I've just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. The Wikipedia page summarises it very well. I highly recommend you read the book and see how truly terrible all religion is.
The crucial argument for me is that people believe what their parents and religious teachers teach them. If you are religious and believe in one particular religion, it is just because you happened to be born then and there - your religion is not the only one and you would have had another religion if you were born somewhere else. So stop having blind faith and stop indoctrinating your children and stop harassing everyone else and stop insulting and killing other people.
From now on read "ethnic cleansing" as "religious cleansing" and cringe whenever anyone says "Christian child". It's time to go on the offensive. Just say no to religion.
In school we had Religious Studies (only about the bible), put on plays based on biblical stories and had Latin prayers twice a week in Westminster Abbey. In school I was a scientist. Please read the book and enjoy Dave's writings - I particularly enjoyed Worthless Religions.
The crucial argument for me is that people believe what their parents and religious teachers teach them.
Now there's an ignorant statement. Just for fun, try to find the other paragraph in your post which contradicts it.
Re:Bleh
pudge on 2007-03-13T23:16:51
The unfortunate thing is that Dawkins doesn't understand his subject well enough to write an essay, let alone a book. He has extremely little understanding of religion in general, or Christianity in particular. Most of his attacks are straw men or red herrings or question-begging or simple ad hominem. acme wrote:If you are religious and believe in one particular religion, it is just because you happened to be born then and there - your religion is not the only one and you would have had another religion if you were born somewhere else.Except, of course, that this is a very illogical argument. One may wish to think that there is not one correct religion, but even if that's the case, this wouldn't be evidence of it, at all.So stop having blind faith and stop indoctrinating your childrenMy faith has never been blind, and there is no logical difference between me "indoctrinating" my children with Christianity, and you "indoctrinating" your children with atheism, unless you are going to assume -- without evidence, as none has been provided, either here, or in Dawkins' book -- that Christianity is somehow objectively bad or that atheism is objectively good.and stop harassing everyone else and stop insulting and killing other people.I harass no one with my religion. It is you, acme, who are being insulting here. And as to killing, most of it in the last century -- the bloodiest century ever -- was done by atheist (or at least anti-religious) regimes, including in Germany, the USSR, and China.From now on read "ethnic cleansing" as "religious cleansing" and cringe whenever anyone says "Christian child". It's time to go on the offensive.I quote you at you, acme: stop harassing and insulting other people.
acme, I don't want to offend you, but you are so completely off base that it saddens me. As a European, you should know damned well -- better than any silly American -- that lots of people have lots of different views and beliefs, and that this will never change. You imply that you want peace, but the only way to get it in our necessarily pluralistic society is through tolerance, and you are, unfortunately, acting like the poster boy for intolerance.
I agree with you that religious people can offend, can do bad things. So what? That is not an indictment of religion as much as it is an indictment of humanity, of mobs, of groups of people.
I suggest you read Federalist #10. The cure for the ills you see is not less freedom, less religion, less alternative views. The cure is a society that respects and defends individual liberties, including (especially) those of minorities in the society.
Re:Bleh
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T00:03:51
The unfortunate thing is that Dawkins doesn't understand his subject well enough to write an essay, let alone a book.I've got to say that if so, it truly is unfortunate. I want to see the decent arguments against religion. Maybe I should check out The Blind Watchmaker, instead. As I said in my previous post, it sounds like Dawkins is interested in rectifying thousands of years of violation of liberty on the part of religious people by now violating the liberty of other religious people, people who are not responsible for the sins of their ancestors.
It truly is unfortunate when someone claims to make a contribution to this great conversation and then fails to, whether that person be religious, atheist, or what have you. Thousands of years to get to the point where we can discuss such things without killing each other, millions of people dead to buy the privilege
... and we exercise the privilege by sticking our fingers in our ears and not listening to each other. :( I certainly defend people's right to not have such a discussion if they don't want to. But to claim to want to participate and then not actually address what the other side says is a tragedy. For the record, and for anyone who's interested, I have personally condemned "blind faith" from the pulpit on a number of occasions. And I've even been condemned by at least one crotchety old religious lady for doing so, albeit in another medium (religious talk radio).
As for killing, the number one killer in the past century was government. I doubt anybody in this conversation but me would use this as a case for outlawing government.
:) Re:Bleh
chromatic on 2007-03-14T02:42:16
As for killing, the number one killer in the past century was government.I thought it was diarrhea, but you're not going to get on television trying to raise awareness about sanitary conditions.
I highly recommend you read the book and see how truly terrible all religion is.
Man, there ought to be a law.
The crucial argument for me is that people believe what their parents and religious teachers teach them.
I haven't read this book, but the reason I haven't and likely won't is due to time constraints rather than just not wanting to read it. But surely Dawkins has something more intelligent to say than this? Because it's simply not universally true. I'll freely concede that for something like 98% of all people in history this is true. But what about the 2% or so for whom it is not? Moreover, what about cases where new religions have formed? Why did the first Christians become Christians? Why did the first Muslims become Muslims? This "everybody is just a part of their parents' religion" idea allows only for gradual shift and evolution in religion. It doesn't explain sudden changes at all. And really I've got to say it's the kind of juvenile thing I used to hear in secondary school.
