It became relevent to this discussion the moment you made the absurd
comparison between the following statement and something a religous
fundamentalist would say:
"Being passionate about spreading the truth is not the same, and can never
be rationally equated to, the belief in some kind of unprovable supernatural
entity. "
It's precisely the opposite of what a religous fundamentalist would say,
since religious fundamentalism is based on the unthinking and uncritical
acceptance of outright nonsense.
--
damnfine
alwaysaskingquestions
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4rsmqfF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4rsc96F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "damnfine" <damn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:12lho1k...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> I don't take issue with someone's right to work in a different field - I
>> do take issue with them abandoning their professional stnadrads *when*
>> they are working in that field, particularly when they are using their
>> professional expertise to justify their conclusions in that field..
>
> Which professional standards do you claim Dawkins has abandoned?
Checking the accuracy of his basic facts before making an argument based on
them
[...]
> The book is extraordinary. The only criticism I would make is that in a
> way it is a bit of a waste of time. One could wonder why waste time
> debunking ancient superstitions without any basis? The fact that the faith
> in such a preposterous thing like a god is a delusion should be blindingly
> obvious and require no more than a couple of pages.
People on a personal crusade always find plenty of time to expound it and
Dawkins is on a personal crusade.
> However, the book is highly entertaining and, as usual with Dawkins works,
> beautifully written and stimulating. There are also many interesting
> anecdotes. I liked particularly the one in the preface, about his wife,
> who hated the school she went to but never complained about it because
> "she didnt know she could".
As I said in my original post, there are some good points in the book, I
just found them to be overwhelmed by his passionate hatred of religion.
I agree with Dawkins that there is too much exalted status given to
religious beliefs - I choose to believe in God but I fully expect that
belief to be challenged and that a certain amount of ridicule is to be
expected. The tendency to be polite and not challenge religious beliefs is
short-sighted and can even be dangerous as we saw in the outrageous reaction
of Muslims to the Danish catoons.
I also agree with some of what he says about brainwashing children - parents
have the right to teach their children about their own religious beliefs but
also have a duty to teach their children to think for themselves. Faith is
not something that can be forced upon people and that, IMO, is the real rock
that fundamentalism perishes on.
damnfine
>> Which professional standards do you claim Dawkins has abandoned?
>
> Checking the accuracy of his basic facts before making an argument based
> on them
If only you held yourself to the same standard! :-D
--
damnfine
Ye Old One
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:7ldhl25iqrdmt38om...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:41:08 -0000, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>He goes on to say ""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' .".
>>>
>>>Let me stop there, that one particularly annoyed me. I grew up in Northern
>>>Ireland through 'the troubles' and to blame them simply on religion at
>>>best
>>>shows a total lack of understanding of the underlying causes of the
>>>conflict
>>>there and at worst is a deliberate and cynical attempt to misrepresent
>>>that
>>>conflict to bolster an argument.
>>
>> But religion WAS the cause of the troubles.
>
>No it wasn't - religion was a sympton of the conflict, not a cause of it
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
>
>>They may have been flamed
>> by criminal elements that exist in most societies, but without the
>> religious divide, without the segregated estates and the separate
>> schools indoctrinating hatred into the children, the troubles would
>> not have existed.
>
>No offence meant but you don't really have a clue what you are talking about
>on this particular subject. The conflict in Northern Ireland was a tribal
>conflict, not a religious one, the religious lables used were simply that -
>lables to differentiate the tribes.
They were(are) tribes organized by religion. As long as the kids are
raised in segregated schools that promote the religious divide the
troubles will always be a simmering undercurrent to life in the
province.
>
>
>>>
>>>It is totally preposterous to suggest that in the absence of religion,
>>>most
>>>of the wars and conflict in the world, past and present, would not have
>>>existed without religion.
>>
>> And yet it is true.
>
>So, if religion could be abolished, there would be no wars?
There would be a lot less because there would be a lot less division.
>
>>> The last century saw two major World Wars; I'd be
>>>interested to hear Professor Dawkins theory on how religion caused them.
>>
>> Christianity was largely responsible for the establishment of the
>> countries that went to war.
>
>Ah, if you can't show that religion was the cause of the wars, then move the
>argument back to religion being the cause of the people who caused the wars.
>Now, let's see, what group of people does that approach remind me of ......
That cause of WWII was WWI, the cause of WWI are explained very well
here: http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
You will not that most of the real causes lie further back in history
and many, when you trace them, come back to religion.
>
>
>> I remember, many years ago, seeing film of one of the big WWI battles.
>> It showed priests, on both sides, telling their troops that god was on
>> their side and that they were fighting with right on their side.
>
>So it was the priests who really started the wars?
They stoked the fires.
>
>>>Yes, many of these things have been carried out in the name of religion or
>>>using religion as an excuse but in seeking to condemn religion because of
>>>its misuse, Dawkins becomes the mirror image of religious fundamentalists
>>>who try to condemn all of science because of its misuse or
>>>misrepresentation
>>>by some individual scientists.
>>
>> What he does is to show some of the damage religion is responsible
>> for,
>
>Sorry, Dawkins unapologetically blames religion for most of the evil in the
>world. That, to me, is little different from blaming car manufacturers for
>the deaths of all the people who get killed in car crashes, or drink
>manufacturers for all the alcoholism and other drink-related problems in
>society.
