1. Comment #26577 by fonex_86 on March 20, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Has anyone seen/read this book? I'm very interested in seeing just what Mr. Cornwell considers to be

... lapses in logic and errors of fact ...

in TGD. I just hope it's not really "Darwin's Rottweiler: A Rabid Response to TGD".

Maybe "Darwin's Death: A Demonic Response to TGD"?

Other Comments by fonex_86

2. Comment #26578 by He-man Daunted World on March 20, 2007 at 2:59 pm

From the vantage point of ... someone who's off with the fairies

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

3. Comment #26581 by scottishgeologist on March 20, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I love this bit from the scan:

"Cast in the classical form of a sequence of letters"

Not only are they riding on RD's coat-tails, but wait for it, they are plagiarising each other's ideas - in this case David Robertsons "Dawkins Letters"


BTW, check out seraph on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraph

Ther is another fascinating little fact about this word. The plural is "seraphim". Except in the King James Bible , the fundies' favourite, where it is spelled SERAPHIMS.

And this is the version of the bible that is supposed to be "inerrant" "infallible" and "inspired" ?

homeskooled and intellijuntly desined, obviously....


Where does this madness end?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

4. Comment #26582 by Caesar Best on March 20, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Alternative viewpoints indeed...
Just another big book of bla bla designed to make sure people don't all at once stop paying their church contribution (or something to that effect).
I'm pretty sure he hasn't written anything we haven't all heard before. Also I can't seem to understand how people like that can warp their minds in such a way that they can still believe the unbelievable, pisses me off.

Other Comments by Caesar Best

5. Comment #26584 by BaronOchs on March 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I don't get it, Terry Eagleton and John Cornwell are hardly frontmen for orthodoxy so why are they so eager to jump on Dawkins?

Well Cornwell is a clever bloke, he's also written a few books critical of the Catholic Church. I hope someone reads this and shares it's wonders with us at any rate.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

6. Comment #26597 by Luthien on March 20, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Science and dimension project?

Guardian angel???

Yikes!

He lifted the stone and they all crawled out...

Other Comments by Luthien

7. Comment #26598 by shetlandforpeace on March 20, 2007 at 4:55 pm

How come it says 'September 2007' on the top right hand side? That's a wee while off yet, is it not?

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

8. Comment #26601 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 5:00 pm

"Not only are they riding on RD's coat-tails, but wait for it, they are plagiarising each other's ideas - in this case David Robertsons "Dawkins Letters" "

People have been doing this since the advent of printing. It is a popular form, its not copying anyone.

I also don't understand your point about seraphim. Are you saying he has spelled it wrong?

Other Comments by cheshirecat

9. Comment #26603 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm

September 2007 is probably correct. Steven Pinker's new book has already been announced, but it isn't being released until Sept '07 either.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

10. Comment #26605 by iwentdowntotheriver on March 20, 2007 at 5:05 pm

I was at a philosophy conference in Dublin last week, celebrating the work of Hilary Putnam, a brilliant man. It was very interesting that even here, where religion was only discussed for half an hour (it was a four day conference), Dawkins was mentioned by Putnam. Now Putnam was quite disparaging of Dawkins, though he acted like he had never read Dawkins' work. This was a shame for me, because I suspect that the story Putnam would tell concerning religion would be similar to the so called Einsteinian view of religion and so he wouldn't be a million miles away from Dawkins' position.

This reminded me that change takes time, it is one thing not to give overt respect to religion/irrationality, something I am not condoning, but it is quite another to become frustrated that everyone is not suddenly becoming atheists. We need to take it easy, the change will come by putting structures in place, the first series of books are very inflammatory, fulfilling the real need to shock people out of their stupor. The next wave in a few years will/should be more persuasive, more 'how to' with regard atheism.

One other thing, I am constantly shocked by the numbers of people on these boards who are what I term 'irrational atheists'. When one sees a book emerge like the one above, the rational response is to form one's own private opinion, read it if one cares to do so, then post a comment about its merits/flaws. Saying that it is just like another book, without even reading it just makes one as irrational as the vast majority of religious thinking reviewers who comment on Dawkins, Harris etc. talking in a way that would imply that they had not even read the book.

