Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud
by Calgary Herald
Thanks to Justin Deveau for the link.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=dd4d9e9f-e2b3-4789-8222-3a06d507d724
It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment
Barry Cooper, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The shining example of free thinking said to characterize the French Enlightenment was Voltaire. In the face of dogmatic clerics, both Protestant and Catholic, he urged reasonable people everywhere to "crush the infamous thing."
His argument was as obvious then as it is today: organized religion not only divides humanity into believers and infidels, it authorizes the former, with a beatific smile, to extinguish the latter. Often religion claims to be doing so for the good of the infidel.
That Voltaire had Christianity in mind is indicated by a rather more vulgar expression from his pen: "the people will not be free until the last king is strangled in the guts of the last priest."
Modern would-be Voltaires such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins are just as strident in their hatred of religion in general and revealed religion in particular.
For my money, their arguments don't amount to a hill of beans. They simply oppose one dogma with another. Truth to tell, such analysis as they advance has little to do with serious and existentially commanding descriptions of religious experience. Their questions like those of the village atheist are just plain silly: can an omnipotent God make a rock bigger than he can lift?
So the question that comes to mind is: why are they shouting so loudly?
The two most obvious explanations are, first, that they think their opponents are so powerful that they must amplify their own arguments just to get a hearing.
Second, they know full well that their own arguments are so weak that they have to obscure this fact with a high-decibel diversion.
True, these "evangelical atheists," as Roger Scruton called them, do think religion is both powerful and malign. They can point to Islamists for contemporary proof, but add that the current crop of fanatics has hordes of angelic predecessors, stretching back to antiquity.
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment, even (or especially) among those who see in their religion a command to love their neighbours, including neighbours as obnoxious as these atheist critics.
In short, the atheists' dogmatism is as much an expression of the weakness of their position as is the dogmatism of the believers.
We can see it all on a daily basis, played out in the letters pages of this and many other newspapers, with the heated and mutual denunciations of the atheist Darwinians versus the Creationists of the supporters of Intelligent Design.
To use Dawkins' formula, we are machines that ensure the survival of our genes, which are nothing but complicated molecules that obey the laws of organic chemistry. They emerged one fine day, the story goes, from the primordial soup. How that actually happened in detail is so far unknown, but science, not religion, will one day explain.
What Dawkins and his pals don't seem to get is that religious people are quite happy to think of themselves, for purposes of genetic biology, as survival machines for genes. But they have a few other questions to ask.
They wonder, for example, where the first gene, selfish or not, came from. Or, if it came from the soup, where did the soup come from? Or the universe as a whole?
When the atheists reply, "The Big Bang," the curious have one more question: what caused the Big Bang?
The answer of physicists is clear: close to the "time" of the Big Bang, the number of unknowns in our matrix of mathematical equations is greater than the number of knowns. This means there is no unique mathematical solution. Which is to say: if there is an answer, physics cannot provide it.
Karl Marx, who was equally dogmatic regarding such questions, said that even raising such questions was a waste of time. They were, he said, "abstract."
And then he told his inquirer to shut up. "Socialist man," he famously declared, "does not ask such questions." That is probably true. Socialist man does not wonder about where it all came from.
The problem, however, is that some people find raising the question, even if they don't know the answer, a meaningful act. They are going to wonder about such things whether Marx or Christopher Hitchens approves.
Wondering means tolerating mysteries. Interestingly enough, it was Socrates, not some religious fanatic so pilloried by the evangelical atheists, who said that philosophy begins in wonder.
Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide. No wonder they shout so much.
Barry Cooper, PhD, is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=dd4d9e9f-e2b3-4789-8222-3a06d507d724
It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment
Barry Cooper, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The shining example of free thinking said to characterize the French Enlightenment was Voltaire. In the face of dogmatic clerics, both Protestant and Catholic, he urged reasonable people everywhere to "crush the infamous thing."
His argument was as obvious then as it is today: organized religion not only divides humanity into believers and infidels, it authorizes the former, with a beatific smile, to extinguish the latter. Often religion claims to be doing so for the good of the infidel.
That Voltaire had Christianity in mind is indicated by a rather more vulgar expression from his pen: "the people will not be free until the last king is strangled in the guts of the last priest."
Modern would-be Voltaires such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins are just as strident in their hatred of religion in general and revealed religion in particular.
For my money, their arguments don't amount to a hill of beans. They simply oppose one dogma with another. Truth to tell, such analysis as they advance has little to do with serious and existentially commanding descriptions of religious experience. Their questions like those of the village atheist are just plain silly: can an omnipotent God make a rock bigger than he can lift?
So the question that comes to mind is: why are they shouting so loudly?
The two most obvious explanations are, first, that they think their opponents are so powerful that they must amplify their own arguments just to get a hearing.
Second, they know full well that their own arguments are so weak that they have to obscure this fact with a high-decibel diversion.
True, these "evangelical atheists," as Roger Scruton called them, do think religion is both powerful and malign. They can point to Islamists for contemporary proof, but add that the current crop of fanatics has hordes of angelic predecessors, stretching back to antiquity.
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment, even (or especially) among those who see in their religion a command to love their neighbours, including neighbours as obnoxious as these atheist critics.
In short, the atheists' dogmatism is as much an expression of the weakness of their position as is the dogmatism of the believers.