I can think of better reasons not to be religious than this idea.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
jdavidb on 2007-03-13T23:27:20
Reading the Wikipedia summary makes me want to take a look at the book, and my library has a copy, so I may do just that within the next year or so. But looking at the summary of each chapter I'm not seeing much there that meaningfully challenges my faith. I am, however, wishing that Dawkins would at least adhere to the basic morality of the Wiccan rede: "An it harm noone, do what you will." I stand with Dawkins in asserting that one does not need religion to be good and moral (and I hope that my citation of a Wiccan belief makes clear I don't think Christianity has a monopoly on the subject), and I stand with Dawkins in roundly condemning all special legal privileges that have been granted to those who hold certain beliefs (and I don't believe in drawing a legal distinction between religious beliefs and any other)
... but what is not clear is if Dawkins honors my right to believe something that is, in his opinion, quite possibly wrong. On that basis, he sounds just like the religious people he is condemning, and all of them appear to be guilty of the sin of desiring to violate the liberty of others. However, there's not enough in the article to see for sure what Dawkins thinks about this, so I may be misunderstanding. Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
Matts on 2007-03-14T00:03:37
I think this is more of a soundbite than the crux of the argument.
Religions conflict. You can't believe in Zeus and the Christian God. Heck, even some Catholics believe that Protestants are kidding themselves.
So the point is really about which religion do you pick? Since there is no empirical evidence for any religion, it really doesn't matter which you pick, and that's enough evidence for Dawkins (and myself) that religion is just a crock of manure.
It's just that most people don't pick their religion. They don't choose something that best fits their world view, they just follow the path of what's around them (and by that I mean usually their parents, or if they marry someone of another religion they may choose that one, or if they have a lot of friends in one religion they are likely to choose that one, etc).Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T00:24:15
Religions conflict. You can't believe in Zeus and the Christian God. Heck, even some Catholics believe that Protestants are kidding themselves.Of course.So the point is really about which religion do you pick? Since there is no empirical evidence for any religion, it really doesn't matter which you pickThat is, quite simply, not a logical conclusion. There are other things besides empiricism, such as philosophy. Indeed, without philosophy, empiricism would not be considered a standard for scientific study in the first place, because on what empirical basis could you divine the scientific method? You can't do it.
To come up with the scientific method, people philosophically evaluated the different methods by which one can come to truth. For the physical sciences, the scientific method was arrived at, and it has continued to serve us very well. But empiricism as a method of arriving at truth is not applicable to something like religion, or politics, or art.
Oh sure, you can apply some objective standards to each. That piece of art has brighter colors, this political system produces more wealth. But inevitably different people have different standards, and different priorities. I like bright colors, but intrinsic meaning is more important to me; others couldn't care less about meaning. I like wealth, but only as a by-product of liberty; and so on.
You wouldn't say it doesn't matter what art you choose, or what political system you choose, just because they cannot be empirically evaluated. So why say the same with religion? I reassert that the conclusion is illogical. Or, in your words, a "crock of manure."It's just that most people don't pick their religion.First, again, this is -- quite obviously -- not evidence that their religion is wrong, worthless, harmful, etc. It could be dumb luck that you happened to be born into the One True Religion. We don't like to think that this would happen -- it defies our sense of fairness and equality -- but there's no empirical (since that's your standard here) reason to think it doesn't happen.
Second, as jdavidb said, what of those who DO choose their religion? You can't set up statements like "religion is stupid because people don't choose it" (I know this is an oversimplification) and then expect it to stick, when some people do, in fact, choose their religion.
That's like saying Perl is stupid because Perl programmers don't use lexical scoping. It's not a rational argument: it's an ad hominem attack based on a red herring.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
Matts on 2007-03-14T00:48:13
To come up with the scientific method, people philosophically evaluated the different methods by which one can come to truth. For the physical sciences, the scientific method was arrived at, and it has continued to serve us very well. But empiricism as a method of arriving at truth is not applicable to something like religion, or politics, or art.Art is a good example here, because those who consider themselves experts on art tend to recognise that appreciation of art is very subjective. What Dawkins and I object to is the lack of subjectiveness in religion - the "If you don't believe in this you will go to hell" attitude. Dawkins' soundbites tend to paint everyone with the same brush, yet this is just a soundbite to get people's hackles up - partly to encourage debate, albeit in a flamebait manner. I think he's found flamebait necessary because in our current time atheists (in many parts of the world) are considered not worthy.
If you read the book you'll realise that Dawkins isn't saying you shouldn't practice religion, just don't foist it on other people, and more importantly don't make non-believers feel like they shouldn't be allowed to exist.Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T01:21:00
Art is a good example here, because those who consider themselves experts on art tend to recognise that appreciation of art is very subjective.It is very subjective, but not wholly so. But subjective is not the opposite of empirical. You can have objective truth that is not empirical, such as mathematical truths which are more philosophical than empirical.
