101. Comment #93169 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 11:08 am

Not a very good analogy Bonzai. The difference between the blueprint and the house is that the blueprint only exists on paper and before that in the mind of the designer. It is not made up of the materials out of which the house itself will be built. If it did, then destruction of the blueprint would indeed be demolition. The cluster of cells out of which the person arises is one and the same substance as the person that will arise out of them. In a sense it is a genetic blueprint of the future self, but it is a blueprint that is made of the bulding materials of the self. This puts the "tearing up" of this particular blueprint in a wholly different category.

Other Comments by ADH

102. Comment #93190 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 11:58 am

ADH,

This is a sound analogy as you were talking about the beginning of a process. Whether it is a blue print on paper or in the form of undifferentiated cells equipped with a "blue print" of genetic instructions doesn't matter.

But, to make the analogy complete, let's say I have the construction material in my warehouse and a blue print ready to go. Is it demolition to tear up the blue print and close down the warehouse?

Again, when is a house a house? I don't think it is reasonable to say that I have built a house if I only have the blue print and the construction material in the warehouse, or the blue print plus a few bricks on the ground.

You define "beginning" to be an event which in some way plays a "decisive" role in leading to the end result. This is an argument based on potential As I argued with natural abortion, the blue print is probably more tangible a beginning than a clump of undifferentiated cells with only a genetic draft to tell them how they should develop.

Other Comments by Bonzai

103. Comment #93191 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:01 pm

It is not made up of the materials out of which the house itself will be built.

You aren't made up of the same material as the fertilised egg. Not a single atom is the same.

Other Comments by steve99

104. Comment #93193 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:08 pm

"You aren't made up of the same material as the fertilised egg. Not a single atom is the same."

This is true. And neither is a single cell of your current body the same as those that made up your body ten years ago. But the material is the same in the sense that the DNA contained in each cell of your body as it is now is the same as the DNA contained in your body 10 years ago. I was talking about DNA - the genetic material - not the hardware.

Other Comments by ADH

105. Comment #93196 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:14 pm

"ONLY a genetic draft" Bonzai? the use of "only" rather undermines the nature of what this draft is, don't you think?

Other Comments by ADH

106. Comment #93197 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 12:15 pm

When an amoeba splits and becomes 2 amoebae, are they the same or are they 2 individuals?
When 2 haploid gametes meet and form a diploid cell, does that mean a new person is made? Or is it the start of a new person - not yet the person? If we clone a person using a cheek cell, is that a new person? Or the same person but replicated...asexually, as it were, like teh amoeba?
If abortion is done naturally, is it not part of God's will? And if so, why isn't it the same if we do it? Are we not part of God's plan? Made in his image?

Other Comments by Goldy

107. Comment #93198 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I was talking about DNA - the genetic material - not the hardware.

Actually, what is important is the patterns in our brain. That is what produces our "self".

Other Comments by steve99

108. Comment #93199 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 12:19 pm

ADH,

Do you mind addressing my main point in post#102? When is a house a house? Is it demolition if I close down the warehouse and tear up the blue print?

It is "only" a draft (not even the final blue print) in the sense that most conceptions led to natural abortion. But even if I am wrong on this all you can do is to upgrade a draft to a blue print. My argument doesn't rest on it.

Other Comments by Bonzai

109. Comment #93203 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:24 pm

"Do you mind addressing my main point? When is a house a house? Is it demolition if I close down the warehouse and tear up the blue print?"

Sorry Bonzai, I must be very thick. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I was trying to argue earlier that the cluster of cells with the genetic material out of which the person is formed is more than just a blueprint. It is also more than a few bricks. It is the substance of the person.

Other Comments by ADH

110. Comment #93204 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:29 pm

It is the substance of the person.

It clearly isn't. There is no 'person' there yet. That bundle of cells can split, eventually leading to more than one person, or it is even possible for two non-identical twins to merge, forming a chimera person at some later stage. There is the potential to form people, but that is all.

Other Comments by steve99

111. Comment #93205 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 12:30 pm

ADH,

The genetic code is a blue print. The undivided cells are only raw material in a warehouse,--out of which the person/house is built I think the analogy is clear and valid.

