Friday, August 22, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

by National Secular Society Newsline

Reposted from:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/whydawkinsisrightandhiscriticsar.html

As the Channel 4 series The Genius of Charles Darwin drew to an end on Monday, the usual chorus of insults reined down on the head of its star, Richard Dawkins. Despite the fact that Dawkins went out of his way to avoid bad-tempered arguments or overt proselytising on atheism, his critics saw only what they wanted to see — and often that was not what appeared on the screen.

In one section of the film, Dawkins met a class of schoolchildren and asked them what they knew about evolution. Most said they had the rudiments, but also stated that they preferred to stick with their religion's explanation. Dawkins took them to a beach in Dorset to hunt for fossils. He gave them a quick lesson on how these ancient relics illustrated clearly that life on earth was tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years old. Not six thousand, which is what their religion told them.

Some of the children, though, were impervious to this knowledge, and Dawkins was disappointed. But he did not challenge them or demand that they change their mind. The Radio Times, however, still published a letter from someone criticising the programme, saying Dawkins "tried to promulgate his atheist doctrine amongst schoolchildren."

AA Gill in The Sunday Times wrote: "His anger and bombast stand in stark contrast to Darwin's quiet, inquisitive humility."

Michael Deacon, the Telegraph's critic, too, couldn't resist a pop: "I, too, am an atheist", he wrote, "yet Dawkins is so fanatical that I find myself playing devil's advocate, or in this case God's."

It was sad to see Libby Purves, once a half-decent journalist, now obsessed with religion. She has a "Faith" column on the Times website of such unutterable stupidity it leaves one wondering how this once-great newspaper fell into the hands of such nincompoops. She wrote of schoolchildren's fossil-hunt: "The moment one of them found an ammonite on the beach, Professor Dawkins demanded instant atheism."

What programme were these people watching? I saw none of this. It is quite clear that Richard Dawkins has learned his lesson from previous programmes and tries to subdue his personal annoyance at the wilful ignorance he encounters. I thought he was the model of restraint when confronted with John Mackay, a leading creationist who insisted that "before the flood, people lived to be one thousand years old" and the "science teacher" at a state-funded grammar school who insisted that the earth as no more than 6,000 years old.

And that is before we came to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose famous silver-tongue seemed to become tied as he foundered to find a way out of the logical mess he created when trying to square his beliefs with reality. I thought Dawkins let him off rather lightly when he put the embarrassing evasions down to the use of "poetic language".

Richard Dawkins wasn't prepared to say it on air, but I'll say it for him here — if the Archbishop truly believes what he said on Monday's programme, then he is a deluded fool. He's often advertised as an intellectual giant. Intellect giant? I've said before and I'll say it again now — it's all flim-flam. Rowan Williams is an emperor with no clothes, and in this film we glimpsed his nakedness.

I don't know what it is that makes sensible people want to throw in their lot with the creationists and intelligent design merchants as soon as Dawkins' name is mentioned. Maybe it is some kind of residual feeling that they must be respectful of religion, even when it propounds absurdities. They think it shouldn't be attacked because nice people believe in it as well as murderous wackoes.

But as Dawkins pointed out — the nice people who subscribe to ridiculous things simply open the door to the nasties who want to blow us up or impose their fantasies on us by law.

Creationism is stupid and that's all there is to it. There is no equivalence with science, and we must resist the claim that there is. Creationism belongs with the other fairy tales and horror stories that make up religious education; and religious education belongs in church, not in school.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 22, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 501 - 550 of 610 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

501. Comment #236781 by henning on August 25, 2008 at 10:09 am

"What programme were these people watching? I saw none of this. It is quite clear that Richard Dawkins has learned his lesson from previous programmes and tries to subdue his personal annoyance at the wilful ignorance he encounters."

I think this was a very good article. When I've seen for example Root of All Evil? with friends, some have thought that Dawkins becomes too annoyed and aggressive when talking too, say Ted Haggard. Personally, I completely understand Dawkins' reaction when talking to such complete idiots. I agree though, that it seems like he tried to keep it more cool on The Genius of Darwin. Either way works for me, but I guess it might be a better promotion for our side if we can be calm in discussions. But I also think that that is up to anyone to decide for themselves.

Go Dawkins! Another great TV series!

Other Comments by henning

502. Comment #236792 by isthatclear on August 25, 2008 at 10:24 am

Yes Mr dawkins

We are still waiting your explanation or answer; Why did you lie?

Do not trust on your fellow supporters' screamings and swearings. They are lying more when they are trying to save you along with a very profound display of atheistic personalities.

Well?