I agree with both of you. If people stopped believing in religion, if
people stopped driving cars, if people stopped drinking.....
>
>[...]
>
>>>Anecdotal Evidence
>>>===============
>>>In talking about the impact of religion on preparedness for death, he says
>>>"A senior nurse of my acquaintance, with a lifetime's experience of
>>>running
>>>a home for old people . has noticed over the years that the individuals
>>>who
>>>are most afraid of death are the religious ones."
>>
>> That, from my own experience, is very true.
>
>As it so happens, I can see reasons for many religious people to be
>apprehensive of death, they anticipate some form of judgement and may worry
>about how well they will measure up. But that's not my real point here -
>Dawkins use of an unsubstantiated claim (he doesn't even name the nurse) to
>bolster his argument
And I think his argument is a good one and needs a lot more research.
Certainly, from my own experiance with old people his anecdote holds
true.
>
>
>>>Misstatement of Facts
>>>=================
>>>In his tirade against the concept of Purgatory and the scandal of
>>>indulgences being sold by the Church in the middle ages, he completely
>>>misrepresents the whole concept of indulgences - they do NOT represent "x
>>>days off" from Purgatory.
>>>
>>>He is quite right of course, that the selling of indulgences was a total
>>>disgrace, but as a qualified scientist, Dawkins should know the importance
>>>of getting the basic facts right before basing an argument on them.
>>
>> Do you dispute that indulgences were the sale, by what I would term
>> con-artists, of things they did not own and had no control over?
>
>What bit of "He is quite right of course, that the selling of indulgences
>was a total disgrace" did you not understand?
You missed the question.
>
>>>Emotive Arguments
>>>===============
>>>Dawkins peppers his book with numerous anecdotes which appear designed to
>>>tug at the reader's heartstrings and doesn't seem to mind how far back in
>>>history he has to go to find them. For example, he tells the story of
>>>Edgardo Mortara, a six year old child of Jewish parents legally seized by
>>>papal police when the Catholic Church discovered that he been secretly
>>>baptised by his Catholic nanny.
>>
>> Yes, a very heart rending story.
>>>
>>>Dawkins admits that this happened in 1858 and that he is "not implying
>>>that
>>>anything like this awful story could happen today". So why does he use the
>>>story then?
>>
>> Because it exposes part of the evil of religion. I'm sure if they
>> could get away with it they would still try to do it today.
>
>Which reflects your total ignorance of how the Catholic Church has moved on
>in the last century and a half.
Has it? Or has it just been forced to bury its ideas for now because
it has lost its grip on power?
> Maybe you're too young to remember for
>example a little thing called the Second Vatican Council but I thought you
>would at least have heard of it.
Oh yes, and studied it a long time ago. But it changed little.
>
>>>Teaching Children
>>>==============
>>>The biggest issue I have with Dawkins is his plea for children not to be
>>>taught the religious beliefs of their parents. How can any parent bring up
>>>their child without imparting their own basic beliefs to that child? Good
>>>parents, of course, will educate their children that there are other
>>>opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but in other areas
>>>such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously close to being in
>>>the same category as those fundamentalists who do not want their children
>>>taught about evolution.
>>
>> Well, we can start by banning religious schools. That way we can at
>> least ensure that all children are given a basic education that is
>> free of religious bias and lies.
>
>Ah, back to the fundamentalist approach, if you don't agree with it, get it
>banned.
A key right of a child is to receive an education. Society needs to
ensure each child gets that education.
>
>>>----------------------------------
>>>
>>>Overall, I think there *is* a good book to be written in this whole area
>>>but, in my opinion, 'The God Delusion' is not that book.
>>
>> Keep reading. It is a complex area and one reading of the book is not
>> really enough.
>
>Enough for me, I found it a real struggle to finish.
>
>>He does provide an excellent list of other books to
>> read - try some of them. The look at the evidence, and if you can find
>> any evidence for a god I would love to hear from you.
>
>I've read a lot of stuff in this area from both sides of the debate but I
>haven't yet found a book that really gives a balanced view but maybe a
>balanced view simply isn't possible.
I tend to agree.
>
--
Bob.
alwaysaskingquestions
> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>>> Very well. Jupiter is visible thorough a telescope. Is God?
>>
>> 'Visible' is only one way of showing something exists, I would regard
>> myself as 'aware' of God in other ways, but they are non-scientific ways
>> so I don't think discussion of them is particularly appropriate here.
>
> I would've thought it's ENTIRELY appropriate here, though I think I can
> understand your reluctance.
You think thinks like personal experience and a belief in Jesus Christ are
appropriate to talk.origins ?
>>> I can't imagine how you could believe in
>>> God without believing in quite literally anything and everything. It's
>>> just logically untenable.
>>
>> Untenable in scientific terms, perhaps, but not in other terms.
>
> No, just logically untenable. And you're not going to win an argument
> without logic.
>
>
>>> Ah, God of the Gaps, we meet again. I suggest you re-read that
>>> particular
>>> passage of The God Delusion. God does not explain ANYTHING about the
>>> gaps
>>> in our scientific knowledge, rather he acts as an excuse NOT to explain
>>> them.