Caesar Best (above) is by no means unique in posting negative comments on things they have not even read. (His/her post implys that he/she has not in fact read the book in question, if they have, then I offer them a full apology.)

Other Comments by iwentdowntotheriver

11. Comment #26606 by Nails on March 20, 2007 at 5:06 pm

"....exposing lapses of logic and errors of fact..."Compared to the bible, this should be a laugh. I'm not buying it though.

Other Comments by Nails

12. Comment #26609 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 5:17 pm

I'm somewhat interested in this book. Every unfavorable treatment of The God Delusion I've seen so far has clearly been from the "I didn't actually read it" camp or the "I didn't actually understand most of it" camp. I would be quite pleased if, finally, someone critical of Dawkins' book truly ENGAGED THE TEXT in their criticism. What a breath of fresh air that would be, and useful in evaluating and improving our own arguments.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

13. Comment #26610 by shetlandforpeace on March 20, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Hello iwentdowntotheriver. You're absolutely correct about how people shouldn't comment on things they haven't read, but I think you're being a bit hard.

One doesn't have to necessarily read a book to understand what an author's point is. I've just read a book about Isaac Newton's work, which I suspect would be easier for me to read than the original.

Caesar Best says "I'm pretty sure he hasn't written anything we haven't all heard before," and one can appreciate his feeling of frustration. We can only hope that maybe this time Cornwell has written something truly original, logical and well-argued.

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

14. Comment #26611 by shetlandforpeace on March 20, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Thanks, Fishpeddler, you said it far better than I did.

Other Comments by shetlandforpeace

15. Comment #26615 by ghostbuster on March 20, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Actually, Nails said it best. Cornwell should take his high-powered perception and focus it on the Bible, which needs believers who have a lapse in intelligence.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

16. Comment #26616 by kkant on March 20, 2007 at 5:38 pm

iwentdowntotheriver, I think you are right about reading the material before judgment. However, after hearing the same illogical nonsensical fallacies repeated again and again and AGAIN from theists, one can perhaps be forgiven for being a bit hasty with the latest anti-atheist polemic.

Other Comments by kkant

17. Comment #26621 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 5:46 pm

" Caesar Best says "I'm pretty sure he hasn't written anything we haven't all heard before," and one can appreciate his feeling of frustration "


Can you apreciate that theologians feel the same thing about Richard Dawkins books. I don't know what the God delusion says thats new. If someone could put one of Dawkins supposed revalatory statements about religion to me pithily i'd be grateful.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

18. Comment #26630 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 6:39 pm

I'm not sure where the "supposed revelatory statements" bit comes from, Cheshire. But to any extent the book has been or could be called revelatory, I'd attribute it to, among other factors, Dawkins' particular blend of passion, erudition, timeliness, and breadth. Perhaps most importantly, though this fact may be a bit obvious and prosaic, the book is being read by a wide audience, many of whom are clearly new to these concepts -- and the audience is as much a component of 'revelation' as the speaker.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

19. Comment #26632 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Thats exactly it though. Theres nothing to make me think that we won't be still having this discussion in 100 years time. (well obviously we shall be dead). I don't see how sam harris or Dawkins differ substantially from the village heretic who gets called up in front of the bishop in the 1400s for saying that 'when a man or woman dieth in the body they also dieth in soule as the light of the candell is quenched by blowing.... so the soule is quenched by the death of the body'. Or the common statement that heaven and hell are on this earth.

Dawkins has always said if he had been born before Darwin he might have found the watchmaker arguement convincing. I have a hunch he would have become one of the great fire and brimstone men of his age.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

20. Comment #26634 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 7:33 pm

"Dawkins would either have been an advocate of one or the other."

I'll consider myself lucky, then, that purely through a roll of the dice rather than through a lifetime devoted to the pursuit of knowledge and reason, Mr. Dawkins ended up an advocate for a non-theistic perpective on the world.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

21. Comment #26636 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 7:40 pm

No you misunderstand me not through a role of the dice.(though is not everything down to luck in the end) He would have studied other subjects in another age and have been equaly learned in scripture latin greek and the classics. He might have even been an advocate science and natural theology. The point is he would have cared deeply about the subject because it is in the mechanics of his mind to wonder at such questions where as it is not given to others to be interested in the great question.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

22. Comment #26637 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 7:43 pm

When people criticise Dawkins and say that he is actually a religious man they mean not that he believes in God but that he has the rhetorical style of a puritan minister lecturing his flock on their sinns.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

23. Comment #26638 by Barnacle on March 20, 2007 at 8:03 pm

The point is he would have cared deeply about the subject because it is in the mechanics of his mind to wonder at such questions where as it is not given to others to be interested in the great question.
...and there would be nothing wrong with that (not saying you said there would be).