Other Comments by Bonzai

112. Comment #93207 by Annatar on December 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm

The "substance" of the person? What does that mean?

You clearly don't mean "physical material", so I can only imagine that you're referring to the genetic information (in which case the blueprint argument wins) or something spiritual (in which case... sigh).

Maybe you should begin by defining your terms.

Other Comments by Annatar

113. Comment #93211 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 12:37 pm

I was trying to argue earlier that the cluster of cells with the genetic material out of which the person is formed is more than just a blueprint. It is also more than a few bricks. It is the substance of the person.

Get a Q tip, rub the inside of your cheek and I can guarantee that you'll have a multitude of cells with the genetic information that is your blueprint. Likewise when you bleed. Would these actions concern you? Are your chee cells more than just the bricks in your body? Are they the "substance" of you?

Other Comments by Goldy

114. Comment #93213 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Steve I think we are going to have to agree to differ. I agree that it this material may develop into two twins and (if you say so) remerge. In the same way the dough with which you bake a loaf can be used to bake two. But the substance is the same. We are not only talking about dough here of course, but the substance out of which a person (or more than one) emerges. But let the analogy stand, as far as it goes. The "dough" is the genetic material, the substance of the person. It carries within it the foundations of invividuation, the identity of the person. I believe we are more than our genetic configuration of course. But dispensing with the "dough" means dispensing with the constituents of the person, because the human being, obviously, is inseparable from it.

Other Comments by ADH

115. Comment #93217 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 12:43 pm

I would have thought the genetic material in the dough would be the recipe. The dough would merely be the cells and their constituents. As these come from food what we eat, I guess it would make saying Grace all the more important to you ;-) (Joke...to be read light heartedly!)

Other Comments by Goldy

116. Comment #93219 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:45 pm

It carries within it the foundations of invividuation, the identity of the person.

It is either a person, or it isn't. If you want to reduce things to the level of 'start of the beginning of the origin of the foundations of individuation', then there is so little meaning left that discussion is pointless.

I really don't see what you aren't getting here. As you know that zero, part, one or two people can result from that cell or ball of cells, you must see it is meaningless to call that state some unique 'beginning of a person'. It is part of the process that can lead to a person, but then so is a guy phoning up a girl for a hot date, and forgetting the condoms.

Other Comments by steve99

117. Comment #93222 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 12:50 pm

ADH,

The significance of conception is that a new genetic code is created from the parents,-- a new blueprint/draft of a blue print to make a person (which may have bugs and lead to natural abortion or multiple persons). The dough,--undivided cells,--is not even the point, you don't need conception to get cells, rubbing your nose would give you plenty.

Other Comments by Bonzai

118. Comment #93224 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Listen you guys, I'm trying to answer your questions, but bear with me. They are good questions but I'm no expert on this topic so I may not be able to do justice to them. I may be using analogies that are of beam. But my conviction is that there is a spiritual element (you may well sigh). I believe that each fetus is unique (and each embryo for that matter). I blieve that the unborn human child is the object of God's love, and that makes him or her inviolable, just as every human being after birth remains unique and inviolable. It's a continuum starting from conception. I respect those who hold dffering views about where the establishment of personhood should be established. But earlier I asked a question which hasn't been answered. How do you all feel about the routine recourse to abortion, for the most spurious of reasons, as if it were no more significant than tooth extraction?

Other Comments by ADH

119. Comment #93228 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 1:03 pm

I blieve that the unborn human child is the object of God's love, and that makes him or her inviolable

So...the spontaneous natural abortions are...?

How do you all feel about the routine recourse to abortion, for the most spurious of reasons, as if it were no more significant than tooth extraction?

In many cases this could actually be a good thing. Of course, money would be as off-putting as the dentist... Who are you or anyone else to decide what another person's choice in the matter is? And invoking a god to strengthen your argument is meant to make it all OK? See where we are coming from? As it is, without the free recourse to abortion, what are the alternatives? An unwanted child (please spare me the story of the mother that wanted the abortion but couldn't and now is glad she didn't. I can give you the same story regarding mothers who neglect and abuse their unwanted children)? Or the dreaded back street abortion?
I guess this means you are in favour of contraception then...