Other Comments by isthatclear

503. Comment #236794 by isthatclear on August 25, 2008 at 10:27 am

Figures reflect the truth. Winning comes along with. And you lovely Dawkins started it. Isn't it? But he lied and now we wait for his reply; how did he lie as an educator and scientific person(!)?

Other Comments by isthatclear

504. Comment #236798 by Ishruul on August 25, 2008 at 10:37 am

Why on earth fundamentalistic troll always bring their crap here with login name including 'clear'?

And always start 'challenge' or 'duel' and 'live-debated'. Anyone can see they never acknowledge any fact or evidence brought to them for :'My fictious book says I gotta beleive what's in it even if it's non-proovable-bat-shit!'

Still they copy/paste their BELIEFS saying they're proof of the divine.

Go on, keep whatever god's work going. It's such a perfect way to go back being cavemens!

Other Comments by Ishruul

505. Comment #236799 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 10:37 am

499. Comment #236777 by Quine

I think you didn't quite catch my point. Joseph Smith, and Muhammad and such are historical figures, that we have records of, that are not limited to pure myth. Being loosely based on a real person, and being a real person are not the same thing. Do you not agree?

Do you not agree that any mythical figure or god is also probably loosely based on someone? Or even more than one person. Do you not agree that this hardly makes those mythical figures real?

Jesus is not like Joseph Smith, of whom we have records of that are not limited to exaggerated myths.

If the character that Jesus is based on was not from the same place as Jesus, did not share the same parents, or relations, did not say the same things, and did not live the same life, then in what sense are they the same person?

Ah, he also definitely wasn't a white guy with blue eyes. So there would be no physical resemblance either.

Other Comments by Wosret

506. Comment #236800 by asyouwere on August 25, 2008 at 10:39 am

re isthatclear

I think I should post this comment here as well.

When the American Disabilities Act came into law back in the 90's, government agencies, corporations, schools, etc., were given seminars on the legal implications of providing certain compensations for the disabled in our society.

The host of the seminar at my company recounted a question that had been posed at a previous Q&A session: "What is the differnce between a person who is retarded and one who is simply stupid?"

His answer: "A retarded person knows they're retarded."

Other Comments by asyouwere

507. Comment #236802 by Ishruul on August 25, 2008 at 10:41 am

505. Comment #236799 by Mitchell Gilks

I totally agree with you and also aprove of your avatar (he! he!).

You bring forth an excellent argument here and I wanted to add my own contribution with Alexander the Great.

He got on crusade to elevate himself as a god for he didn't tolerate being just human. Like most religious people who can't stand the reality that they are not supernaturally 'special'.

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

Other Comments by Ishruul

508. Comment #236976 by isthatclear on August 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm

(EVOLUTION is stupid and that's all there is to it. There is no equivalence with science, and we must resist the claim that there is. aTHEISM belongs with the other fairy tales and horror stories.)

i guess gentleman made a typo. reason and science corrected it. Here are the characters of that horrrible story:

Genies
blind blindwatcmaker
methinking
evolution tree
fabricated fossils
menotthinking

don't ya think?

That ;s why the students are scared in this genius of Darwin program.

Mr dawkins, if you want to swear, just do it to relax as your followers do it since you cannot give any logical answer and explain your lies. Don't keep it inside

Other Comments by isthatclear

509. Comment #237040 by SRWB on August 25, 2008 at 6:43 pm

isthatclear,

Could you perhaps post something that isn't encoded? At least that way we might be able to communicate with you without first resorting to breaking the code. Most of us are busy and would just prefer to deal with your arguments, which I'm sure are otherwise very coherent and convincing. Please stop sending us encrypted messages.

Thanks.

Other Comments by SRWB

510. Comment #237042 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Baka! Hontou ni baka, zenzen.

Other Comments by Wosret

511. Comment #237059 by secondsoprano on August 25, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Mitchell: Voellig richtig. Der Typ is total verrueckt.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

512. Comment #237068 by Wosret on August 25, 2008 at 9:22 pm

511. Comment #237059 by secondsoprano

Prove it!

Other Comments by Wosret

513. Comment #237108 by secondsoprano on August 25, 2008 at 11:05 pm

512 comment by Mitchell Gilks

Easy. Nothing he says makes any sense to me, therefore he's mad. Argument from Incredulity. QED.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

514. Comment #237258 by isthatclear on August 26, 2008 at 9:09 am

dear evolins

I asked very simple question to Mr dawkins? Why did he lie or why did he need to lie? Is this really confusing what I am asking? Or I have to say it in Italian language? I quoted the truth about Nobel winners. So why is he lying? My students and I need just an answer. Insulting or acting dummy or playing three monkeys is not scientific, isn't it? Is it too much to ask Mr dawkins why he lied?