But it's irrelevant. Back to the present - the difference between Dawkins and these people who write in 'reply' is that, so far, those replies simply don't contain good arguments - for the reasons already listed. Either the author simply doesn't seem to have understood the original arguments (or deliberately misconstrues them - it's difficult to see how they could possibly be misunderstood) or they are attacking straw men. I haven't read every book there is to read,of course - perhaps this one here will surprise me (I think I'll get this one - sounds more interesting - even if only because of its style).

Dawkin's arguments may have come from wherever - it really doesn't matter. And replies to his arguments can be 200 years old for all I care.

What is special about Dawkins (though he does have unique ideas too) is how lucid his writing is and therefore how easy it should be for people to understand his point of view. As for the 'replies' - they aren't usually new ideas anyway but, even if they are, if they don't address the arguments they are meant to be dealing with, what use are they?

Other Comments by Barnacle

24. Comment #26639 by cheshirecat on March 20, 2007 at 8:15 pm

I agree with much of what you say. I am willing to believe that Dawkins is lucid but not uniquely so.

When people attack him for not knowing any theology they have a point. Dawkins counters that it is not neccesary to know any theology to attack a belief in God which is true if he did not contend constantly that religion is somehow responsible for most of the evils of the world and a form of child abuse. To attack christianity as being a cruel religion it is neccesary to do more than quote the old testament. (for a start because what is said in the new is meant to superseed the old Jewish laws - I know nothing about theology but I know this)

Other Comments by cheshirecat

25. Comment #26641 by justme on March 20, 2007 at 8:59 pm

scottishgeologist: "Ther is another fascinating little fact about this word. The plural is "seraphim". Except in the King James Bible , the fundies' favourite, where it is spelled SERAPHIMS."

Keep in mind that the KJV was the first (first "legal"?) English translation; about 400 years old -- about the same time period as Shakespeare. Spelling was not standardized at the time.

Also, I generally laugh at and mock the bible quoters who are foolish enough to quote the archaic English of the KJV. The modern fundies don't tend to use this version because it is not a currently faithful translation ... though these fundies have many other reasons to be mocked.

Other Comments by justme

26. Comment #26642 by Arcturus on March 20, 2007 at 9:04 pm

It seems to me that the usual day-to-day religious people (the theists) need to take not one leap of faith, but two!

If one entertains the ideea that God (whatever "it" might be?!) exists, you need to take a huge leap of faith to believe that Jesus is the "son?!" of God, or that Mohammed was it's last prophet, or that there is a Heaven and Hell "up there". If one day all the brains are erased, and we start from zero culture, there will never be Christianity again, but atheism will always be the same.

Theists seem to me twice as crazy as the deists. Don't you think?

Other Comments by Arcturus

27. Comment #26646 by Spinoza on March 20, 2007 at 10:19 pm

"I was at a philosophy conference in Dublin last week, celebrating the work of Hilary Putnam, a brilliant man. It was very interesting that even here, where religion was only discussed for half an hour (it was a four day conference), Dawkins was mentioned by Putnam. Now Putnam was quite disparaging of Dawkins, though he acted like he had never read Dawkins' work. This was a shame for me, because I suspect that the story Putnam would tell concerning religion would be similar to the so called Einsteinian view of religion and so he wouldn't be a million miles away from Dawkins' position."

Well, keep in mind that Putnam is good friends with Alvin Plantinga (though they disagree about theological matters quite a bit), and Putnam is also known for the enormous changes in his academic career since the early years, flipping entirely on a few things... perhaps he's just not overly concerned with being right about this... a passive "deist"... not very useful at all if you care about such things, I suppose... but that's his choice.. the man is brilliant for a great many other reasons.

It is a shame that he felt the need to discourage vehement criticism though...