Other Comments by Goldy

120. Comment #93230 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I blieve that the unborn human child is the object of God's love, and that makes him or her inviolable, just as every human being after birth remains unique and inviolable. It's a continuum starting from conception.

Why conception? At what point? When the sperm first enters the egg? When the sperm nucleus fuses with the egg nucleus?

What I am pointing out here is that there is no magic instant when a new human starts, so concentrating on conception is arbitrary.

Other Comments by steve99

121. Comment #93231 by Quine on December 2, 2007 at 1:12 pm

One of the questions that has been tugging at me lately is, "How many human embryos die every month?"

I turns out not to be so easy to answer, because medical science does not recognize this as being connected to "illness" except in some special cases of infertility. Here is my current thinking:

A very rough guess is that about 1 billion human eggs are produced each month. The vast majority of these billion eggs do not get fertilized and just pass on. Of those that do become embryos, some fraction develop into enough cells at the right time to attach and carry to term. Some cannot attach because of medical, IUD, genetic, etc. problems and so die. However, this still leaves a number that do not attach because fertilization was late in the cycle so not enough development could happen before it was too late. I would especially like to know that last number, which I suspect is still in the millions.

If true, I think it would be important for the public to know that under perfectly natural conditions, millions of human embryos die every month. It should put the relatively few lab stem cell extractions in context. Perhaps this is a question for PZ.

EDIT: I started a thread at the RD Forum so folks could feed back info.

Other Comments by Quine

122. Comment #93253 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Goldy I am in favour of contraception. I think the RC's stance on condoms in Africa is wrong!

Other Comments by ADH

123. Comment #93256 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 2:18 pm

What it sounded like :-)
Edit - but again, don't you think this illustrates one section of society making impostitions on another because of some belief they have? In their eyes, contraception is as wrong as abortion....

Other Comments by Goldy

124. Comment #93264 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I know that Goldy. I am not a Catholic, and there are a great many things in Catholic dogma that I take issue with - this is one of them. Mind you, if there were a practising Catholic contributing to this forum we would be agreeing with each other about a great deal!

But I don't think it's fair to say that taking a pro-life stance on abortion is one section of society imposing their view on others "because of some belief they have". We may quibble about when the embryo/fetus becomes a person, but not about whether the fetus is a person. Certainly after 12 to 18 weeks of gestation (please note that I would say before, but for the sake of argument ...)we are talking about the destruction of a person.

Sayiing that is "imposing the view of oe section of society on another" is like saying that those who campaign for the abolition of the death penalty, or for putting an end once and for all to child prostitution or sex slavery, are making an "imposition on another because of some belief they have". Maybe so, but sometimes such "impositions" are crying out to be made.

Other Comments by ADH

125. Comment #93266 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Certainly after 12 to 18 weeks of gestation (please note that I would say before, but for the sake of argument ...)we are talking about the destruction of a person.

What do you mean by 'a person'?

Other Comments by steve99

126. Comment #93268 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:46 pm

What do YOU mean by a person Steve?

What I mean is a human being, an object of God's love, a unique individual.

Other Comments by ADH

127. Comment #93269 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 2:49 pm

What do YOU mean by a person Steve?

I am happy to admit I am not sure, but as you are using that term to describe a fetus of a certain age, then it is reasonable for me to ask what you mean by it.

Other Comments by steve99

128. Comment #93272 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Indeed, ADH, but sometimes we are talking of a proper person and sometimes we are talking of a bunch of cells. You may equate that bunch of cells as a person, I don't. There are limits to when an abortion can happen, limits that have been shown by research as a definition of when those cells are sentient. Being research, they are open to further investigation and change (unlike dogma). If you don't like it, try and show that those cells are a person like you or me. To say that they are such because of a god is like saying slavery should be kept because it is the wish of a god, or even decreasing teh age of consent because a prophet ordained directly by a god had a woman of that age, which brings me to this (though I think this Iranian story is apocryphal myslef...)

Maybe so, but sometimes such "impositions" are crying out to be made

All depends on your views, I guess. Do you impose because you believe or because research haas shown something is physiologically OK?