Other Comments by isthatclear

515. Comment #237267 by clatz on August 26, 2008 at 9:28 am

Yawn

Other Comments by clatz

516. Comment #237268 by J Mac on August 26, 2008 at 9:28 am

Is that clear,

I will respond this time as you have actually taken the time to form complete sentences.

"Is this really confusing what I am asking?"

In this last post it is not confusing. In all your previous posts, yes quite confusing. Your posts have been garbled gibberish at best.

But now in a moment of clear typing you accuse professor Dawkins of lying, without reference to what you believe he lied about. Also note that the man you accuse of lying has undoubtedly worked hard to get where he is, referring to someone as "Mr dawkins" when they have earned a doctoral degree and spent a career educating others is insulting. If you wish to be informal everyone here will understand reference to Richard Dawkins, or just RD. If you are going to be more formal the appropriate titles would be Dr Dawkins or Professor Dawkins.

Now, if you can in similarly clear language state what you believe he lied about perhaps you will get a response. If you cannot clearly make your claim then you should remove your insult and apologize.

Other Comments by J Mac

517. Comment #237271 by Tyler Durden on August 26, 2008 at 9:32 am

isthatclear/wooter,

what age group are the students that you "teach"?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

518. Comment #237272 by Wosret on August 26, 2008 at 9:32 am

514. Comment #237258 by isthatclear

Why do you beat your wife and molest your children?

Other Comments by Wosret

519. Comment #237332 by Quine on August 26, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #236799 by Mitchell Gilks:

I think you didn't quite catch my point. Joseph Smith, and Muhammad and such are historical figures, that we have records of, that are not limited to pure myth. Being loosely based on a real person, and being a real person are not the same thing. Do you not agree?

Please remember that I originally stated that I think that the Jesus of Christianity is mythical. You can decide what you want "based on" to mean. I recall being a small child and arguing with my mother that Superman had to be real because he was "based on the original character" (I lost that one).

Do you not agree that any mythical figure or god is also probably loosely based on someone? Or even more than one person. Do you not agree that this hardly makes those mythical figures real?

Mythical figures are not real, independent of the source of the idea.

Jesus is not like Joseph Smith, of whom we have records of that are not limited to exaggerated myths.

The records we have re Joseph Smith are much more solid, and that is partially because the events are some 1800 years closer to our time. We have records and writings for the early development of Christianity after the time of the historical Jesus, but very little independent information about his life. I contend that there is enough to make the non-existence theorists go back and do a better job.

If the character that Jesus is based on was not from the same place as Jesus, did not share the same parents, or relations, did not say the same things, and did not live the same life, then in what sense are they the same person?

Again, I am not interested in the degree to which the mythical Jesus is or is not "based on" the historical man who's religious following later evolved (in the memetic sense) into Christianity. I am interested in the process by which that evolution happened and how it has left us with all these superstitions and baseless ideas today.

Ah, he also definitely wasn't a white guy with blue eyes. So there would be no physical resemblance either.

Of course; so what? A myth can be anything folks want it to be. That is why we do not want things like science "based on" or otherwise controlled by myths.

Other Comments by Quine

520. Comment #237396 by Wosret on August 26, 2008 at 12:21 pm

519. Comment #237332 by Quine

Simply put, then I contend that Jesus never existed. Any historical figure that he may be based on does not change this.

Also, the whole thing about the time period is irrelevant. It may be an explanation for why there is no historical evidence for Jesus, but it isn't an excuse. Also, John the baptist was contemporaneous with Jesus, and he warranted recognition and discussion by historians of the day. As did several other characters in Palestine at the time. Jesus would have had to have been far less influential than any of them, in order to be so thoroughly ignored.

Other Comments by Wosret

521. Comment #237414 by Quine on August 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Comment #237396 by Mitchell Gilks:

Jesus would have had to have been far less influential than any of them, in order to be so thoroughly ignored.

Yes, I agree. Significant influence does not happen until Saul of Tarsus gets into the picture decades later.

Other Comments by Quine

522. Comment #237427 by Xenotion on August 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm

I wish Dawkins was not as famous as he is. If he wasn't, this documentary could have been made exactly as it was and critics of Dawkins might have actually watched it. Or at least they wouldn't have watched it through anti-Dawkins spectacles. As soon as the name Dawkins comes up, people FREAK OUT. I can't stand it! The poor man is only saying what MANY have been saying since our species first invented the notion of God... that our species invented the notion of God!