Other Comments by Spinoza

28. Comment #26648 by BMMcArdle on March 21, 2007 at 12:20 am

"-posing alternative viewpoints, exposing lapses in logic and errors of fact, from the viewpoint of"...Casper The Friendly Ghost!
Is this book intended for children?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

29. Comment #26652 by scottishgeologist on March 21, 2007 at 1:38 am

justme, I take the point about the non standardised spelling.

But I think that regarding versions, there are as many fundies using the KJV as well as the NIV. The NIV is certainly popular among the more "moderate" evangies.

I remember hearing the Rev Ian Paisley saying that the NIV was a "tainted version" and that the KJV was the only true Bible.

These people get quite worked up about this sort of thing...

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

30. Comment #26656 by HunterZolomon on March 21, 2007 at 2:07 am

"radical atheism"
Atheism == religion, again. Because there's a difference between moderate and radical atheists? One group believes in God even less than not at all? Or maybe the ones who voice their opinion on the subject are the "radicals" here...

"exposing lapses in logic and errors of fact, from the vantage point of a..."
Friendly Magic Invisible Friend in the Sky.

It seems bookstore shelves will be oversaturated with religious damage control books this year...

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

31. Comment #26662 by Kevin Ronayne on March 21, 2007 at 2:57 am

By sheer coincidence, I am currently reading Cornwells' "Hitler's Pope", about Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII). To put it mildly, this is not a book which one would use to support the case for organised religion, and certainly not the current strictly hierarchical Catholic Church. Cornwell describes himself as an agnostic (or lapsed Catholic, depending on what you read), so I'm not really sure what he's up to here.

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

32. Comment #26666 by iwentdowntotheriver on March 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

"Well, keep in mind that Putnam is good friends with Alvin Plantinga (though they disagree about theological matters quite a bit), and Putnam is also known for the enormous changes in his academic career since the early years, flipping entirely on a few things... perhaps he's just not overly concerned with being right about this... a passive "deist"... not very useful at all if you care about such things, I suppose... but that's his choice.. the man is brilliant for a great many other reasons."

It was quite a shock to me all the same, the more philosophers of note I meet the more I see a real contradiction between the logical consistancy of their work and the logical consistancy of their lives.

Also concerning my previous post where I criticize the irrationality of commenting on things one knows nothing about, many have quoted Caesar and said that his'hers was a reasonable position to take. But there is quite a bit of quote mining involved, his full post was :

"Alternative viewpoints indeed...
Just another big book of bla bla designed to make sure people don't all at once stop paying their church contribution (or something to that effect).
I'm pretty sure he hasn't written anything we haven't all heard before. Also I can't seem to understand how people like that can warp their minds in such a way that they can still believe the unbelievable, pisses me off."

This is much more then the line that people generally quote from his post,
"I'm pretty sure he hasn't written anything we haven't all heard before."

Any book of this type has some value, if nothing else because it will be read by some people and hence will influence the opinions of some people. So let us read it and defend ourselves against its claims, or don't read it and simply be silent.

I cannot beleive people said I am being too hard, if a 'beleiver' did the same thing, ALL of the people on these boards would be up in arms. We must hold ourselves to rigid standards of discourse; there are irrational theists, irrational atheists and rational atheists, I personally want to stick with the final option.

Other Comments by iwentdowntotheriver

33. Comment #26673 by Flamula on March 21, 2007 at 4:29 am

dawkins could easily write a book in response to these responses, it is after all only fair, and he could do it in the same fashion, perhaps "'the god defusion' a celestial teapot's response", and he could pretend to be writing from the point of view of the teapot, with just as much authority and probably more logic than these bunch of self righteous simpletons could ever muster. what a terrible waste of good trees.

Other Comments by Flamula

34. Comment #26693 by Caesar Best on March 21, 2007 at 7:22 am

@ iwentdowntotheriver,
"Caesar Best (above) is by no means unique in posting negative comments on things they have not even read. (His/her post implys that he/she has not in fact read the book in question, if they have, then I offer them a full apology.)"

No apology needed, the only way I'll get to know the book is if it's being read to me by five topless girls. In all honesty I don't see the need to read it, I have never read the Koran either, but I still get the gist of it. In my experience anything meant to promote theism or discredit atheism and atheist views is based on a arguments from a theistic standpoint. I've been listening to religious arguments all my life and I should hope I'm up to speed on the whole pro-religion side of things. Especially since they fail to present any new stuff, just the same stuff in a different package over and over again.