You simply cannot say that because there is no empirical standard, that therefore none is better than another. Otherwise, we can say that a philosophy that says killing babies for fun is no worse than a philosophy that says all killing is wrong, and I don't think you really want to go down that road, especially since your primary offense here is that people push their views on you, which is not empirically definable as an offense.
I agree with you that it is wrong, but we cannot say so empirically. We say so philosophically. Whether that philosophical conclusion is objective or subjective is another matter, but also probably beside the point.What Dawkins and I object to is the lack of subjectiveness in religion - the "If you don't believe in this you will go to hell" attitude.Fine, you can object to that attitude, but you cannot rationally say that everyone who has that belief is wrong. And that's part of where Dawkins goes wrong, he conflates those two distinct things, often. A person can be morally wrong in how they act, but still be (theoretically) correct in their view.Dawkins' soundbites tend to paint everyone with the same brushNot just his soundbites, but his actual full text, too.:-) If you read the book you'll realise that Dawkins isn't saying you shouldn't practice religion, just don't foist it on other peopleThat's simply not true. He says religion is wrong. He says religion is harmful. And so on.
True, his main point is about keeping it to yourself and not pushing it on others, and he will often later come back and say "I am not necessarily saying this about all religious beliefs" even though he already said it about all religious beliefs. Frankly, he is an extremely sloppy thinker and/or writer on this subject.
And not to attack acme, but just above we have another example of this. He wrote "Just say no to religion." True, that was in the context of a larger point about pushing religion on others, so I don't know exactly what he meant, which is part of the problem.and more importantly don't make non-believers feel like they shouldn't be allowed to exist.No one could agree with that statement more than me (and, frankly, more than anyone follows the Bible, which I believe clearly teaches that Christians are not any better than anyone else). I believe with no reservations and with everything I do and say and think and feel that everyone of every religion has a right to do and say and think and feel however they do, up until that point where they harm someone else (which is, of course, a difficult enough subject on its own).
Many of us Christians have fought long and hard, and even convinced many of our fellow Christians, to act differently (read: nicer) toward non-Christians. And it's a nice slap in the face to have people accuse us of being intolerant for our religion, when we are, in fact -- and BECAUSE of our religion -- far more tolerant than Dawkins, and doing far more than him to foster tolerance.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T02:41:18
He says religion is wrong. He says religion is harmful.I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this for me. Does he say it like someone who says, "Smoking is harmful. You shouldn't smoke. But I respect your right to do so."? Or does he say it like someone who says, "Smoking is harmful. Tobacco should be outlawed. And all smokers (or all tobacco sellers) should be put in prison."?
There's a world of difference, although this distinction is lost on a lot of people in a lot of discussions on a lot of issues.
:) So far nothing I've read about Dawkins or the book has seen fit to let me know which version is what he is saying, probably because the distinction has been lost to half of them, and obvious to the others but not deemed unobvious enough to share or comment on. :) Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T02:57:02
Both. But in this context it doesn't matter: I was saying that he makes blanket statements about religion that do not apply to all religion.He says religion is wrong. He says religion is harmful.I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this for me. Does he say it like someone who says, "Smoking is harmful. You shouldn't smoke. But I respect your right to do so."? Or does he say it like someone who says, "Smoking is harmful. Tobacco should be outlawed. And all smokers (or all tobacco sellers) should be put in prison."?
If you really want to see just how crazy Dawkins is, read this. Especially this line: "... just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like 'predatory monster' are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups... the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain [here, he means Hell], if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse." (emphasis his)
So someone who GENTLY rapes your daughter is not necessarily a predatory monster, and indeed, could easily be not as bad as YOU are for teaching your child that those who do not accept God's grace end up in eternal separation from God.
According to Dawkins.
Sorry to be so graphic. But he said it. And in light of this you may understand my negative thoughts toward the man, and indeed, perhaps be amazed at the restraint of my comments toward him.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
Alias on 2007-03-14T02:57:41
One of his main points seems to be that the problem at the core of religion is Faith, belief without proof.
And that while for many people that is not the cause the of trouble, by the sheer fact of them allowing faith and promoting faith, it creates the conditions in which that faith can be abused to create (in the worst cases) suicide bombers and other less extreme but non-benign behaviours.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T03:14:04
One of his main points seems to be that the problem at the core of religion is Faith, belief without proof.I don't see how that is a problem at all, if by "problem" you mean "something wrong." Science requires faith. Faith that you are more than a brain in a box and that the world around you exists; faith in the other scientists whose work you are incapable of proving (either because of lack of expertise or lack of time); faith in the scientific method, which is unprovable (with any sort of scientific proof, anyway).