-Xenotion

(Xeno- meaning NEW, FOREIGN or DIFFERENT, and a -notion meaning an IDEA or THOUGHT)

Other Comments by Xenotion

523. Comment #238334 by isthatclear on August 28, 2008 at 2:28 am

J mac

(In this last post it is not confusing. In all your previous posts, yes quite confusing. Your posts have been garbled gibberish at best.)

Respect is earned not asked for it. Mr Dawkins insulted all believers very often by mocking them, so,if he does not respect others, he will not receive any respect from others either. That is very simple.

(you accuse professor Dawkins of lying,)

Accusation is something you blame on someone without any proof. But mine is not accusation, Honour!

In your lecture, you clamed that only eight believers had noble prizes. But anyone who can google can find the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, an objective one. So why are you lying? Will it help to prove that we came from the worm? The same distortion is for the population of the atheists in the states. Prove me if I am wrong.

The believers who received Noble prizes.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

Still you don't get it join the club of being evasive or three monkeys.

To Mitchell Glitts

(Why do you beat your wife and molest your children?)

You do the same to your family so that you think or advice same thing to others? Two blind men story? Remember? One eats two meatballs and he thinks that other one east two meatballs at one go. Nice avatar and matches with your comments. Good riddance.

Other Comments by isthatclear

524. Comment #238339 by Philip1978 on August 28, 2008 at 2:46 am

itsnotclear

But you still don't share any of your expert knowledge with us, if you would only be so kind as to impart this amazing "truth" of yours in a proper scientific manner, that would be nice.

Of course you do know admitting to having this "truth" you are making a claim that you are better than all the experts who have studied science for longer than I have been alive.

Of course, if we found out that you didn't know what you are doing and that talking out of your arse is all you could manage, well, I suggest you shut up.

If I asked Richard Dawkins to explain the evolution of the eye for example, he would probably direct me to the right chapter in Climbing Mount Improbable where he explains in great detail how the eye evolved.

If I was to ask you how the eye came to be what it is today, could you do as good a job?

I doubt it very much, but I give you this chance to prove me and the experts wrong...

Other Comments by Philip1978

525. Comment #238343 by epeeist on August 28, 2008 at 2:57 am

Comment #238334 by isthatclear

The believers who received Noble(sic) prizes.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

The first one in their list is Einstein who they have as "Jewish" (is this really a religious denomination, or is it an ethnic one?). Given all the quotations from Einstein showing that he didn't believe in a personal god then this is obviously dishonest. The same can be said about the inclusion of Darwin. He might have been raised as an Anglican, but he certainly wasn't a practising Christian at the end of his life.

They also have Abdus Salam who was a member of the Ahmadis sect. However, this was declared to be non-Muslim by the Pakistani national assembly. When he was buried the inscription on his tomb initially read First Muslim Nobel Laureate but the word Muslim was later erased on the order of a local magistrate.

Now you have Christians, Muslims and Jews in the list. Let us add in Srinivasa Ramanujan, who was a Hindu. If the proposition is that because these people believed then some kind of god must exist then one must ask which of the conflicting stories is true.

In actual fact the whole thing is a prime example of both argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad numerum. Just because you can name a few scientists who believe in god does not prove that god exists.

Other Comments by epeeist

526. Comment #238344 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 2:57 am

The believers who received Noble prizes.

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

Well, as the very first person on the list is Albert Einstein, who once wrote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

and

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this

So I guess we can conclude that this is yet another example of 'Lying for Jesus', eh?

And it takes some nerve to include Darwin on the list of 'Founders of Modern Science' who believe(d) in God. Sheesh!

Edit: I see Epeeist beat me to it.

Other Comments by SteveN

527. Comment #238352 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 3:08 am

It occurs to me that if the faithheads are going to claim as their own anyone who at some point in their life was a believer (as they do with Darwin in the list mentioned above) then we are equally justified in claiming anyone who was at some point not a believer to be on our side. As everyone is born without belief in god, we can therefore claim every pope and bishop, plus Mohammed and Jesus to be 'famous atheists' ;-)

Other Comments by SteveN

528. Comment #238356 by epeeist on August 28, 2008 at 3:15 am

Comment #238344 by SteveN

Edit: I see Epeeist beat me to it.

No hassle, you provided some quotations which show the list is wrong.

If we are in to willy waving then wooter might like to have a glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

Given that this list is obviously bigger than his list of adherents then god obviously doesn't exist.

Other Comments by epeeist

529. Comment #238358 by Great Panda on August 28, 2008 at 3:17 am

Richard Dawkins is simply the greatest genius that has ever lived. I would gladly have mutant man-bear children with him.