Furthermore I don't have the time, patience and perhaps lack the intelligence to play cute little sociotheological mindgames, it has taken me over 20 years and a hell of a headache to arrive at atheism and unless someone brings something fresh and scientific to the table I'm gonna stick with it for the time being IF you don't mind.

Other Comments by Caesar Best

35. Comment #26698 by fonex_86 on March 21, 2007 at 7:48 am

cheshirecat:

When people attack him for not knowing any theology they have a point. Dawkins counters that it is not neccesary to know any theology to attack a belief in God which is true if he did not contend constantly that religion is somehow responsible for most of the evils of the world and a form of child abuse. To attack christianity as being a cruel religion it is neccesary to do more than quote the old testament. (for a start because what is said in the new is meant to superseed the old Jewish laws - I know nothing about theology but I know this)

Oh please. They would have a point if Dawkins was attacking, say, the Standard Cosmological Model without knowing any physics. Theology essentially boils down to philosophy, only in a narrower field, and no scientist in their right mind needs to study theology in much depth to find that it is intellectually lacking when compared to science.

What? Where is it EVER said that the NT supersedes the OT? Someone has obviously NOT read the bible here, and it isn't me. But let's assume you're right -- so now god can change his mind? What happened to his omniscience?

Other Comments by fonex_86

36. Comment #26710 by docwhat on March 21, 2007 at 8:32 am

iwentdowntotheriver:

I agree that hold a logical conversation about the merits of the book, etc. that one should read the book or remain silent.

However, I think that these forums serve another purpose other than logical and dispassionate conversation: Fellowship!

We are talking to each other and sharing feeling and such. Caesar Best was simply sharing his feelings about a lack of a good conter-argument book and I can sympathize. I went looking around for counter argument books too and mainly found things such as C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity."

"Mere Christianity" was horrible, btw. It pretends to be logic but is just a study in how to trick people via fake logic. I was very disappointed. Of course, C.S. Lewis bugs me for other reasons, in part because I loved Narnia so much as a kid and when my wife told me after college that it was actually full of Christian references I felt kinda betrayed. Don't know why; I wasn't an atheist at that point, but I guess I wasn't very religious.

On a semi-related note, I found Marcus Borg's books about Jesus, "Meeting Jesus for the first time" and "Jesus: long subtitle" (2006) were interesting. I didn't finish the newer one, in part because it kept combining the post-Easter (his phrase) stuff with the pre-Easter (again his phrase, aka historical) stuff.

But "Meeting..." was pretty good, if you ignore the post-Easter stuff (which there isn't much of).

It talked about how 'sin' is probably better translated as 'impure' (as in not kosher) and explained why the story of the Good Samaritan isn't just about someone helping someone. The first two people couldn't help the half-dead person because he was half-dead (death is impure). The Samaritan (didn't have to observe the purity laws) helped the guy. Jesus was basically saying the purity laws, of the time, weren't rational or moral.

It was pretty good and I have to admit that I like the pre-Easter Jesus a bunch.

Adios Comrades! ^_^/

Ciao!

Other Comments by docwhat

37. Comment #26731 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

"What? Where is it EVER said that the NT supersedes the OT? Someone has obviously NOT read the bible here, and it isn't me. But let's assume you're right -- so now god can change his mind? What happened to his omniscience?"

I did not say that the new testament uperseeded the old but the old Jewish laws. Gregory the great says the following concerning women being admitted to holy communion soon after childbirth.