Yes, religion requires a different degree of belief. But that is not a problem, that is just a fact of being human. We can't know most things. You're clueless, and baby, I am clueless too.And that while for many people that is not the cause the of trouble, by the sheer fact of them allowing faith and promoting faith, it creates the conditions in which that faith can be abused to create (in the worst cases) suicide bombers and other less extreme but non-benign behaviours.What "created the conditions" that lead to such things as suicide bombings is the human condition.
Again, let's look at the last couple centuries. Religious views have led directly to abolition of slavery and equal rights for women and blacks (in the United States, anyway), while atheistic views have led directly to the deaths of millions of people through the regimes of the USSR and China.
I am not saying that this means atheism is bad. I am saying the opposite: I am saying such things do NOT mean atheism is bad, just like the Crusades do not mean religion is bad. It's people that are bad, and the lesson of the Crusades and the USSR is that ideology does not change man. Man is.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
chromatic on 2007-03-14T18:01:16
Religious views have led directly to abolition of slavery and equal rights for women and blacks (in the United States, anyway), while atheistic views have led directly to the deaths of millions of people through the regimes of the USSR and China.I don't know about that. Just down the street, three hospitals (St. Voltaire, St. Nietzsche, and St. Madalyn Murray O'Hair) regularly compete to outdo each other providing job training, low-income assistance, housing assistance, free medical care, and counseling services. The only catch is that you have to not listen to a sermon. That seems like a fair trade to me.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T18:17:33
I don't know about that. Just down the street, three hospitals (St. Voltaire, St. Nietzsche, and St. Madalyn Murray O'Hair) regularly compete to outdo each other providing job training, low-income assistance, housing assistance, free medical care, and counseling services. The only catch is that you have to not listen to a sermon. That seems like a fair trade to me.I am confused as to how this detracts from what I wrote (as apparently implied by "I don't know about that").Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
chromatic on 2007-03-14T19:36:04
It's satire; there aren't a lot of hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and free counseling centers built by atheists where I live.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T19:45:48
It's satire; there aren't a lot of hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and free counseling centers built by atheists where I live.Good Christians aren't satirical!
Or maybe that was "satanic." I keep getting them confused.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
Matts on 2007-03-15T00:11:52
How are the Lions Clubs doing in your area?Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
chromatic on 2007-03-15T00:51:27
The Portland one works with the Salvation Army; I'm not sure that's entirely an atheist characteristic. They also work on hearing and vision charitable causes, though.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
Matts on 2007-03-15T03:34:21
That's the point - there is no "atheist characteristic" - we're not an organisation. However there are plenty of good charitable organisations that aren't tied to religion. You seemed to be trying to say that there weren't.Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-15T06:17:07
That's the point - there is no "atheist characteristic" - we're not an organisation. However there are plenty of good charitable organisations that aren't tied to religion. You seemed to be trying to say that there weren't.I didn't think so. The context was responding to the notion expressed by Alias that faith "creates the conditions in which that faith can be abused to create (in the worst cases) suicide bombers and other less extreme but non-benign behaviours."
I did contrast that by mentioning some bad things atheist/non-religious organizations (e.g., communist China) have done, but I quickly added that this does not reflect badly on atheism, but on the contrary, reflects badly on humanity itself.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T02:46:43
Many of us Christians have fought long and hard, and even convinced many of our fellow Christians, to act differently (read: nicer) toward non-Christians. And it's a nice slap in the face to have people accuse us of being intolerant for our religion, when we are, in fact -- and BECAUSE of our religion -- far more tolerant than Dawkins, and doing far more than him to foster tolerance.Wow. I couldn't agree more, or express it better.
I am daily preaching the Gospel to Christians that if they want to love Christ, they need to respect what He said about not judging those outside the church (I Corinthians 5). It really is insulting to hear someone like Dawkins stand up and claim to be an expert not only about science but about Christianity and/or religion, then go on to misrepresent me, either through ignorance or malice.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
drhyde on 2007-03-14T21:53:22
There is something far *far* more important that religions need to learn. That is that waking me up at weekends is really rude.If you read the book you'll realise that Dawkins isn't saying you shouldn't practice religion, just don't foist it on other people, and more importantly don't make non-believers feel like they shouldn't be allowed to exist.Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
Matts on 2007-03-14T22:31:37
Haha. One of my best friends used to live literally about 50 yards from Durham Cathedral's main bells. You have no idea how much fun that is on a Saturday morning when you're hung over:-) Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T23:26:38
jjohn has a similar problem. He does not, like most of New England, belong to the First Red Sox Church of Boston at Landsdowne Street, but lives (lived?) right next door to Fenway Park, and would be bothered on late nights when games ran into extra innings. Damned religious folk!
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T00:34:26
Also, I'd like to give a nod to South Park:-- Shpeck, of the United Atheist League, in the year 2546Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins, who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future. But it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough: you have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you.Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
Matts on 2007-03-14T00:49:37
Yes, I do like that quote:-)
Dawkins is a dick. But at least he's got to the point where atheists can stand up and say "Damnit, I have a right to voice my opinion too".Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
pudge on 2007-03-14T01:07:59
Dawkins is a dick. But at least he's got to the point where atheists can stand up and say "Damnit, I have a right to voice my opinion too".And I have no problem with that. Absolutely, atheists have a right -- hell, an obligation -- to voice their opinion.