>>
>> I don't accept that logic,
>
> Why?
The fact that a belief in God can be described as "filling the gaps" does
not in itself mean that belief is ill founded.
>> I don't see God being an excuse to fill the gaps any more than
>> multiverses
>> are an excuse to fill the gaps created by quantum theory - they are both
>> *possible* explanations but both suffer from lack of real evidence..
>
> But you SAID you used God to fill gaps in scientific knowledge! And since
> you keep insisting that God is something aside from logic and empiricism,
I haven't said that God is asomething aside from logic and empiricism, I've
said that God is outside science - by which I mean the 'scientific method'
as it is generally understood here.
> how can one read that as anything other than you preferring to cram God
> into
> crevices which you admit could easily be filled by science in the future?
>
>
>>> Your parenthetical qualification interests me, too. If you acknowledge
>>> that
>>> some, theoetically all, of those gaps may be filled by science in the
>>> future, then why the need to "choose to believe" in God at all?
>>
>> Because I see my own faith as something that is constantly evolving, I
>> look at all new evidence to see whether it changes my beliefs in any way.
>
> So what, pray tell, is the use of such a faith?
For starters, it provides me with a sense of purpose and a code of conduct
for living my life.
>>> Why would you believe anything without a rational basis for belief?
>>
>> I consider my own beliefs to be perfectly rational.
>
> But you refuse to argue for them in a rational manner.
Only in this ng (although I have gone into it a little bit in my reply to
Don Cates). The point of my original post was nothing to do with the
existence or non-existence of God, it was about the *methodology* used by
Dawkins to argue his case.
damnfine
>> I would've thought it's ENTIRELY appropriate here, though I think I can
>> understand your reluctance.
>
> You think thinks like personal experience and a belief in Jesus Christ are
> appropriate to talk.origins ?
Yes.
And particularly appropriate to this thread, since they colour your reaction
to the book you posted about.
>> But you SAID you used God to fill gaps in scientific knowledge! And since
>> you keep insisting that God is something aside from logic and empiricism,
>
> I haven't said that God is asomething aside from logic and empiricism
Well okay then, provide a justification for God-belief that is based on
logic and empiricism.
>> So what, pray tell, is the use of such a faith?
>
> For starters, it provides me with a sense of purpose and a code of conduct
> for living my life.
Hmm. In what way does it provide you with a code of conduct for living your
life?
>> But you refuse to argue for them in a rational manner.
>
> Only in this ng (although I have gone into it a little bit in my reply to
> Don Cates).
In that reply you just expounded the same old gap theology. There's nothing
in the slightest bit rational about it, since a slice of pizza is just as
likely as God to be responsible for any given phenomenon science hasn't
explained yet. Much more likely, in fact, since we know that pizza exists.
> The point of my original post was nothing to do with the existence or
> non-existence of God, it was about the
> *methodology* used by Dawkins to argue his case.
And my point is that no theist is ever in an ideal position to criticise an
atheist's argumentative methodology.
--
damnfine
alwaysaskingquestions
What *facts* have I stated wrongly ?
alwaysaskingquestions
> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>> Ok, then, take gravity - it too is everywhere but I've taken a quick look
>> over my shoulder and can't see it - but I can certainly *feel* its
>> presence.
>
> Got a pencil on your desk? Pick it up, then drop it.
As I already said, I can certainly feel it's presence. Just as I can feel
God's presence in my own life without fully understanding it.
>> Science can't explain to me where the primeval atom came from and why it
>> exploded.
>
> Can God?
For me, yes.
>> Science can't explain to me why atoms decided to come together to
>> undertake the arduous task of creating a life when it would have been so
>> much easier for them to settle for the simple life of a rock.
>
> Can God?
For me, yes.
>> Science can't explain to me how man has evolved a level of consciousness
>> far above any other species - the debate we're having right now being one
>> example of that consciousness.
>
> Can God?
For me, yes.
>> Science can't explain the intense emotions that humans undergo like
>> passionate love, intense hatred or overwhelming grief.
>
> Can God?
For me, yes.
>> In terms of 'God' as an explanation, I believe that there is an
>> underlying
>> force that, for a lack of a better word, 'drives' the universe, a force
>> that we can't identify in scientific terms but can see the effects of -
>> a
>> bit like gravity in some ways.
>
> Where did this underlying force come from?
I don't know - just as you seem to be accepting that science doesn't know
the answers to the questions I asked. That's why I have repeated ad nauseum
that belief or disbelief in God boils down to personal opinion.
>> That's what I choose to call God. The rational of interpreting that
>> 'force' as - in my case - the Judaic/Christian God is well outside the
>> realms of science and therefore not really relevent to this discussion.
>
> It became relevent to this discussion the moment you made the absurd
> comparison between the following statement and something a religous
> fundamentalist would say:
>
> "Being passionate about spreading the truth is not the same, and can never
> be rationally equated to, the belief in some kind of unprovable
> supernatural
> entity. "
>
> It's precisely the opposite of what a religous fundamentalist would say,
> since religious fundamentalism is based on the unthinking and uncritical
> acceptance of outright nonsense.