Other Comments by Great Panda

530. Comment #238363 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 3:30 am

I submitted this last night, but it hasn't appeared yet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7583845.stm

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

531. Comment #238370 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 3:47 am

Peace,

My favourite parts of that article:

In this country the laws are very different from those in Pakistan. If you want children to perform this act, then take them to Pakistan.

Which is a brilliant thing to be quoted as saying.

And, for sheer nonsense:

But he admitted many men who become very emotional during the ceremony still beat themselves and if children wanted to take part too they were not stopped.

He said: "How can you stop a child who wants to do this for his faith? We cannot discourage or stop them.

What?! Don't take children to the ceremony. Explain to them that only adults should be doing it. If I go to the pub with my niece and start indulging in a nice pint of Strongbow, is it the case that I cannot discourage or stop her from drinking cider, too? What a load of nonsense these religious people spout; seemingly all the damn time.

Other Comments by Sargeist

532. Comment #238382 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 4:15 am

Sargeist

What?! Don't take children to the ceremony. Explain to them that only adults should be doing it. If I go to the pub with my niece and start indulging in a nice pint of Strongbow, is it the case that I cannot discourage or stop her from drinking cider, too? What a load of nonsense these religious people spout; seemingly all the damn time.

Well said. Lets not forget that a pint of cider would do considerably less damage than the weapon they were using: A whip with 5 sharp knives attached. Something that surely should be illegal under the Offensive Weapons Act anyway.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

533. Comment #238391 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 4:26 am

Peace,

A whip with 5 sharp knives attached. Something that surely should be illegal under the Offensive Weapons Act anyway.

Just to be a pedant... Does the Offensive Weapons Act cover things that are owned and used privately? I know that I am not permitted to legally carry a knife outside (without good reason) if it has a blade longer than 3 inches (I think that's right), but of course my kitchen is full of big scary knives that are perfectly legal.

Also, there would no doubt be a religious exemption applied, as in the case of the Sikh dagger thingy. Not that I agree with that, of course.

While on the topic (as I am, anyway) of Sikhs: why is the turban apparently so important? Why not just have long hair in a pony tail? Why have a silly looking bun bundled up on top of the head? I don't understand. Of course, people ought to be free to wear silly buns if they want, notwithstanding the issue around crash helmets, of course.

Other Comments by Sargeist

534. Comment #238395 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 4:48 am

I've been trying to find out in which talk Richard stated that "only eight believers had noble prizes" I am interested to know the circumstances and the context. Does anybody (isthatclear?) know where I can find it?

Cheers,

Steve

Other Comments by SteveN

535. Comment #238397 by Warlock on August 28, 2008 at 5:12 am

Absolutely bang on the nail. It is about time however that we all stopped this polite deference to medieval ignorance and arch stupidity. If we all railed against it then Dawkins' voice would not appear remotely strident it would simply be the same voice as everyone else.

Other Comments by Warlock

536. Comment #238398 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 5:15 am

Just to be a pedant... Does the Offensive Weapons Act cover things that are owned and used privately? I know that I am not permitted to legally carry a knife outside (without good reason) if it has a blade longer than 3 inches (I think that's right), but of course my kitchen is full of big scary knives that are perfectly legal.

The Criminal Justice Act covers possession of knives in public. You must have 'good reason', by e.g. being a chef, or a Sikh...

The Offensive Weapons Act does actually ban certain knives from sale, but this only covers flick knives and gravity knives.

So a 5-bladed whip is perfectly ok!

Sikhs: why is the turban apparently so important?

Isn't it something about not showing your hair to god? Apparently god has trouble seeing through a decent piece of cloth.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

537. Comment #238402 by Vaal on August 28, 2008 at 5:29 am

536. Comment #238398 by Peacebeuponme

Isn't it something about not showing your hair to god? Apparently god has trouble seeing through a decent piece of cloth.

What? God has less powers than Superman?

Makes you wonder why if God is so offended by hair, and foreskins, why we are born with them. Not much of a designer, is he?

EDIT: Now, I might almost be convinced of the existence of God if all Jews were born without foreskins, and converts from Judaism grew theirs back.

Other Comments by Vaal

538. Comment #238403 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 5:30 am

I shall probably find the time at some point to do a little reading about the turban (although I do have much more interesting things to read!) but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was another example of those "god is all-powerful, but just like us, really" moments. Like how god needed sacrifices, even though he doesn't need to eat.

Didn't Christopher Hitchens mention something in his book about nuns having to cover themselves with a sheet during their ablutions, even though god would have to have been able to look through the ceiling of the room in order to find out they were bathing in the first place?

Other Comments by Sargeist

539. Comment #238407 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 5:40 am

Vaal,

I can see an argument that god gave us hair and foreskins so that he could demand that we cover/remove them, thereby seeing how much we like him.