All I ask -- not require, just ask -- is that their opinion doesn't push for the exclusion of other views (yes, I know I am a bit hypocritical here: I am intolerant of intolerance, although, more broadly, it is not intolerance so much as subjugation of liberty).
We cannot have a functional pluralistic society if everyone's opinion -- so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others -- isn't tolerated. And we cannot have liberty unless we have pluralism. And we cannot have anything worth having if we cannot have liberty.
Re:Nobody ever changes religions?
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T02:49:02
yes, I know I am a bit hypocritical here: I am intolerant of intolerance, although, more broadly, it is not intolerance so much as subjugation of libertyYou're not hypocritical; just dealing with two definitions of tolerance. You're consistently pushing the belief that you don't think people should use force (whether on their own, or through government) to restrict the rights of others based on their beliefs. That's tolerance as I see it, and that's all we can require of each other. To require more is to require acceptance, not tolerance.
You're not being intolerant of intolerance; you're being intolerant of infringement of liberty, of violation of human rights.
Re:Update
chromatic on 2007-03-14T08:32:43
It's nice to see everyone responding with views on how Christianity has never persecuted anyone....I'm pretty sure we didn't read the same comments.
Re:Update
sigzero on 2007-03-14T12:41:16
My most commented post is a non-techy one! It's nice to see everyone responding with views on how Christianity has never persecuted anyone.No offense, but if that is an indication of your reasoning ability, it is very lacking. Nobody claimed such a thing and they would be wrong to do so.
Why not have a debate about Islam instead? They are still *killing* out of religious intolerance. They are still in the slave trade. Yet, "Christianity" is always the target and "Christians" haven't done either of those in a couple hundred years at least.
You will probably find that religion or politics will always polarize people. Much more than "techy" talk anyway.Re:Update
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T14:25:51
It's just nice to finally be able to criticize a topic which is growing in power and yet it is somehow not cricket to criticize.I'm not sure how it is in Europe, but criticizing religion is all the vogue today over here. BTW, in this comment I mentioned two things on which I stand with Dawkins. The truth is I left one out which I intended to mention: I stand with Dawkins in thinking that all subjects should be subject to criticism and evaluation, with no special hallowness for religion. As I said, "I don't believe in drawing a legal distinction between religious beliefs and any other."
People've made an enormous number of comments here, most of which you've failed to respond to, so far.
Re:Update
sigzero on 2007-03-14T15:30:18
all subjects should be subject to criticism and evaluationAbsolutely!!Re:Update
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T14:28:17
It's nice to see everyone responding with views on how Christianity has never persecuted anyoneI just reread this and realized you made an even stronger statement than I read it for at first.
Seriously
... are you literate? Since "everybody" made this assertion, surely it shouldn't tax you too much if I challenge you to name one person, and quote the relevant sentence. Thank you.
Re:Update
acme on 2007-03-14T14:54:25
Hmmm, I obviously still wasn't clear enough. I mentioned Christianity as it's the major religion that I have a good grasp of, and the sarcastic comment was aimed at those defending religions as vessels incapable of anything but good. Ignore my ramblings as they are obviously not effective, but please read the book.Re:Update
sigzero on 2007-03-14T15:32:28
and the sarcastic comment was aimed at those defending religions as vessels incapable of anything but good.I think that for anyone to do that would be to ignore historical fact.Re:Update
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T15:58:16
and the sarcastic comment was aimed at those defending religions as vessels incapable of anything but goodWhich would be who, exactly?
Ignore my ramblings as they are obviously not effective,Yes, I'll agree that making a misrepresentation of facts such as "everybody has their religion solely because they inherited it from their parents" is not very effective. If you want to be effective with me, you have to show that you actually deal with data points that do not fit your theory, rather than excluding them.
but please read the book.I'm considering it. But I have so little reading time. It's all spent on the net, now.
:) Re:Update
pudge on 2007-03-14T16:04:40
No one. Not in this discussion, anyway.and the sarcastic comment was aimed at those defending religions as vessels incapable of anything but goodWhich would be who, exactly?
Re:Update
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T17:52:08
It's very telling he won't respond to my request to cite and quote somebody.
Or even respond to most of the religious folks in this thread, for that matter. acme, the main thing I'm getting out of this is that Dawkins has made you a spectacular bigot. You could change that perception, if you chose.
It's not the religious people here who are refusing to engage in dialogue and holding certain subjects up as not subject to question or criticism.
Re:Update
acme on 2007-03-14T19:17:11
The main problem is that while you have been discussing, I have been asleep and at work with no time to come back to this discussion so now there's way too many points to reply to. It's a blog, a stream of conciousness and there's no way it's going to convince you to change your minds. I'm sorry for all of us.Re:Update
pudge on 2007-03-14T19:24:39
The main problem is that while you have been discussing, I have been asleep and at work with no time to come back to this discussion so now there's way too many points to reply to. It's a blog, a stream of conciousnessI have no problem with that. Your time is your own.and there's no way it's going to convince you to change your minds. I'm sorry for all of us.And that is total bullshit, Leon. Because you can't change our minds, that is bad for all of us? The problem is not that people won't change their minds. The problem is that you (and Dawkins, and Harris) think they should.