"For as in the Old Testament the outward works are observed, so in the New Testament, that which is outwardly done, is not so diligently regarded as that which is inwardly thought, in order to punish it by a discerning judgment. For whereas the Law forbids the eating of many things as unclean, yet our Lord says in the Gospel, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." And presently after He added, expounding the same, "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts." Where it is sufficiently shown, that that is declared by Almighty God to be polluted in fact, which proceeds from the root of a polluted thought. Whence also Paul the Apostle says, "Unto the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure." And presently after, declaring the cause of that defilement, he adds, "For even their mind and conscience is defiled." If, therefore, meat is not unclean to him who has a clean mind, why shall that which a clean woman suffers according to nature, be imputed to her as uncleanness?"

and again on not taking the old testament literally of which there is a great tradition gregory speaks thus:

"When a woman is delivered, after how many days she may come into the church, you have been informed by reading the Old Testament, viz. that she is to abstain for a male child thirty­three days, and sixty­six for a female. Now you must know that this is to be taken figuratively; for if she enters the church the very hour that she is delivered, to return thanks, she is not guilty of any sin; because the pleasure of the flesh is in fault, and not the pain; but the pleasure is in the copulation of the flesh, whereas there is pain in bringing forth the child. "

Other Comments by cheshirecat

38. Comment #26739 by Riley on March 21, 2007 at 12:46 pm

First off, cheshirecat, a question: In cases where Pope Gregory and the Bible are in disagreement about the truth, should we appeal to the authority of Pope Gregory or the authority of the Bible?


And I'll try answering your question below:

cheshirecat wrote: Can you apreciate that theologians feel the same thing about Richard Dawkins books. I don't know what the God delusion says thats new. If someone could put one of Dawkins supposed revalatory statements about religion to me pithily i'd be grateful.

The modern-day relevant "gap" in literature filled by "The God Delusion" I believe is this:

1) Dawkins addresses the flaws in the notion of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria": this is the notion that religious claims are outside the realm of science and implies as such that science should not comment on religon. Dawkins in his book has identified several claims made by religions that CAN be scientifically tested and argues that all such religious claims should be subject to the same testing and scrutiny to which all other public claims get subjected, and that likewise we should characterize such claims (and the people who adhere to them) as reasonable or unreasonable based on the same standards.

This is a revolutionary thought for me at least.

Also, Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" - the most significant scientific theory yet to refute arguments for the existance of a "creator", is only 150 years old. Moreover, the discovery of genes (further evidence supporting Darwinian evolution) is only 50 years old. Most of the theological arguements and the intelligent people who made them pre-date the scientific establishment of Darwinian evolution and so Dawkins has revisited some of the old arguments in light of relatively new and overwhelming evidence.

Beyond these updates, there are two arguments that Dawkins poses about religious thinking in general that are either new or particularly topical given the rise of religiously motivated violance in the world:

1) RELIGIOUS THINKING IS THE CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE EVILS IN THE WORLD: Dying, sacrificing lives, threatening non-adherents, killing in God's name and being rewarded for it after death are common and major themes found in the holy books of the major western religions. Adherents to the values expounded in such books contribute to much of the world's violence and killing. There are already plenty of good reasons to do good things, we don't need religious thinking to motivate us. But religious thinking provides bad reasons for people to do evil things, and tries to justify the whole by exclusively pointing out the good behaviors.

2) RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINIZATION OF CHILDREN IS ABUSE: Children should be allowed to explore a wide range of ideas and be given the tools to think critically and independently about them so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. By contrast, religious teaching often isolates children, pre-maturely labels them as adherents to religious belief, and otherwise pressures them to accept religious notions before they are old enough to properly examine them.

If I've misrepresented Dawkins' views and/or the book here, someone please correct me.


--

Other Comments by Riley

39. Comment #26743 by iwentdowntotheriver on March 21, 2007 at 1:09 pm

docwhat and Caesar@

"Alternative viewpoints indeed...
Just another big book of bla bla designed to use big words to make people turn away from the one true christ. (or something to that effect).
I'm pretty sure he hasn't written anything we haven't all heard before. Also I can't seem to understand how people like that can warp their minds in such a way that they can still doubt the truth of the bible, pisses me off."

the above is a restating of Caesar Best's Post but switching around the focus and applying it to the god delusion itself. This is merely to restate my opposition to unsupported statements. I have gone on Christian forums and have been amazed at the type of stuff on them, I would have hoped a group of people coming together in the name of RATIONALLITY would not so easily fall into the discourse of irrational believers. Fellowship, friendship and community are all valuable and these forums do serve that focus, but I am really shocked that people are willing to be irrational in return for such fellowship.

We have a job to do, it only makes it harder and gives theists ammunition when we ACT LIKE THEM.