Other Comments by Goldy

129. Comment #93273 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 2:56 pm

The choice of age is more or less related to the presence of a nervous system. But as I said, I am opting for conception, allowances made for the doubts you express about the status of a cluster of cells. I realise that there are Christian believers who take a different view from me. I have not, I admit, explored these finer points in great depth. That's why I said 12 to 18 weeks - it's a concession.

Other Comments by ADH

130. Comment #93276 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 2:59 pm

So, you are conceding that there can be an age in development when this "person" is still, for want of a better word, a "proto-person"?

What I mean is a human being, an object of God's love, a unique individual.

Have to be careful with this God's love thing - I don't see too many examples of this working too well all the time!

Other Comments by Goldy

131. Comment #93278 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:02 pm

ADH.

Good. Concession what we need in these matters. The problem is when we explore these issues of self, of identity and so on, things get so complicated.

Other Comments by steve99

132. Comment #93280 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:08 pm

I may believe that sexual infidelity is wrong, but just because I believe that I do not go around imposing my views on anyone (God forbid!). But where human life is at stake (especially the most vulnerable, innocent human life imaginable) then I am entitled to kick up a fuss. Just as anti-war protesters are netitlet¡d to kick up a fuss when a country is invaded because of what turns out to be an unfounded suspicion that there might be hidden in some bunker. I have a right to (and a duty) to kick up a fuss when children in developing countries are wrenched from or sold by their parents or relatives to be used and abused as sex-slaves by some filthy-rich Western entrepreneur! Even if we are not 100% sure that the fetus is a person or at what stage, the fact that there is a possibility of this being so should galvinise us into action in defence of the unborn. This is not imposition. It is justice! Justice on behalf of those who will never have a voice to speak for themselves!

Other Comments by ADH

133. Comment #93281 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm

The thing is Steve that I seem to be the only one here required to make concessions. If concessions are what we need, does this only apply to me and my fellow-believers?

Other Comments by ADH

134. Comment #93285 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 3:24 pm

The thing is Steve that I seem to be the only one here required to make concessions. If concessions are what we need, does this only apply to me and my fellow-believers?

The non believers don't seek to impose their rules on you. No one forces you to have an abortion if you don't want to have one. It is the believers who seek to impose their rules on us based on their beliefs and nothing more. I can't see what concession we need to make.

Other Comments by Bonzai

135. Comment #93286 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Even if we are not 100% sure that the fetus is a person or at what stage, the fact that there is a possibility of this being so should galvinise us into action in defence of the unborn.

This depends what you mean by not 100% sure. I can see no reason at all to consider an early embryo - just a ball of cells - a person. I suspect that person-hood comes on slowly, along with development.

As for 'defending unborn children', well again, that depends on what you call a 'child'. My personal view is that there is a stage before birth where the fetus becomes enough of a 'child' that destroying it is wrong. But I don't think that is a clear point. And before that, I believe it is not unreasonable to destroy the fetus if it is unwanted, or diseased. But these things are a matter of degree.

The thing is Steve that I seem to be the only one here required to make concessions. If concessions are what we need, does this only apply to me and my fellow-believers?

Well, generally speaking, I think so. Having two sides to an argument does not mean both sides have equal validity. I would suggest that the concession you are making is to your benefit. It moves you away from dogma and false religious certainty and helps you to find out more about complex issues. Having rationalists move towards dogma and faith seems to be an odd suggestion. Free thinking is too addictive anyway!

Other Comments by steve99

136. Comment #93288 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Even if we are not 100% sure that the fetus is a person or at what stage, the fact that there is a possibility of this being so should galvinise us into action in defence of the unborn. This is not imposition. It is justice! Justice on behalf of those who will never have a voice to speak for themselves!

I don't disagree that at some point during pregnancy the fetus should be accorded some kind of personhood. It seems logical that the person doesn't just suddenly appear after leaving the birth canal. But appealing to faith and God's love is of no help in determining where that demarcation point should be and to define that at at conception is quite absurd and based on nothing other than religious dogmas.

Other Comments by Bonzai

137. Comment #93289 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Reason has moved many a rationalist towards faith! CS Lewis is a case in point!

Other Comments by ADH

138. Comment #93290 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Reason has moved many a rationalist towards faith! CS Lewis is a case in point!