Re:Update
vek on 2007-03-14T20:40:51
Why are you trying to change people's minds? I thought you wanted people to "...stop harassing everyone else...". You don't like it when religion is forced on someone yet you make bizarre statements like this.
Pot, meet Mr Kettle.Re:Update
drhyde on 2007-03-14T21:45:38
Do *you* respond to *every single person* who replies to your posts? I very much doubt it, so why hold acme to that standard.Hell, I don't even read all the replies on my posts, let alone respond to them. I have perfectly good reasons to ignore some people. Mostly that they are boring.
Re:Update
pudge on 2007-03-14T22:19:26
Do *you* respond to *every single person* who replies to your posts? I very much doubt it, so why hold acme to that standard.I think he does.:-)
However, I still absolutely respect acme's right to not respond as he pleases. I would very much like acme to respond to some of the objections raised, for one, no two, no three reasons: first, because I believe dialogue is the key to understanding, and understanding the key to peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic world; second, because I am not entirely sure what all the arguments are, and I want to examine them; third, because I like a good argument; fourth, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.
If he chooses to not respond, so be it. However, I do not respect the notion that it is sad for the world if he cannot change my mind. I find that comment to be arrogant, nasty, and irrational.
Re:Update
jdavidb on 2007-03-15T02:57:02
I think he does.:-) These new RSS feeds I've discovered are highly addictive.
:) Re:Update
jdavidb on 2007-03-15T21:26:04
Do *you* respond to *every single person* who replies to your posts? I very much doubt it, so why hold acme to that standard.I think he does.:-) And now that I can get Google reader to tell me when you comment, I can be more certain to respond to everything particular uses post in the future.
:) Re:Update
jdavidb on 2007-03-15T02:56:05
There's nothing wrong with not answering every single post. There's nothing wrong with not answering any posts. But if he wants to continue to parade around acting like he's got all the answers against religion, I'm going to continue to point out that there were many points raised here that he didn't answer. It's an issue of
... dare I say it? ... credibility. Re:Update
drhyde on 2007-03-15T08:13:57
I didn't read anything where he said he had all the answers. I expect you just misunderstood what he wrote.Re:Update
pudge on 2007-03-15T15:19:50
I didn't read anything where he said he had all the answers.I think that was directly implied by "there's no way it's going to convince you to change your minds. I'm sorry for all of us." Why be sorry for all of us that he can't change our minds unless he is entirely certain that he is right, that religion is terrible? And how can you be entirely certain unless you have all the answers?
Re:Another Book For you...
pudge on 2007-03-14T19:11:51
I first read about Dawkins in a NewsWeek article, I think it was NewsWeek. The article was an interview with Dawkins & Francis Collins. What I found fascinating is that Collins was an atheist until 27, then became a Christian.I found some of this interview to be quite funny, as it exposes Dawkins as having an extremely limited and narrow mind for this sort of thing. For example:... Ah, I found the article, it was Time not NewsWeek. You can read it here,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.htmlDAWKINS: People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable.
There is, of course, no scientific basis for saying that God himself would be even more improbable. He can only make that statement by question-begging his hypothesis.Physicists have come up with other explanations. One is to say that these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill.
Of course, there is, in fact, even less evidence -- scientific or philosophical -- evidence for this theory than there is for the existence of God. It's a nice thing to wonder about, but there is absolutely nothing to back it up.The other way is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes. The vast majority will not contain life because they have the wrong gravitational constant or the wrong this constant or that constant. But as the number of universes climbs, the odds mount that a tiny minority of universes will have the right fine-tuning.
And this also not only has absolutely no evidence to back it up, it is far less probable, from where I sit, than the existence of God, or even that these six constants all aligned by chance. That is, he is using this argument to rescue the six constants from improbability by appealing to something even less probable, which is what he says Christians do by appealing to God.
IOW, Collins is precisely right to invoke Occam's Razor against the notion. And Dawkins' repeated use of the phrase "cop-out" is ironic since it applies at least equally well to his multiverse hypothesis. Dawkins might respond, "but I am not saying that it is THE answer, as people of faith do." No, but he is saying that God is a less reasonable answer than his multiverse hypothesis, but that conclusion is question-begging.
The bottom line is that Dawkins, as Collins says, rules anything outside of nature out of the conversation, and this itself is irrational. Collins does an excellent job of showing Dawkins to be simply irrational, out on a vendetta against what he sees as fundamentalist Christianity, such as in this obviously false statement that betrays a stunning ignorance of the history of Dawkins' own profession:Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.
I am sorry that he thinks that's true. Newton, the most important scientific figure in history at least through the 19th century, was scientifically curious largely because of his religious faith, as has been well-documented.