My problem with these rules about hair and food and other things like that is that people almost inevitably end up focusing only on those rules, to the neglect of the "be nice to people" parts of religion. Easy to cover your head, hard to be nice.

This explains why I see so many women walking around town wearing a headscarf, but also wearing a tight pair of jeans or trousers that makes them look like they've become possessed by the phantom head and bum swapper. This hair covering thing doesn't seem to be all that important, if I can see that you're practically cut in half by the crotch of your jeans, and I can see the imprint of your frilly bra.

\begin{cold shower}

Other Comments by Sargeist

540. Comment #238412 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 5:54 am

My problem with these rules about hair and food and other things like that is that people almost inevitably end up focusing only on those rules, to the neglect of the "be nice to people" parts of religion. Easy to cover your head, hard to be nice.

Yes. Its all about the impact on one's life. The religious do the things that don't impact them, but find excuses where they do.

There is a great recent quote from a young christian athlete in the UK. He doesn't run on a Sunday because of his faith. He was asked if he would take a stand as Jonathan Edwards did and not compete in World Championships and the like on a Sunday. No, he said, I don't think god would be worried about me competing on a Sunday. He would not want me to train only to miss out on gold medals.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

541. Comment #238416 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 5:58 am

Peace,

That is quite funny, and a good example of how the religious can still continue to justify anything they want within the apparent requirements of their god.

The good thing about Jonathan Edwards is that he came to his senses about god-belief:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article1991114.ece

Other Comments by Sargeist

542. Comment #238420 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 6:10 am

The good thing about Jonathan Edwards is that he came to his senses

Shhh. Don't tell David Robertson. Its only supposed to happen the other way around.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

543. Comment #238422 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 6:14 am

Peace,

In true McGrath mode I can honestly say "I used to be a Christian, and now I am an atheist."

Of course, I was only 13 when I stopped going to church, but I *must* have been a Christian, right?

I often wonder about where my rampant atheism came from. I have tried tracing back my memories of being outspokenly non-believing, but get a bit lost back around A-levels. I don't want to say that it was down to the Selfish Gene, because that sounds clichéd, but it might well have been.

Other Comments by Sargeist

544. Comment #238450 by Mark Jones on August 28, 2008 at 7:15 am

re Jonathan Edwards

Note the many Christians in the comments (at Times online) aghast at JE's apostasy. A common comment is that he wasn't really a believer, then. This is another regular tactic, also adopted by the FCOS folk; they suggest that if you have 'become' an atheist when once a believer, then you just didn't believe in the correct manner before.

A typical comment:
"If you knew God he can not stop existing to you no more than you or I could because he would be real.This man had religion not God. He never knew God. When you know someone you know they are real."

It's difficult to know how such a 'knowing' of a being would differ from a mental disturbance. Apparently real beings are a well documented symptom of such illnesses (Harvey!); what could possibly distinguish the religious experience from psychotic episodes, without evidence?

Furthermore JE looked as much of a god botherer as any I've seen. Is there any way we can identify the 'fake' believers? That way we needn't engage them in debate; we can just say it's clear that you aren't *actually* a believer, stop wasting my time.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

545. Comment #238461 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 7:38 am

In true McGrath mode I can honestly say "I used to be a Christian, and now I am an atheist.".

More needs to be made of such conversions. McGrath, Collins, C. S. Lewis all used to be atheists don't you know. They used to be young hot-headed idealists until thiking theists asked them searching questions...

I often wonder about where my rampant atheism came from.

I can tell you exactly when mine started. It was learning about "Doubting Thomas" in junior school. The teachers told the story and we were supposed to treat his actions as negative. Just seemed all backwards to me. As I saw it, he was doing exactly the right thing: questionning and investigating. I was annoyed because surely those were virtues they should have been teaching us? I've been pretty close to a 7 on the Dawkins Scale ever since.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

546. Comment #239287 by Cobra in the fire on August 29, 2008 at 11:48 am

I would say that these liberal minded individuals who employ their relativism in support of the religious need to be shown a dose of reality.

We need to ask them how they would feel about some of the practises used in the name of female chastity in some countries. Destroying a large part of a womans ability to take pleasure in an act of love is revolting.
Or how about little boys being circumsised without anaesthetic or a choice.

I can't believe we still allow such barbarity to continue...in the name of cultural respect? This is a slippery slope.
What next, shall we allow people from a different country to have private relations with a 12 year old in our country because that's what they do in their culture? No way, like hell! There is a line and it needs to be drawn.