Not sure what your point is. His Christian faith was not defensible under the scrutiny of reason, whatever moved him towards faith it was not reason. His apologetics sounded more like rationalization than rationalism Some might say that he was never a rationalist to begin with.

Other Comments by Bonzai

139. Comment #93293 by Lauregon on December 2, 2007 at 3:39 pm

What I mean is a human being, an object of God's love, a unique individual. - ADH

"God's love" doesn't really do a lot for all the babies born into the world without food, shelter,
safety, or prospects for a decent healthy future. I think of my grandmother and the nine children she was impregnated with and brought into a world of grinding poverty and the endless drudgery that constituted her life until she was able to retire (into continuing poverty) on a social security pension at age 65. I tend to think of such a "God" as being not all that different from squirt-and-run men who drop in long enough to impregnate their current woman then move on to greener pastures. As I see it, such a "God" is essentially little different than a deadbeat dad.

Other Comments by Lauregon

140. Comment #93294 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:40 pm

"The non believers don't seek to impose their rules on you. No one forces you to have an abortion if you don't want to have one. It is the believers who seek to impose their rules on us based on their beliefs and nothing more. I can't see what concession we need to make."

I wish I could agree that that was the case. Fundamentalist secularism is every bit as aggressive as fundamentalist religion ever was. Is it not an imposition to require Christians to shut up about their faith outside the confines of their own home. The moment they enter the public square in whatever capacity of public life they are (increasingly) required to refrain from proclaiming or even confessing their faith as being of relevance to their public role. Is that not an imposition? And Dennett among others would also have the state, if he could, intervene in how Christian parents bring up their children! If that ever were to happen it would be an imposition. And don't come back at me with the notion that Christian parents, by being Christians and bringing up their kids in accordance with their convictions are guilty of unwarranted imposition. The same is true of secular, atheist parents who convey their "convictions" to their kids and bring them up accordingly. For better or worse, in both cases kids, though influenced by their parents, end up believing what they want to believe (or not).

Other Comments by ADH

141. Comment #93296 by ADH on December 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm

CS Lewis was an atheist until the age of 30, mroe or less. Maybe he never was a rationalist. But it was reason, the logical coherence of theism and then the incarnation, that moved him towards a position that he resisted fiercely "until the bitter end". While an atheist he hoped that God did not exist (his "wishful thinking" was moving him in the opposite direction from faith). I guess he wasn't careful enough about what he read. As he said, (please take note - just in case!) "an atheist who wants to remain an atheist cnnot be too careful about what he reads".

Other Comments by ADH

142. Comment #93297 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:49 pm

ADH:

Fundamentalist secularism is every bit as aggressive as fundamentalist religion ever was.

I am sure you will see even after a small amount of reflection that this is just a bit silly, isn't it. As someone posted on another thread, Dawkins has not wanted the death sentence for someone who called their teddy bear Darwin.

Is it not an imposition to require Christians to shut up about their faith outside the confines of their own home.

Of course it would be. Unless they have a public role which is conflict with preaching doctrine.

The moment they enter the public square in whatever capacity of public life they are (increasingly) required to refrain from proclaiming or even confessing their faith as being of relevance to their public role. Is that not an imposition?

It might be if it were true. I know of no examples of it.

And Dennett among others would also have the state, if he could, intervene in how Christian parents bring up their children!

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. All he wants is that schools should include teaching of the facts of all world religions, in addition to any promotion of a particular religion as 'the right way'. This is a very mild suggestion indeed. He has specifically stated that he has no interest in interfering with how parents of any religion bring up their religion. He was talking about schools, and he was not wanting to stop anything, simply increase education.

And don't come back at me with the notion that Christian parents, by being Christians and bringing up their kids in accordance with their convictions are guilty of unwarranted imposition.

I don't know why you would claim anyone would come back at you about this. The only issue people like Dawkins has is when kids are labelled with the beliefs of their parents, nothing more.

You really do seem to have built up a considerable set of straw men about what atheists like Dennett and Dawkins believe!

As he said, (please take note - just in case!) "an atheist who wants to remain an atheist cnnot be too careful about what he reads".

What a silly statement. Do you consider Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens to be somehow avoiding books in case they get 'converted'?

Rationalists seek knowledge, they don't avoid it, like so many religious.