It's a great example of where Dawkins is apparently incapable of separating the negative manifestations of religious belief in some people, and religious belief itself. In those cases where faith is used to prevent scientific study by just copping out and saying "God did it," he is right to criticize, but that is not -- as clearly proven by Newton and Collins -- a reasonable criticism of religion itself, of "faith."
Religion does not necessarily lead to closed-mindedness, and sometimes leads to precisely the opposite. Religion does not necessarily lead to intolerance, and sometimes leads to precisely the opposite.
And you can't get him off the hook by saying "well, he really means fundamentalism," because I am a fundamentalist. I was a fundamentalist before most of you had ever heard of the word. And yet I am as open-minded and tolerant as pretty much anyone you probably know. (Now, when I say open-minded, I don't mean I will accept anything as valid, but I will honestly consider nearly anything -- including the nonexistence of God -- which is what the phrase means.) Yes, he probably means some other definition of "fundamentalist," but that's the main problem here: he redefines words and phrases and religious belief itself to suit his agenda, as seen in his straw man attacks against a definition of God that hardly anyone, if anyone, actually believes in (such as his silly attacks on a God that presuppose a constraint by linear time).
Some people just should not write outside their area of expertise. For example, Paul Krugman of the NY Times is a very smart economics writer, but on politics, he is among the worst: he simply does not really understand politics very well (e.g., his recent attack on Bush in the US Attorney "scandal" where he said that it was a ploy to create a permanent hold on power was nonsensical on its face, since the last Democrat to take power [Clinton] fired every US Attorney, and the next one could do the same).
And Dawkins is like that. He's a great writer when it comes to explaining and defending evolutionary theory, and he has done a service to society in that role. But he really does not have a good mind for this theology stuff. His writings also make me think he is not very good at philosophy, but that may be more of a blinder caused by his biases than actual incapacity.
Re:Another Book For you...
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T19:39:42
Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.This is an ad hominem fallacy. I emphasize that its a fallacy because it's a flaw in logic. Maybe it does make you "lose credibility." But "credibility" shouldn't matter to the examination of an argument or experiment unless you're committing the fallacy of argument from authority. What matters for the scientific method is not a researchers "credibility," but the repeatability of their experiments.
Re:Another Book For you...
pudge on 2007-03-14T19:48:35
Maybe it does make you "lose credibility." But "credibility" shouldn't matter to the examination of an argument or experiment unless you're committing the fallacy of argument from authority. What matters for the scientific method is not a researchers "credibility," but the repeatability of their experiments.True enough, but for human reasons, credibility matters.
But since Collins and Newton (and many others) have plenty of credibility, Dawkins' claim is just obviously false, even if not fallacious (which it is).Re:Another Book For you...
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T19:59:04
True enough, but for human reasons, credibility matters.I agree. Credibility factors in when you answer questions like "Is it worth attempting to repeat this experiment in the first place, or do I just think it's a pack of lies?" Say, for example, trying to replicate the effect Alex Chiu gets from his rings.
:) But in purely scientific terms, what matters is if your experiment is repeatable. The fact that you erroneously think the center of the galaxy is something other than a black hole does not affect results when people repeat your experiment. Nor would your belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Re:Another Book For you...
pudge on 2007-03-14T20:18:59
Credibility factors in when you answer questions like "Is it worth attempting to repeat this experiment in the first place, or do I just think it's a pack of lies?" Say, for example, trying to replicate the effect Alex Chiu gets from his rings.I have some Alex Chiu rings. Seriously.:)
I'll let you know!
Re:Another Book For you...
jdavidb on 2007-03-14T20:43:48
I know that.
:)
I gave up on Dawkins a coupla years ago. He repeats himself far too much. If he can't come up with anything new, he should keep his mouth shut. But I suppose regurgitating much the same thing over and over again to his followers is profitable. It works for the god-squad publishers, after all. The same criticism, of course, also applies to every single person who has ever preached at me after my 8th-ish birthday.
But unlike at least *some* of those foolish preachers, Dawkins is also annoyingly shrill.
And for someone else who asked "Do you honestly believe it is not possible to come to belief in God, by whatever definition, by any sound rational process?" - my answer has to be no, for all versions of god that have so far been posited to me. Atheism, on the other hand (and please don't make the mistake of confusing it with antitheism) is entirely rational. In the absence of evidence for something's existence, not professing belief is the only sensible position.
Re:Meh
pudge on 2007-03-14T23:22:18
And for someone else who asked "Do you honestly believe it is not possible to come to belief in God, by whatever definition, by any sound rational process?" - my answer has to be no, for all versions of god that have so far been posited to me.I disagree entirely. I would be willing to present a rational case, though I am not entirely sure you would be willing to consider it.
I could give you a quick overview of a sound rational process. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it had a cause. It would not be possible for that cause to be an impersonal agent, so that cause must have been personal.