Thats all I'll say on this for now, though, may I remind that this is not a personal attack, many on these forums use similar irrationallity.

Other Comments by iwentdowntotheriver

40. Comment #26746 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Dawkins addresses the flaws in the notion of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria":

Yes he plainly denies it by getting his Bible and going 'ooo look at genesis' it makes scientific claims. He totally ignores the fact that it was never taken literally exept by the exceptionally stupid.

St. Augustine, in the Literal Meaning of Genesis

"What is the light itself which was created? Is it something spiritual or material?"

Dawkins does not understand that the meaning is gained not through the words as he sees them but read in the minds of those who do believe. Therefore theological interpretation is important.

Besides the theory is Goulds theory. See his essay.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Other Comments by cheshirecat

41. Comment #26747 by Steven Mading on March 21, 2007 at 1:22 pm

From comment #24:
When people attack him for not knowing any theology they have a point.

Not really. First off, he does know some theology - he just doesn't agree with it, or consider it worthwhile to pursue it any further than a cursory look because it's already wrong before you go any further with it than that. Secondly, a person who does not find religion to be convincing does not become a theologian. By saying that being a theologian is a prerequisite for talking about religion, Dawkins' critics end up creating a barrier for entry to the topic where the only people allowed to talk about religion are believers. It's a nice closed circle tautology to shut out all atheists - you can't discuss religion unless you are a theologian, and no theologians will claim the topic of their study is a sham.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

42. Comment #26748 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 1:33 pm

iwentdowntotheriver -

"We have a job to do?"



What is the job we have to do?

Other Comments by cheshirecat

43. Comment #26749 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 1:35 pm

"By saying that being a theologian is a prerequisite for talking about religion, Dawkins' critics end up creating a barrier for entry to the topic where the only people allowed to talk about religion are believers"


The barrier for entry to the serious debate is not belief but knowledge.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

44. Comment #26750 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 1:37 pm

cheshirecat writes:
[[To attack christianity as being a cruel religion it is neccesary to do more than quote the old testament. (for a start because what is said in the new is meant to superseed the old Jewish laws - I know nothing about theology but I know this)]]

This is incorrect. The Old Testament still applies. Jesus said so very clearly. See Matthew 5:17-18. How are we supposed to take this statement? It's only "sort of" true? It's a direct contradiction with other teachings in the New Testament, and you know it. No amount of contortionist excuses can get you out of it.

But suppose for argument that the Old Testament is superceded by new rules. What does this mean? Did God change his mind? It used to be "moral" to stone someone to death for working on the Sabbath, but now it isn't? So much for the idea of a perfect God. Or perhaps, are the statements in the Old Testament just fiction? If so, why not consider the New Testament to be fiction as well?



cheshirecat writes:
[[I did not say that the new testament uperseeded the old but the old Jewish laws. Gregory the great says the following concerning women being admitted to holy communion soon after childbirth.]]

Yes, I read the quotes from Gregory the Great you posted. In your first quote, Gregory simply says that the laws of the New Testament are different from the laws of the Old, but he *does not* say that the Old laws don't apply. In the second quote, he says that God's word is not to be taken literally. How does he know which parts to take literally, and which not? He doesn't, of course. He is not God. Don't you see he is making all this up as he goes along? He didn't like something in the scripture, so he arbitrarily redefined it to his liking.

God's statements in the Bible are very clear. Kill the person who works on the Sabbath means, kill the person who works on the Sabbath. Suppose you lived in 600 BC. How would you "interpret" this command? Taking this statement "figuratively" means that you are simply making up a meaning for it on the spot, and admitting that the Old Testament is not a magical book written by a perfect God.