You obviously miss my underlying point which is that anyone who insists - in
the absence of scientific evidence either way - that religion is mumbo jumbo
is just expressing a personal opinion; insistence that a personal opinion is
the 'only truth' is equally wrong whether it's to argue that there is or is
not a God.
I'm sorry, you may not accept it, but I regard those who try to extrapolate
science to prove something unprovable are just as abhorrent to me as those
fundamanentalists who try to bury their heads in the sand about the many
wonderful things that science does explain for us.
alwaysaskingquestions
> "alwaysaskingquestions" wrote:
>>> I would've thought it's ENTIRELY appropriate here, though I think I can
>>> understand your reluctance.
>>
>> You think thinks like personal experience and a belief in Jesus Christ
>> are
>> appropriate to talk.origins ?
>
> Yes.
>
> And particularly appropriate to this thread, since they colour your
> reaction
> to the book you posted about.
My criticisms weren't about Dawkins beliefs as such, it was about the
methodology he used. I'm fully conscious, howeber, that personal beliefs
can colour a person's reaction - that's why I was upfront about my own
religious beliefs when I made my post.
[...}
> And my point is that no theist is ever in an ideal position to criticise
> an
> atheist's argumentative methodology.
I think it's fair to criticise someone's methodology if they use methods
that they criticise in others.
alwaysaskingquestions
>>Sorry, Dawkins unapologetically blames religion for most of the evil in
>>the
>>world. That, to me, is little different from blaming car manufacturers for
>>the deaths of all the people who get killed in car crashes, or drink
>>manufacturers for all the alcoholism and other drink-related problems in
>>society.
>
> I agree with both of you. If people stopped believing in religion, if
> people stopped driving cars, if people stopped drinking.....
I'm getting a bit tired with the circular arguments in this thread so here's
a moment of light relief.
60 year old guy goes to the doctor and says "Doc, I want to live to be a
100, with all these medical advances, surely there's something you can give
me?"
"Hmmm" replies the doctor, "Do you smoke?"
"No" says the guy, "Never smoked in my life".
"Do you drink much?" asks the doctor.
"No" says the guy, "Never drank in my life".
"Do you chase after women?" asks the doctor.
"No" says the guy, "No time for women at all".
"Do you drive fast cars?" asks the doctor.
"No" says the guy, "Don't believe in fast driving".
"Tell me then " says the doctor, "If you don't smoke, don't drink, don't
chase women and don't drive fast cars - why the hell would you want to live
to a 100?"
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
>> news:ejab42$jh9$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>> > Actually, this charge may not be without merit. This quotation
>> > appears on pp. 132-133 of "The God Delusion", and is a quotation from
>> > C. Freeman, "The Closing of the Western Mind", London, Heinemann, 2002.
> [...]
>> > If I have the time and energy,
>> > I may track down Freeman's book at the library.
>
>> I'd be interested in hearing how you get on with that - if you find the
>> time
>> and energy ;)
>
> Well, that was an annoying waste of time.
Thanks for the effort, though.
As I've said elsewhere, I find it curious that virtually every other source
that Dawkins quotes is listed in the notes at the end of the book; in regard
to this quote, he just says "(quoted in Freeman 2002)" in the text and
doesn't refer to it in his notes. It looks suspiciously to me as if Dawkins
may have tried to find the original quotation and couldn't, but decided to
go ahead and use it anyway; if so, that is indeed the equivalent of quote
mining and is entirely reprehensible.
Chimp
>>> parents, of course, will educate their children that there are other
>>> opinions and beliefs out there - not just in religion, but in other areas
>>> such as politics - but Dawkins demands come dangerously close to being in
>>> the same category as those fundamentalists who do not want their children
>>> taught about evolution.
>>
>> in ignorance of their parents' religion. But he does
>> say that they should be exposed to an educational
>> variety of viewpoints, and that schools and society
>> should not presume that a child is automatically of
>> the same viewpoint as its parents.
>
> He very clearly wants religion abolished and atheism taught in its place.
That is not at all clear. He wants to _persuade_ people
to give up religion. But he has never called for legal
suppression of religion, and as far as I can tell is a
supporter of religious freedom. Do you have quotes
that say otherwise?
As for "teaching atheism", I suspect that what he really
wants to teach is science and rationalism. So, he
would like to teach children to examine religion
critically, but he'd also like them to examine everything
else critically.
On the subject of children, he sees them as independent
human beings who have just as much right to an opinion
and to religious freedom as the adults. That is why he
disagrees with them being labelled with and forced to
participate in whatever religion their legal guardian
happens to subscribe to.
Chimp
JPG
If the methodology is used to expound truth and reason it trumps the
same methodology when used to expound falsehood and unreason.
alwaysaskingquestions
"JPG" <j_peasemold_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163514496.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
JPG
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4rsmqfF...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4rsc96F...@mid.individual.net...
> >>
>
> As I said in my original post, there are some good points in the book, I
> just found them to be overwhelmed by his passionate hatred of religion.