Other Comments by Cobra in the fire

547. Comment #239467 by Teratornis on August 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Comment #235003 by Richard Dawkins:

That is a bloody lie. I tried to persuade those children to abandon their belief in CREATIONISM. That is NOT the same as persuading them to become atheists. I was scrupulously careful to do no such thing.

For what it's worth, when I abandoned my belief in creationism, in due course I also abandoned my belief in religion.

I suspect this is because I had already been raised to believe that all other religions were wrong, so I agreed with atheists on that score. I was hardly going to pick up some other religion that could seem more compatible with science, once the religion of my upbringing became untenable. I had already been convinced that all other religions were phony scams.

Once I learned how science kicks the legs of the table out from under my particular religious indoctrination, I lacked the indoctrination to get sucked in by some other religion which might have been OK with evolution.

I don't know how representative I am, but I suspect a lot of creationists have their creationism closely tied with their religion - why else would creationists pour so many resources into fighting science in the schools and legal system, when they could more easily adjust their religion to be compatible with science? It may be really hard for people to adjust their religions once they are set in them.

Edit: this is why I laughed when I read Gould's proposal for NOMA. Gould seemed naive beyond belief, as if he had no understanding of the psychology of religion. Gould's NOMA proposal seeks to confine religion to issues that science hasn't figured out yet, completely ignoring the deep emotional attachments religious people have formed with the specific doctrines to which they have been indoctrinated. People cannot simply rearrange their religions like the deck furniture, according to what some atheist scientist like Gould says is the proper domain of religion.

The fact that Ken Miller finds a way to harmonize evolution with his faith probably doesn't apply to people with my upbringing. Miller was probably raised differently. For me, it was pretty much "if evolution is right, religion is wrong" because I only believed in one religion. A religion which opposes science.

In some fundamentalist Christian circles, there are questions about whether Catholics like Ken Miller are even going to heaven. See those hilarious cartoons by Jack Chick, for example.

When I promote science, even if I don't intend to attack the faith of people who have drawn a faith-based line in the sand against evolution, I'm attacking their faith anyway, and I'm well aware of it.

Thus I would say that even though Richard was not seeking to undermine the faith of children simply by teaching them some science, the other side has drawn the battle lines in such a way that it is very difficult if not impossible to teach these children some science without undermining their faith. If these children realize their parents and religious authority figures taught them nonsense about the hugely important question of where life comes from, it would be natural for these children to question other aspects of their indoctrination. Once they start questioning, the whole house of cards can easily come down, since religion depends on mindlessly accepting everything one is told, without any evidence.

By analogy, imagine if there was some person who spoke a language in which a word we would regard as an offensive slur was just some innocent word. That person could go around saying the word and inadvertently upsetting lots of people. (This scenario has been played for comic effect, such as in the Monty Python bit where some jokers rewrote the phrasebooks for foreign tourists, who then went about saying things such as "I want to fondle your buttocks" in halting English to restaurant waiters.)

Who is responsible for the misunderstanding in that situation? Neither party is wholly to blame, nor wholly innocent. Of course the outside observer will tend to side with whichever party he or she more closely identifies with.

Thus to scientists it seems absurd that anyone should feel threatened by teaching children some science, but to people whose brains have been shaped their whole lives by a religious tradition that contradicts science, the act of teaching science to children could easily seem subversive and sinister.

There are lots of things we can say that are technically correct, but which lots of people just cannot process. For example, it is technically correct to call motorists "gaswasting terrorist supporters," but no mere accounting of the physical, geological, and geopolitical facts will enable the typical motorist to view his actions correctly i.e. negatively. The self-favoring cognitive bias of humans is just too strong. It prevents most people from overcoming or even recognizing their cognitive blind spots.

I suspect the tendency of so many atheists to want to distance themselves from people like Richard Dawkins is that they don't want to have to have these arguments with religious people. It's something like the way Muslims, Jews, and Christians have managed to live alongside each other for centuries in various parts of the world, without much trouble, until somehow they become aware of the depths of their disagreements, and then everyone realizes which side they are on. We could probably do a game theory analysis on it. Once you become conscious that there is an opposing side, then you may have to think about making some kind of preemptive strike, so as not to be caught out by the other side striking first.

Edit: religion is just incredibly divisive. It's very difficult to have any kind of productive discussion on the topic with people who believe differently. In pluralistic societies, people have learned it is best not to poke at that hornet's nest, even if a few hornets come out and sting one now and then. Poking at the nest will only unleash hundreds more in an angry swarm.

There may be a kind of positive feedback cycle of intolerance, and people may have a strong reluctance to get it started. This could lead to a willingness to bend over backward to avoid giving offense when the other side has some particular sensitivities.