Other Comments by kkant

45. Comment #26751 by Steven Mading on March 21, 2007 at 1:42 pm

cheshire cat, your post #40 is very wrong, in several ways. Let me iterate them:
You seem to be saying that the fact that there is a long tradition in Christianity of interpreting Genesis as not really true means Dawkins is making a strawman argument. Here's the problems with that:
1 - St Augustine did not invent Christianity. A lot of Christin history predates him - so a quote by him does not prove your claim that genesis was always not meant to be taken literally by Christians.
2 - Dawkins was talking about a lot more than just Genesis. Some of the claims the bible makes are impossible to metaphor-away without losing the core of what the religion actually is, and yet they are indeed claims about objective reality too. For example - Did Jesus Christ the man actually exist or was he a legend? If he existed, are the four gospels in the Bible that are alleged to have been written by some eyewitnesses of him a reliable tale of the events in his life, or not? That's an objective question for historians, not a subjective question for theologians. Did Jesus Christ actually come back from the dead or not? Again, a necessary defining characteristic of being a Christian, and an objective historical claim, not a subjective "opinion". Is there in fact an afterlife? Again, an objective claim about the reality of the universe, not a subjective one. Did the universe have a deliberate designer that made it? Again, an objective claim about the reality of the universwe, not a subjective one.

The idea that Genesis is the ONLY place where Christianity makes objective claims that should be dealt with scientifically and not religiously, and therefore the one quote by St Agustine proves that this religion is entirely meant to be subjective in all its claims, is complete bollocks.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

46. Comment #26752 by Steven Mading on March 21, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Cheshire cat said:
"The barrier for entry to the serious debate is not belief but knowledge."

It would be wonderful if that was true. But the problem is that by defining it so that one must agree with the claims of theologians to enter into the debate, you do make it so that only believers are allowed in.

I'm well aware that modern theologians claim the religion was never intended to be believed literally. But if you insist that I am required to agree with that claim before I can speak on the subject, you are indeed asking for more than just knowlege of what claims they have made. You are insisting on agreement with the claims they have made.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

47. Comment #26755 by Caesar Best on March 21, 2007 at 1:57 pm

@iwentdowntotheriver

It would seem I'm not getting through to you, as I tried to explain before I don't feel the need to indulge myself in material which is ultimatly based on irrationality (faith etc.) since I try to let 'RATIONALLITY' be my guide. Discounting the irrational doesn't make you irrational, discounting the rational does.

Other Comments by Caesar Best

48. Comment #26756 by Steven Mading on March 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm

From post 44, by kkant"
"2) RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINIZATION OF CHILDREN IS ABUSE:
...
If I've misrepresented Dawkins' views and/or the book here, someone please correct me."

Well, I don't know if Dawkins thinks indoctrination of children is abuse, but I do know that this isn't what he was talking about in TGD. (It might be something he mentioned elsewhere though - he's written an awful lot of things I haven't read.)

In TGD, the point he was making was that the premature labelling them as members of the religion was abuse - not the teaching to them of the religion, but the claim that they are already members of it the moment they are born into a family with parents who believe it. If you haven't thought about it yet yourself, and haven't agreed to what it says yet yourself, then you are NOT a member of the religion yet. Religion is NOT hereditary. The belief does not transmit from the parents to the child unconditionally like genes do. It's something you pick up later in life via deliberate conscious thought.

Imagine a mother talking to her very small child for the first time about the religion she follows. The instant she says - "This is what we believe" she's lying. The child (part of that 'we') does not yet believe it.

By talking to the child as if his belief in the religion was already there to begin with, just by being part of the culture, as if it's not something he needs to voluntarily enter into before it becomes his, the child's ability to think for himself about the issue is stunted.

This is why I think atheists experience such dripping ire and hatred by the religious - people's belief in god predates their higher cognative abilities because it happened as a very core part of what their parents told them, at that young age when you accept everything you're told, and use that as the axioms you build other beliefs on for the rest of your life. The belief in god happens so early in life due to this labelling that in the mind of the thusly labelled person belief in god becomes an axiom to build arguments on, rather than a concusion of arguments derived from lower axioms.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

49. Comment #26757 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 2:09 pm

"But if you insist that I am required to agree with that claim before I can speak on the subject, you are indeed asking for more than just knowlege of what claims they have made."

I am not saying that as you well know.

Other Comments by cheshirecat

50. Comment #26759 by cheshirecat on March 21, 2007 at 2:20 pm

You might call a child middle-class. Is this child abuse also? Perhaps the child would be unhappy with their parents bourgeois values. They might hate being taken to the RSC and being subjected to shakespeare at an early age. Forced to read the guardian. Mummy why do we always buy the Guardian. I want to read some of Mr Boris Johnsons rigorous journalism. No dear, in this house we shall have but one God and that will be marks and spencer.

Other Comments by cheshirecat