>
You are allowing _your_ passion to unfairly exaggerate Dawkins' opinion
of religion. Nowhere in this book or others have I found Dawkins to
actually state that he _hates_ religion, passionately or otherwise. He
feels the world would be better off without the Abrahamic religions,
certainly, but nowhere does he suggest he hates religion per se. He
ridicules religion, but that is quite easy given the ludicrous
pronouncements of theologians, the recent laughable (but tragic)
nonsense regarding veils, limbo, cartoons, ID etc. He is fiercely
passionate in advocating reason and science, and sees religion as a
threat to human progress in these areas. A progress the human race
desparately needs if it to meet the many challenges ahead of it.
Bobby Bryant
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> writes:
> I don't see God being an excuse to fill the gaps any more than
> multiverses are an excuse to fill the gaps created by quantum theory
> - they are both *possible* explanations but both suffer from lack of
> real evidence..
Your repeated denials of the evidence aren't going to make it go away.
JPG
What's wrong is that you have evidently never been on a jury.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:0Ok6h.5644$IR4....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <4rthd7F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I don't see God being an excuse to fill the gaps any more than
>> multiverses are an excuse to fill the gaps created by quantum theory
>> - they are both *possible* explanations but both suffer from lack of
>> real evidence..
>
> Your repeated denials of the evidence aren't going to make it go away.
What evidence am I denying ?
Turner
I wish people would just stop complaining about 'The God Delusion' now.
I appreciate that Dawkins writes about a controversial topic, but it's
been it out for weeks now and yet we're still getting wave after wave
of "Dawkins fails to understand this" and "He doesn't provide a cite
for that". People almost seem to be reading it just so they can give it
a poor review.
Personally I distrust reviews that either rave about how good the book
is or condemn Dawkins for being misguided. I am inclined to be
suspicious about what either evangelical atheists or fundamentalist
theists have to say about it, because both are going to be heavily
biased. Funnily enough, though, the most asinine reviews of 'The God
Delusion' that I have read have not been on apologetics websites but
from professional reviewers who misunderstand Dawkins' points.
I personally found 'The God Delusion' to be pretty good. I do wish that
he could have been more moderate when discussing religion instead of
lashing out so much, and given more time to issues such as why people
turn to religion (an issue I think he oversimplified a bit) and less
time to rhetoric.
Claims such as "without religion there would be no war" coming from
Dawkins' more enthusiastic supporters irritate me, as it horribly
oversimplifies such things and also it is not even what Dawkins says
himself; and criticisms such as "Dawkins is ignorant of theology", as
if there were some fantastically insightful theological works beyond
his reach that would crush his position, annoy me even more.
Richard didn't write the book to deliberately offend people, although
he acknowledged that it would inevitably happen. I don't see why every
theist, the moment they put it down, has to have a rant about it. It's
getting a bit tedious.
Ilas
news:4rtj4fF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "Don Cates" <ca...@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:1163477950.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> You weren't looking in the right place. Some very simple research
>> would tell you when and where to look and if you do, you will see
>> Jupiter. The most common formulations of God (not necessarily your's)
>> holds that God is everywhere. {takes quick look over shoulder} Nope,
>> nothing there.
>
> Ok, then, take gravity - it too is everywhere but I've taken a quick
> look over my shoulder and can't see it - but I can certainly *feel*
> its presence.
Everyone can feel gravity's presence. Not everyone can a) feel a god's
presence or b) feel the *same* god's presence. I'd say that's because
there aint no god and those who feel a god's presence are deluding
themselves, but then I'm apparently doomed to an eternity of suffering
for that very belief, so what do I know?
> Hmmm.. I'm a bit uneasy about getting into personal interpretations of
> God in this ng but seeing that you asked ....
>
> Science can't explain to me where the primeval atom came from and why
> it exploded.
It didn't (if you mean the big bang).
Science can't explain to me why atoms decided to come
> together to undertake the arduous task of creating a life when it
> would have been so much easier for them to settle for the simple life
> of a rock.
There wasn't a choice. They didn't *decide* to come together, and I'm
sure that's not what you meant.
Science can't explain to me how man has evolved a level of
> consciousness far above any other species - the debate we're having
> right now being one example of that consciousness. Science can't
> explain the intense emotions that humans undergo like passionate love,
> intense hatred or overwhelming grief. (I've avoided the pedantry of
> adding "yet" to each example.)
Well exactly. Science can't explain a lot of things as we speak, but
that's no reason to say "godidit", is it? Especially as the spaces to fit
god(s) into keep shrinking.
Andrew Arensburger
> The book is extraordinary. The only criticism I would make is that in a way
> it is a bit of a waste of time.
These two sentences are almost Chez Watt-worthy.
> One could wonder why waste time debunking
> ancient superstitions without any basis? The fact that the faith in such a
> preposterous thing like a god is a delusion should be blindingly obvious and
> require no more than a couple of pages.
I feel the same way when people give speeches or write
editorials about the equality of men and women, or gays and straights,
or even about how bad torture is. These things should lie firmly in
the "duh" category.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Christopher Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the Pooh.
Andrew Arensburger
> "Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
> > The only difference between Freeman and Dawkins is that Freeman has an
> > ellipsis between "curiosity" and "It is this". So there may be
> > quote-mining going on, but I don't think we can fault Dawkins, unless
> > it is for trusting another source.