Reason has moved many a rationalist towards faith!

Not really; not since Darwin showed that complexity could arise without a Creator.

Other Comments by steve99

143. Comment #93298 by Lauregon on December 2, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Fundamentalist secularism is every bit as aggressive as fundamentalist religion ever was. Is it not an imposition to require Christians to shut up about their faith outside the confines of their own home. The moment they enter the public square in whatever capacity of public life they are (increasingly) required to refrain from proclaiming or even confessing their faith as being of relevance to their public role. Is that not an imposition?

Where is this supposed to be happening?

Other Comments by Lauregon

144. Comment #93301 by Bonzai on December 2, 2007 at 3:58 pm

And don't come back at me with the notion that Christian parents, by being Christians and bringing up their kids in accordance with their convictions are guilty of unwarranted imposition. The same is true of secular, atheist parents who convey their "convictions" to their kids and bring them up accordingly.

Some forms of religious indoctrination should be rightfully considered child abuse. Consider the crazies at Jesus camp and some parents who scare the shit out of their children with stories of graphic torture in the afterlife.

If secular atheist parents subject their children to the same level of brainwashing and psychological abuse they are guilty of child abuse too.

Other Comments by Bonzai

145. Comment #93307 by Lauregon on December 2, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I much-belatedly read somewhere that C.S. Lewis is supposed to be the originator of the street-corner trump-card that's so popular with evangelicals and fundamentalists that claims Jesus was either who he said he was, or he was a madman or a liar. In my opinion, that's a truly ridiculous idea, assuming as it does that the Bible can be believed as presenting factual history and accurate eye-witness reportage. Early on in my theist years I didn't find Lewis's theology to be convincing, and when when I finally read that he's the one who came up with that doofus either/or challenge, I dismissed him as being someone whose religious ideas should be taken seriously.

Other Comments by Lauregon

146. Comment #93312 by Goldy on December 2, 2007 at 4:30 pm

ADH, sorry to hear you feel believers have to make all the concessions. It's not true, all people have to make concessions, even godless athiests like me :-) But for so long the believers have held sway and it has impacted on society. Why are we told morality comes from God? Why are good things done in western society described as Christian (he was a good Christian man, he was...)? That sort of thing. And are secualr parents guilty of imposing their views? Hmmm, maybe. Well, actually, yes. If they stop their children from following a faith, then yes. But the gist of the argument, as I read it, was that it is wrong to say the child is a "(insert religion) child". It isn't, it is just a child. Religion is neither here nor there. When I call my daughter an athiest, it is because these issues don't appear in her life until much later (I hope). I can teach her religion, but I will not impose it on her. She is not a "Christian" child or a "Buddhist" child - she is just a child. If she wants to follow a religion, so be it - I'm still her dad and she'll still be my little daughter.
Reason may have moved many rationalists to faith, but then again religion has moved many theists to rationalism. So what - people are people.

Other Comments by Goldy

147. Comment #93329 by Robert Maynard on December 2, 2007 at 5:50 pm

"An atheist who wants to remain an atheist cannot be too careful about what he reads."

It is not that atheists (or anyone, really) should avoid reading books that might challenge them, but that we should avoid reading any book presenting an argument if we lack the critical attitude to engage with that argument.
Many readers have come away from books like Holy Blood and the Holy Grail or films like Loose Change, wholly convinced of the truth in their content, seduced by the manner of presentation because of the lowered defenses in their critical mind. We should be careful about what we read - not by way of a censoring process, but by analysing the information we're receiving.

Obviously Lewis was not 'careful' enough about what he read - his journey into Christianity was coaxed along by fantasy writers like Tolkien and George Macdonald, until he finally allowed himself to start being impressed by 1st century texts describing "facts" with no secular corroboration.

When you're ready to start crediting rhetorical acrobatics or unsourced assertions over facts, you've stopped being careful about what you read. What Lewis says is true, though not in the sense he intended.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

148. Comment #94419 by Rational_G on December 5, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Umm.... getting back to Mr. Conell's argument:

I agree pretty much with what the man is saying. The time is long overdue to stop being polite.

I'll trade a little rudeness to fight for freedom from religion any day.

This is a fight you know - not a intellectual debating exercise.