But at the same time, the machine of science must continue to roll on, and if some religion happens to get in the way, it's hard to steer the machine of science around them. Thus I suspect the atheists with no stomach for a fight had better develop one, because the fight is coming in any case.

Other Comments by Teratornis

548. Comment #239474 by Diacanu on August 29, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Teratornis-

I lacked the indoctrination to get sucked in by some other religion which might have been OK with evolution.

Nah, but you're a dogmatist for your radical environmentalist agenda, and I've seen you be as much as an inflexible, petty, capricious weasel for that, as fundies get for their Jesus shit.

Hmm, must be a personality type thing.

Would be interesting to run you through a cat scan, see what's up.

Other Comments by Diacanu

549. Comment #239476 by Teratornis on August 29, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Comment #239287 by Cobra:

I would say that these liberal minded individuals who employ their relativism in support of the religious need to be shown a dose of reality.

Every human is in denial about some aspects of reality.

For example, earlier in this thread Steve Zara ridiculed the perfectly reasonable question as to why gay men insist on having sex (occasionally this even includes unprotected, promiscuous sex with strangers) despite the high risk of infection with HIV.

A friend of mine who happens to be gay told me some years ago that he wasn't going to have sex again until science found a cure for AIDS. I haven't checked with him recently to see how his resolve is holding up, but at least he was able to rationally weigh his desire to have sex against his desire to stay alive.

People have given up sex for dumber reasons. It's not outside the realm of human possibility.

We need to ask them how they would feel about some of the practises used in the name of female chastity in some countries. Destroying a large part of a womans ability to take pleasure in an act of love is revolting.

Sure, but what can we do about it? The only way to stop such practices is to invade these countries militarily and impose police state rule on them.

The U.S. couldn't even manage to outlaw booze in the U.S. effectively, and booze doesn't have a religion behind it.

People around the world do all sorts of horrifying things to themselves or other people, but what can we do about it? See how the world's sole superpower has gotten itself bogged down in a bloody protracted mess in Iraq, just to knock off one dictator. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. tried to change the Iraqis' religions.

Or how about little boys being circumsised without anaesthetic or a choice.

Having been a victim of that particular barbarity, I struggle to associate any sort of emotional trauma with it, since I have absolutely no ability to recall it. I couldn't equate male circumcision with the genital mutilation of girls, who are old enough to remember it, and who lose actually functional body parts.

I can't believe we still allow such barbarity to continue...in the name of cultural respect? This is a slippery slope.

So what's the alternative? Communism? That's the only political movement which has successfully crushed any religions in recent times.

Once we decide it's OK for one group to impose their beliefs on another group by force, then we've created a nice huge slippery slope going the other way.

What next, shall we allow people from a different country to have private relations with a 12 year old in our country because that's what they do in their culture? No way, like hell! There is a line and it needs to be drawn.

You have more leeway when it comes to forcing your views on immigrants, just from a practical standpoint. If someone wants to enter your country, you can impose conditions on them. However, once you let enough immigrants in, they start to become a political force, and then it starts becoming similar to the problem of forcing all the people in Iraq or Ethiopia to conform to your cultural tastes.

We live in cultures which have their own horrors. Just yesterday I was watching the news, and it showed a large truck (lorry) which had overturned on an SUV, crushing three sisters who were traveling through my town, killing one and severely injuring the other two. The truck driver was being cited for some sort of violation, since he was at fault for the accident. There was also a report of a drunk driver who killed a mother and her daughter. I see reports like this every time I watch the local news. It's like a small war going on at all times on the highways.

We can pretend that this constant slaughter on the highways is just "accidental," but there's nothing accidental about it in a statistical sense. The rate of slaughter is a predictable function of policies and resource allocation. If we wanted the highways to become less violent we could certainly reduce the violence. But that would mean accepting lower speed limits, more policing, harder driver's tests, sobriety checkpoints, more costs for safety equipment, harsher penalties for violators, and so on.

Just from a practical standpoint, it's easier to address our own shortcomings before we go around lecturing to the rest of the world. Let's show the child-mutilators that we know how to stop slaughtering people on our own highways, and then we'll have the moral authority to comment on others.

How about the roughly 100,000 Americans killed each year by booze? Or the 300,000 killed by obesity? Or the 400,000 killed by tobacco? The U.S. has fantastically horrid substance abuse problems, which create massive amounts of mortality and morbidity. Other "advanced" nations pay similar prices for their vices.

It's laughable for us to pretend we're much better than anyone else. We are just as lame as the rest of the world, when it comes to admitting our mistakes and doing something about them.

Other Comments by Teratornis

550. Comment #239480 by Diacanu on August 29, 2008 at 5:58 pm