> As I've said elsewhere, I find it curious that virtually every other source
> that Dawkins quotes is listed in the notes at the end of the book; in regard
> to this quote, he just says "(quoted in Freeman 2002)" in the text and
> doesn't refer to it in his notes. It looks suspiciously to me as if Dawkins
> may have tried to find the original quotation and couldn't, but decided to
> go ahead and use it anyway; if so, that is indeed the equivalent of quote
> mining and is entirely reprehensible.
Oh, come on! You originally said that Dawkins must've
quote-mined Augustine because the "disease of curiosity" quotation seems to
contradict the famous "an unbeliever might know something of the
heavens" quotation.
But you didn't look it up to try to back up your claim. I did.
And now it turns out that Dawkins quoted Freeman's book
accurately, with as much context as Freeman gave. And furthermore (see
John Wilkins's post) the translation in Freeman, while questionable,
is reasonably close to what Augustine wrote.
You complain that Dawkins wrote "quoted in Freeman 2003"
rather than giving a reference in the endnotes. Yet many of the
endnotes say no more than "Henderson (2006)"[1] or "Dennett (1995)".
Yet here he gives the reference in the main text, drawing your
attention to the fact that he's relying on someone else's scholarship,
and you still complain?
You also failed to mention that even the more tepid
translation that Wilkins gives makes the quotation fit Dawkins's
context: a complaint about Intelligent Design creationists who use God
to prop open gaps in our knowledge.
I think you need to withdraw your charge of quote-mining.
[1] Yes, that's Bobby Henderson.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Deja Fu: The feeling that somehow, somewhere, you've been
kicked in the head like this before.
Don Cates
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>"Don Cates" <ca...@mts.net> wrote in message
>news:1163477950.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:39:27 -0000, "alwaysaskingquestions"
>> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>The evidence I offer that I'm right is that I just went outside and
>>>>looked
>>>>up
>>>> and didn't see God. So far, I win, and the statement you quoted remains
>>>> eminently reasonable.
>>>
>>>I just went ouside and looked up and didn't see Jupiter so Jupiter doesn't
>>>exist. I reckon that just about makes us equal on points :)
>>>
>> You weren't looking in the right place. Some very simple research would
>> tell you when and where to look and if you do, you will see Jupiter.
>> The most common formulations of God (not necessarily your's) holds that
>> God is everywhere. {takes quick look over shoulder} Nope, nothing
>> there.
>
>Ok, then, take gravity - it too is everywhere but I've taken a quick look
>over my shoulder and can't see it - but I can certainly *feel* its presence.
>
But when you puplicly describe that 'feeling' everyone will agree that
they share something similar. This is not true for supernatural
'feelings'. Sorry, you're still behind on points.
>[...]
>
>>>My position, for what it is worth, is that the God I choose to believe in
>>>provides me with an adequate explanation for many of the things science
>>>cannot (at least yet) explain and I have found nothing in science to
>>>undermine that belief.
>>>
>> Now that makes me curious. Can you please give me an example of a thing
>> "science cannot (at least yet) explain", how "the God I choose to
>> believe in" explains it, and why you consider that explanation
>> "adequate"? Thank you.
>
>Hmmm.. I'm a bit uneasy about getting into personal interpretations of God
>in this ng but seeing that you asked ....
>
>Science can't explain to me where the primeval atom came from and why it
>exploded.
That is a really bad description of the BB. Anyway, I have trouble
understanding how anyone would consider 'the God force caused it to
happen' an "adequate" explanation.
Science can't explain to me why atoms decided to come together to
>undertake the arduous task of creating a life when it would have been so
>much easier for them to settle for the simple life of a rock.
"atoms decided"?, "arduous task"?, "settle for the simple life"?,
anthopomorphize much? Sorry, but I just can't take that seriously. ie
It's a joke.
Science can't
>explain to me how man has evolved a level of consciousness far above any
>other species - the debate we're having right now being one example of that
>consciousness.
Sure, the present explanations are tentative and incomplete, but it is
an area of active research. There is a least some progress toward a
rational explanation. How is this *less* adequate than 'you feel that
some overriding force (I think it's my culture's God) caused it by some
unknown mechanism'?
Science can't explain the intense emotions that humans
>undergo like passionate love, intense hatred or overwhelming grief. (I've
>avoided the pedantry of adding "yet" to each example.)
>
>In terms of 'God' as an explanation, I believe that there is an underlying
>force that, for a lack of a better word, 'drives' the universe, a force that
>we can't identify in scientific terms but can see the effects of - a bit
>like gravity in some ways.
Well, except for that 'objective evidence' bit, perhaps.
That's what I choose to call God. The rational of
>interpreting that 'force' as - in my case - the Judaic/Christian God is well
>outside the realms of science and therefore not really relevent to this
>discussion.
>
Science would say that it is probably due to your cultural background.
>[...]
Ilas
news:1163510974.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> As for "teaching atheism", I suspect that what he really
> wants to teach is science and rationalism. So, he
> would like to teach children to examine religion
> critically, but he'd also like them to examine everything
> else critically.