As our hero Mr. Dawkins has said: "...Stop being polite.....Let's all stop being so damned respectful...."

Other Comments by Rational_G

149. Comment #94430 by Goldy on December 5, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Well, a bit assertive - there's no need for rudeness (all the time). That can have a "pushing" effect on those you are trying to convince...unless they have a weak mind, of course...

Other Comments by Goldy

150. Comment #105881 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 2, 2008 at 4:03 am

sorry to skip all the people in the many pages from something from page 1 (too many replies to go through) and sorry if this has been brought up already. that said:

-----
"Let me preface this by saying that I am of the same mind as you all and would love a world free of religion.

That said, the works of Prof. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and the rest have done an incredible job of effectively bringing many atheists our of the proverbial closet (myself included) and providing a basis on which to build around, but at this point, "giving the verbal finger" to religion is only going to further mobilize the faithful.

Sam Harris's speech at the AAI conference encouraged us to take on each issue as it comes. If people try to teach religion in science class, put it down. If the US government inhibits stem cell research on the basis of religion, prove that he is violating the Constitution, but what needs to be realized is that simply saying "you're all full of crap," (which i agree with) and "therefore you're not worth having a discussion with," is going to get us nowhere. "

------
i want to address this and much reasoning on this vein, that you should take it on a case by case basis. on the surface that sounds like a good idea, but realy all you are doing is dealing with the symptoms, and ignoring the disease, the faith virus; oblivione scientophobus.
people have been mostly ignoring the disease which is why it has been evolving new symptoms every time, like a hydra whos head you just cut off. we can go cutting of head again and again til the cows come home. the problem isnt the heads, its the hydra, and we need to keep them from growing back, we need to slay the hydra, because eventualy there will be too many heads to cut off, they will have developed too big of an argument, and we will be overcome. and we may be near there now. justice system is geting quite loaded against us, when they control the justice sytem, the ground on which we fight may be pulled from underneith us. with faith becomes law, we can no longer fight it on law. and so while we go cutting off heads in the school systems, cutting off forks like ID or creationism, the other heads are tearing into our only ally, the justice system.

and i agree with this guy, make waves, as dawkins said "rock the boat" i think you SHOULD challenge them and i think you SHOULD be vocal, be rude, be strong, but dont sit back and say "i'll get the next one" or worse insult others when they DO rock the boat. if them rocking the boat makes it harder for you to justify your atheism, maybe you should consider a religion, because you are clearly just along for the ride. if someone is an out spoken atheist and is insulting christians, and you are called to defend him by a theist, just ask them to defend pat roberts. thats all you have to do.
and for some it is an intelectual one, we are so used to playing by our wits, making tactical moves, planning out strategy, and when someone else acts and it isnt how you would have done it, you feel the need to chastize them. well you arent a leader, you havent any say on if the people follow your strategeum. either you accept everyones right to free speech or you dont. and you should accept that this person has his views reguardless. if he stirs them up then good, he is right we DONT have a good name, it is much akin to a person covered in mud yelling at someone running because it splashed mud on them. and while it is true we are trying to get the mud OFF and dont appriciate more being ADDED, at the same rate you cant realy fault him for making you more muddy.
now im going to speak entirely in metaphore and similie, much like an inspirational speaker, i want to get across the idea in ways even a christian could understand. we atheists need to stop spinning our wheels in reverse and pulling and tugging at religion, just charge straight at them, and cut at the obi.
ok thats probably all for metaphore and similie...i do tend to over use them and i appologize. but analogies are quite fun.
so there is a place for tactical debate, and there is a place for riddicule, and evangelizing, and activism (though should probably not do illegal things like graffiti...unless you live in a country with graffitti zones...then you probably SHOULD. equaly such violance would never be a good idea, just from a human stand point. probably true for breaking things too...unless they are yours to break of course) because on the whole we will be taken by the average. so each high level makes a step foreward that a low level can make. because the moderate contrasts with the extreme, and thus the moderate can become more extreme as the extreme becomes more extreme. but the closer the moderates are to the extremes the less progress they can make.
so the vocal people, the strong people, they realy beat the path for us tacticals to follow. and for that i give them credit where credit is due.

hmm my last post didnt go through...

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai