The God Delusion - ongoing review

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by GeoffP, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    We get this: http://www.secularism.org.uk/

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

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

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



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Are you sure you're not just using religion to get back at your father?

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



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    The equivalent of what happened to Geoff is the same thing that happened to you, a result of indoctrination. Yes, it is abusive.

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



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    lol at you for those assumptions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Were you brought up theist or athiest?
     
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Neither.

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

    Theists use the term 'atheist' only to parrot.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Neither? Thats interesting. So was I.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So why are you atheist, rather than agnostic?
     
  10. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Why do you believe that an 'angel' dictated the Koran to Mohammed and that he flew to heaven on a magical horse?
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Why don't you tell me? You seem to know it all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Of course. The God Delusion is a polemic against religion. Dawkins has never pretended it is anything else.
     
  13. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    I didn't think you'd be able to answer it. Thanks for proving my point.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I'm glad you're comforted by my nonresponse.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



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

    http://richarddawkins.net/article,810,Dawkins-says-religion-is-like-sucking-a-dummy,Times-Online
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    And so...?

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

    Messages:
    30,994
    So? Common real events or personages, mutiple sources of legendary embroidery, mutually influential compilation over time.
    I heard you the first time. Dawkins dealt explicitly, in that very book, demonstrating considerable foresight I am forced to recognise (but then he's been down this road before), with the prospect what seems to be a peculiarly stubborn insistence on mistaking the nature of his argument. I refer you to him.
    The past few posts aren't a response? Then I have no idea what you meant by the "Clintonian example", and no way to respond.
    I wouldn't. And neither would anyone reading the chart. But I would take note of his failure to recount - or even specifically reference - a single solitary one of them. And that fact would make a data point on the chart - {Paul date: 0}. I can't for the life of me figure out what your objection to that is - it's not that complicated.
    He's not a starting point, he's a data point. Just another data point, which is not used to jsutify the analogy - it's the other way around: the analogy was used in a puzzlingly confusing way to explain the implications of the chart.
    Both, if you're me - to the extent I disagree with nationalism, anyway.
    Not those facts, he doesn't. He argues from those - they are excellent support for one of his major points: More than half of all theistic affiliation is predicted down to the specific denomination of a specific religion by a person's parents' affiliation. That's a hell of a correlation. If more general categories are used - Christian, monotheist, etc - the correlation is even stronger. The implications for the actual foundation of common theistic belief are immediate.
    How would tht question follow from anything about an extended phenotype? And how do you find discussion of one animal - say an ant - behaving so as to help "the genes of another" (say the queen, with much the same genes, significantly), going off track?
    So what about them evoked that odd and disconnected tangent ? If I point out that Collins is not always doing science - which I gave a specific relevant example of in the case of his beliefs concerning the origin of human morality, rather than relying on James's common sense notation that the guy has to sleep sometimes - how is that noteworthy ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2008
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So lets not confuse his opinions with secular humanism. More like athiest humanism.

    What are the figures for athiestic affiliation?

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

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


    Its like saying cholesterol free on soy oil. What you say is less important than what you imply.
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Answer the question: If we disagree with nationalism, do we attack the concept of the nation-state or the chauvinism with which nationalism comports itself in the public realm? Is the problem the existence of any nation-state, or the peculiarties of a specific one? I agree that nation-states have a high potentiality for selifshness and self-aggrandizement, but the same could be said of almost any meme, really. Can there not be good ones? I think there have.

    I shall be calling Jerry Springer forthwith.

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

    And Spitzer hired prostitutes.

    Ergo: Ban the Senate.


    Best,

    Geoff P.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    But that's not the issue, or not entirely: he pretends to a sort of chauvinistic equanimity but in fact his thrust is limited to a few specific targets - not in the hope of delimiting damage from them, but in hopes of damaging their faith altogether. He starts out by saying that he's not confining his attacks to any one religion, and then goes off on only two. Where is his condemnation of Thor, or how about even Kali-Mal, whose religion of stranglers could easily be said to be a little violent? It's disingenuous, and many of his arguments are specious. He pretends to ecumenitality in attack, but then constructs straw men (or straw men with little straw men in their hands) and dances naked and gibbering around their burning carcasses, with his atrocious wife egging him on.

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

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

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

    Geoff
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    It has been the furthest thing from that so far. I have no idea what book you're reading, but it doesn't appear to be the same book I've read. :shrug:
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, then Q, I'm sorry for your opinion. Mine is the audiobook and it's quite explicit, down to the scorn in his voice and that of his Hammer Films Harridan. I can't give you a link, as my version is an audio book, though I expect it could be purchased. And I'm afraid that my comments are more than fair; I would recommend you examine some of his statements, reverse them to your position, and consider again whether or not you might be insulted. Or possibly not. After all, it's a well-known fact that atheists have lower IQs than theists, isn't it? :shrug:

    En avant!

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

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

    A comment about “Undeserved respect”:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Anyway, we round up Chapter 1.

    Geoff
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I have sat and pondered on each occasion any one of my "beliefs" from the positions Dawkins stands and have found this position to be very much the same.

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

    :shrug:

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

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

    Where are you getting that?

    Here is the quote immediately following:

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

    It is these exact statements and claims that should be scrutinized here Geoff, not your opinion of his wifes alleged absurdity.
     
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    And were I to instruct you that your intelligence was at deficit compared to my own on basis of your beliefs, you would simply wave your hand at this? Dubious, my good Q. As to personal offense: of course. Who would be surprised at this? He presents a case that he has absolutely no evidence for at this point - perhaps he's saving it for some other work - and calls me stupid for not accepting his version, and for believing otherwise; indeed, he also goes out of his way to criticize any other scientist following NOMA as being partially dishonest. Who would not be insulted - and not merely at a personal level, either, but also as a naturalist. Again: he has no evidence whatsoever to abrade the idea of any supernatural entity, save comparison to unrooted ideas. If he cannot see this, then I'm irritated by his presumption as well, as I well should be.

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

    Geoff
     

Share This Page