Which is what education should be about. One thing I find remarkable is how
little the majority of religious people think about inheritence of
religion. Something that helped turn me into the wicked godless atheist I
am now was thinking "hang on, there's thousands upon thousands of
religions. Isn't it absolutely amazing I happened to be brought up in just
the right one for eternal salvation? Wow. How lucky is that?"
> On the subject of children, he sees them as independent
> human beings who have just as much right to an opinion
> and to religious freedom as the adults. That is why he
> disagrees with them being labelled with and forced to
> participate in whatever religion their legal guardian
> happens to subscribe to.
Couldn't agree with him more - it's ridiculous to talk about "catholic
children" or "muslim children". They're not, they're children of catholic
or muslim parents. It would be like calling me a socialist when I was 6,
simply because my mother was in the Labour party.
alwaysaskingquestions
> alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote in message
>> news:ejb6pg$47r$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>> > The only difference between Freeman and Dawkins is that Freeman has an
>> > ellipsis between "curiosity" and "It is this". So there may be
>> > quote-mining going on, but I don't think we can fault Dawkins, unless
>> > it is for trusting another source.
>
>> As I've said elsewhere, I find it curious that virtually every other
>> source
>> that Dawkins quotes is listed in the notes at the end of the book; in
>> regard
>> to this quote, he just says "(quoted in Freeman 2002)" in the text and
>> doesn't refer to it in his notes. It looks suspiciously to me as if
>> Dawkins
>> may have tried to find the original quotation and couldn't, but decided
>> to
>> go ahead and use it anyway; if so, that is indeed the equivalent of quote
>> mining and is entirely reprehensible.
>
> Oh, come on! You originally said that Dawkins must've
> quote-mined Augustine because the "disease of curiosity" quotation seems
> to
> contradict the famous "an unbeliever might know something of the
> heavens" quotation.
> But you didn't look it up to try to back up your claim.
I did try to look it up but couldn't find it - I don't have access to
Freeman's book. I wasn't prepared to make any accusations on the basis that
*I* couldn't find the quote, to be honest, I didn't think it would be an
'edited' quote rather than an actual quote, I thought it more likely to be a
quote out of context. My underlying point was that this quote - which now
apparently is not even an accurate quote - portrays Augusitine as
anti-science which he wasn't.
>I did.
> And now it turns out that Dawkins quoted Freeman's book
> accurately, with as much context as Freeman gave. And furthermore (see
> John Wilkins's post) the translation in Freeman, while questionable,
> is reasonably close to what Augustine wrote.
In other words, it's not a verbatim quote so it should not have been
presented as such.
> You complain that Dawkins wrote "quoted in Freeman 2003"
> rather than giving a reference in the endnotes. Yet many of the
> endnotes say no more than "Henderson (2006)"[1] or "Dennett (1995)".
> Yet here he gives the reference in the main text, drawing your
> attention to the fact that he's relying on someone else's scholarship,
> and you still complain?
>
> You also failed to mention that even the more tepid
> translation that Wilkins gives makes the quotation fit Dawkins's
> context: a complaint about Intelligent Design creationists who use God
> to prop open gaps in our knowledge.
I don't think it is a fair representation of what Augustine taught but
anyway, that's not really relevent to this particular argument, my point is
about Dawkins using second hand material without even checking if it is
accurate or knowing it is innacurate and using it anyway; either way, it's
near enough quote mining in my judgement.
> I think you need to withdraw your charge of quote-mining.
I'd maybe settle for shoddy work by Dawkins in this particular instance.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Turner" <joebob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1163519758.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I wish people would just stop complaining about 'The God Delusion' now.
> I appreciate that Dawkins writes about a controversial topic, but it's
> been it out for weeks now and yet we're still getting wave after wave
> of "Dawkins fails to understand this" and "He doesn't provide a cite
> for that". People almost seem to be reading it just so they can give it
> a poor review.
As I have already said, *I* read this book in the hope that I would get
thought provoking points about religion and its interface with science in
general and Evolution in particular. There are indeed some good ponts in the
book, my complaint is that those points are overwhelmed by his evangelizing
style.
> Funnily enough, though, the most asinine reviews of 'The God
> Delusion' that I have read have not been on apologetics websites but
> from professional reviewers who misunderstand Dawkins' points.
You obviously missed the bit where some intelligent design advocates have
actually welcomed Dawkins' attacks. William Dembski, for instance, says his
inflammatory rhetoric helps the I.D. cause by making evolution sound
un-Christian.
> Richard didn't write the book to deliberately offend people,
If you think that Dawkins didn't set out to be deliberately provocative,
then I think you're being a bit naive.
Bobby Bryant
Whoops, my bad. I didn't read carefully enough to see that you only
mentioned multiverses, rather than some of the well-established facts
that have come up earlier in this thread. I agree that (AFAIK)
multiverses are pure conjecture.
But I can't say that about evolution, the big bang, etc.
alwaysaskingquestions
[...]
>>Ok, then, take gravity - it too is everywhere but I've taken a quick look
>>over my shoulder and can't see it - but I can certainly *feel* its
>>presence.
>>
> But when you puplicly describe that 'feeling' everyone will agree that
> they share something similar. This is not true for supernatural
> 'feelings'.