That the universe began to exist is clearly true. It could not have always existed. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe would be in a cold death because of entropy, otherwise. Even if not, we know that we cannot traverse an infinite: you cannot ever get from an infinite time in the past to now, so therefore there never was an infinite time in the past.
So then we get to the stickier part of the argument: OK, so what caused it? Through sound, rational examination, I believe this Uncaused Cause was a personal being, "God."
Basically, it boils down to this: if the Uncaused Cause were impersonal, then there's no way to posit how it could have caused the universe. Assuming this cause doesn't change (else we would have to then ask, what caused THAT change?, which leads us back to where we started), we have to assume it is therefore sufficient, on its own, to create the universe. And if that is the case, then the cause cannot exist without the effect (since no change happens), which means that the universe was caused to exist as soon as the cause did; but the cause is outside of time, and the universe has not always existed, which leads us to an apparently unresolvable paradox.
The most plausible resolution to this paradox is that the agent was personal. A personal agent can create the universe without any prior existing conditions. And that personal agent is God. Or the FSM. Doesn't matter.
You don't have to believe it, of course. But it is sound, and it is rational. Surely there may be other explanations, but it would be a cop-out to say that, pace Dawkins, my view is a cop-out.:-) I daresay there's far more evidence for my view here that God exists, than there is for Dawkins' multiverse theory (which Hawking has also strongly pushed: quantum theory applied to universes, every possible universe existing, and this one being the "evolutionary" result; it makes for interesting science fiction, but it is not supportable by any physical or philosophical evidence, and it still doesn't answer the question of the First Cause). Atheism, on the other hand (and please don't make the mistake of confusing it with antitheism) is entirely rational. In the absence of evidence for something's existence, not professing belief is the only sensible position.I realize you and many others consider "atheism" to mean, essentially, agnosticism; but for hundreds of years, "atheism" meant what you call "antitheism," so it is not a "mistake" to "confuse" the two; you (and others who use the word that way) are the ones creating the confusion by changing the definition against longstanding common usage.
(And for the record, that which you call antitheism is not very rational, I think we can both agree.)
Re:Meh
jdavidb on 2007-03-15T03:00:23
I realize you and many others consider "atheism" to mean, essentially, agnosticism; but for hundreds of years, "atheism" meant what you call "antitheism," so it is not a "mistake" to "confuse" the two; you (and others who use the word that way) are the ones creating the confusion by changing the definition against longstanding common usage.For the record, that very argument used to be a very interesting, very protracted edit war on Wikipedia's Atheism article. Haven't looked at it in a long time, so I wonder how it came out.
Re:Meh
pudge on 2007-03-15T07:02:23
I don't really care, except a. I am annoyed for purely laziness reasons that the definition has been changing among some groups of people, because it is just extra work for the rest of us, and b. I am annoyed that people act like *I* am the one with the problem, for using the older and more common definition.The meaning of atheism
drhyde on 2007-03-15T22:36:01
I've got an OED and I'm not afraid to use it!It defines atheism as "disbelief in *or* denial of the existence of a god", and it has citations which I think support my position from at least 1568 (I'd have to look them up in context to be sure, and I can't be bothered). I think that's pretty long-standing. Those causing the confusion are those who use the same word to mean two radically different things.
Re:The meaning of atheism
jdavidb on 2007-03-16T00:08:03
Interestingly enough, I remember the story of the martyrdom of an early Christian, where he was instructed while on trial to denounce Christians by saying "away with the atheists." At that point, Christians were "atheists," because they denied "the" gods (Zeus, etc.). The martyr responded by pointing at his persecutors and saying, "Away with the atheists."
Re:The meaning of atheism
pudge on 2007-03-16T06:00:45
I've got an OED and I'm not afraid to use it!I did not mean to imply the definition you use does not have history as well, and I won't bother with an etymology debate that neither of us wants; but in recent times, the term has primarily meant, in common usage, in English (in America anyway), a positive assertion of the nonexistence of God. That is the primary use of the word now, as it has been for a long time, and it's not a mistake to use the word with that meaning.It defines atheism as "disbelief in *or* denial of the existence of a god", and it has citations which I think support my position from at least 1568 (I'd have to look them up in context to be sure, and I can't be bothered).
Re:The meaning of atheism
drhyde on 2007-03-16T11:36:20
Ah, fair enough. Here in Rightpondia, I can't recall ever meeting someone who thought that atheism didn't cover mere non-belief.Re:Meh
drhyde on 2007-03-15T23:12:30
I have come across your argument based on what created the universe before. The big problem I have with it is that physical laws, such as effects having causes, are properties of our universe, and so projecting them backward beyond the beginning of our universe is... dubious. Re:Meh
pudge on 2007-03-16T05:53:41
I have come across your argument based on what created the universe before. The big problem I have with it is that physical laws, such as effects having causes, are properties of our universe, and so projecting them backward beyond the beginning of our universe isSemantics aside (is "beyond the beginning of the universe" possible?), that doesn't change the fact that given what we know, the argument is both sound and rational.... dubious.