That's part of the reason why not everyone believes in God. (I accept
there's a chicken/egg thing here, you can't believe God until you feel him
... you can't feel God until you believe in him.)
[...]
>>
>>Science can't explain to me where the primeval atom came from and why it
>>exploded.
>
> That is a really bad description of the BB.
A bit simplistic but I thought it was enough to make my point.
>Anyway, I have trouble
> understanding how anyone would consider 'the God force caused it to
> happen' an "adequate" explanation.
I believe that *something* had to be there before the BB, I choose to think
of that *something* as God.
> Science can't explain to me why atoms decided to come together to
>>undertake the arduous task of creating a life when it would have been so
>>much easier for them to settle for the simple life of a rock.
>
> "atoms decided"?, "arduous task"?, "settle for the simple life"?,
> anthopomorphize much? Sorry, but I just can't take that seriously. ie
> It's a joke.
'Decided' was a bit flippant. Let's try again. Some people believe that
Evolution/Natural Selection have no purpose, others - including myself -
believe that they have a purpose of survival. If there is a survival
purpose, where does it come from? Why is it that some atoms simply stay
indefinitely in existence as, for example, a rock other yet atoms come
together in a complex arrangement to form life ? I've read somewhere but
can't remember where or what you call it*, the principle that Nature
generally takes the easiest course; it seems to me that atoms coalescing to
form life is far from the easiest course.
(*I know that's not particularly clever of me but I hope you'll forgive me
in this instance)
> Science can't
>>explain to me how man has evolved a level of consciousness far above any
>>other species - the debate we're having right now being one example of
>>that
>>consciousness.
>
> Sure, the present explanations are tentative and incomplete, but it is
> an area of active research. There is a least some progress toward a
> rational explanation. How is this *less* adequate than 'you feel that
> some overriding force (I think it's my culture's God) caused it by some
> unknown mechanism'?
From what I've read on this, despite the tremendous advances in scientific
research, the progress is really minimal and I'm far from convinced that we
will make a lot of progress. It seems the deeper we get into these things,
the more complex they become, like J.B.S. Haldane said "Now, my own
suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but
queerer than we can suppose ...".
>
> Science can't explain the intense emotions that humans
>>undergo like passionate love, intense hatred or overwhelming grief. (I've
>>avoided the pedantry of adding "yet" to each example.)
>>
>>In terms of 'God' as an explanation, I believe that there is an underlying
>>force that, for a lack of a better word, 'drives' the universe, a force
>>that
>>we can't identify in scientific terms but can see the effects of - a bit
>>like gravity in some ways.
>
> Well, except for that 'objective evidence' bit, perhaps.
Yes, I 've never disputed that difference.
> That's what I choose to call God. The rational of
>>interpreting that 'force' as - in my case - the Judaic/Christian God is
>>well
>>outside the realms of science and therefore not really relevent to this
>>discussion.
>>
> Science would say that it is probably due to your cultural background.
I certainly agree that my religious beliefs started off from my parents but
if my musings on this ng have acheived anything, I would like to think that
it's to make the point that not all 'believers' are simply superstitious
fundies, some of us have actually thought about our beliefs and tried
insofar as it is possible to evaluate them on some rational basis.
Milan
>
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4rsmqfF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:4rsc96F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't take issue with someone's right to work in a different field - I
>>> do take issue with them abandoning their professional stnadrads *when*
>>> they are working in that field, particularly when they are using their
>>> professional expertise to justify their conclusions in that field..
>>
>> Which professional standards do you claim Dawkins has abandoned?
>
> Checking the accuracy of his basic facts before making an argument based
> on them
>
>
>> The book is extraordinary. The only criticism I would make is that in a
>> faith in such a preposterous thing like a god is a delusion should be
>> blindingly obvious and require no more than a couple of pages.
>
> Dawkins is on a personal crusade.
Dawkins, as many other people, has some views on certain subjects, and
thinks that it is important to express them, and puts passion and
dedication in doing this. And he does it with eloquence. You may call it a
personal crusade, it is perhaps not a bad description. I would like to see
more people like Dawkins dedicated to argue against superstition and
unfounded beliefs.
>> However, the book is highly entertaining and, as usual with Dawkins
>> works, beautifully written and stimulating. There are also many
>> interesting anecdotes. I liked particularly the one in the preface, about
>> his wife, who hated the school she went to but never complained about it
>> because "she didnt know she could".
>
> As I said in my original post, there are some good points in the book, I
> just found them to be overwhelmed by his passionate hatred of religion.
Opinions held with conviction and passion may sometimes seem "overwhelming".
> I agree with Dawkins that there is too much exalted status given to
> religious beliefs - I choose to believe in God but I fully expect that
> belief to be challenged and that a certain amount of ridicule is to be
> expected. The tendency to be polite and not challenge religious beliefs is
> short-sighted and can even be dangerous as we saw in the outrageous
> reaction of Muslims to the Danish catoons.
Exactly.
> I also agree with some of what he says about brainwashing children -
> parents have the right to teach their children about their own religious
> beliefs but also have a duty to teach their children to think for
> themselves. Faith is not something that can be forced upon people and
> that, IMO, is the real rock that fundamentalism perishes on.
Agreed.
regards
Milan
>