We can see it all on a daily basis, played out in the letters pages of this and many other newspapers, with the heated and mutual denunciations of the atheist Darwinians versus the Creationists of the supporters of Intelligent Design.
To use Dawkins' formula, we are machines that ensure the survival of our genes, which are nothing but complicated molecules that obey the laws of organic chemistry. They emerged one fine day, the story goes, from the primordial soup. How that actually happened in detail is so far unknown, but science, not religion, will one day explain.
What Dawkins and his pals don't seem to get is that religious people are quite happy to think of themselves, for purposes of genetic biology, as survival machines for genes. But they have a few other questions to ask.
They wonder, for example, where the first gene, selfish or not, came from. Or, if it came from the soup, where did the soup come from? Or the universe as a whole?
When the atheists reply, "The Big Bang," the curious have one more question: what caused the Big Bang?
The answer of physicists is clear: close to the "time" of the Big Bang, the number of unknowns in our matrix of mathematical equations is greater than the number of knowns. This means there is no unique mathematical solution. Which is to say: if there is an answer, physics cannot provide it.
Karl Marx, who was equally dogmatic regarding such questions, said that even raising such questions was a waste of time. They were, he said, "abstract."
And then he told his inquirer to shut up. "Socialist man," he famously declared, "does not ask such questions." That is probably true. Socialist man does not wonder about where it all came from.
The problem, however, is that some people find raising the question, even if they don't know the answer, a meaningful act. They are going to wonder about such things whether Marx or Christopher Hitchens approves.
Wondering means tolerating mysteries. Interestingly enough, it was Socrates, not some religious fanatic so pilloried by the evangelical atheists, who said that philosophy begins in wonder.
Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide. No wonder they shout so much.
Barry Cooper, PhD, is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | PermalinkComments 151 - 200 of 240 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers152. Comment #238348 by V'Ger on August 28, 2008 at 3:01 am
"When the atheists reply, "The Big Bang," the curious have one more question: what caused the Big Bang? "The really curios investigate, and search for the REAL answers... whereas the religious just jump to a ridiculous conclusion that only begs more, and even more difficult questions. Pointing this out half way through seemed like a pretty stupid move!
"So the question that comes to mind is: why are they shouting so loudly? "
Perhaps they shout because your all so bloody deaf?
Other Comments by V'Ger
153. Comment #238360 by godspot on August 28, 2008 at 3:18 am
these "evangelical atheists," as Roger Scruton called them
The "philosopher" Roger Scruton once stated in an interview that the democratically elected president of Chile Salvador Allende was actually a dictator, and that the bloody coup and subsequent 17 year military dicatorship against him was a democratic expression of the people's will.
That made it real easy for me to value any author using him as a source.
That Voltaire had Christianity in mind is indicated by a rather more vulgar expression from his pen: "the people will not be free until the last king is strangled in the guts of the last priest."
Indeed not Voltaire but Diderot said really in his poem Les Eleutheromanes:
"Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du pretre
Au defaut d'un cordon pour etrangler les rois."
(And his hands would plait the priest's entrails
For want of a rope to strangle kings.)
EDITED to remove weird french accent signs :)
It is believed to be an allusion to a similar comment from Jean Meslier, an interesting figure whether he said this or not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier).
Other Comments by godspot
154. Comment #238361 by jonjermey on August 28, 2008 at 3:23 am
Annoying as they might be, perhaps we should learn to look at articles of this kind as a positive: they show that believers are actually starting to take atheism seriously. Twenty years ago Cooper and his kind would have been too secure in their faith to even notice that there WERE any atheists. Now they are beginning to regard us as a threat. That noise roaring in Cooper's ears is not shouting atheists: it is his heart pounding with fear that he might actually be made to question his comfortable beliefs.Other Comments by jonjermey
155. Comment #238366 by John Locke on August 28, 2008 at 3:37 am
I have submitted a letter to barry cooper.
would most appreciate anyones thoughts on it.
it is in this site's forum as it is long and i didnt want to clog up the discussion here, under "letter to barry cooper"
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55594
Other Comments by John Locke
156. Comment #238374 by Mark Jones on August 28, 2008 at 3:58 am
re John Locke's letter
Excellent reasoned response, although some here may have wanted a few f's and c's thrown in! :)
Shouldn't the Kant quote be "Man's emergence from self-imposed immaturity"?
Other Comments by Mark Jones
157. Comment #238381 by John Locke on August 28, 2008 at 4:13 am
thank you indeed
i have corrected the misquote.
Other Comments by John Locke
158. Comment #238387 by bachfiend on August 28, 2008 at 4:18 am
As Donald Prothero said (in "Evolution, What the Fossils Say...), anyone who sticks PhD after his or her name usually has very little to say (does anyone know what has happened to Dr Kent Hovind PhD lately?) I still remember the stir the Monty Hall problem caused amongst professional mathematicians (many with PhDs) when the correct but counterintuitive solution was published in Parade in September 1990. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problemOther Comments by bachfiend
159. Comment #238388 by lazlow on August 28, 2008 at 4:22 am
The problem, however, is that some people find raising the question, even if they don't know the answer, a meaningful act.
Isn't this what science is about? I mean trying to find answers to questions they DON'T know the answer to. You know, other than "God did it!".
Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide. No wonder they shout so much.
It would be fun to walk around in the world and look at magnificent things and wonder "how did that happen? Or that? Or This?" and instantly answer it "oh, yeah, God did it". I really fail to see the wonder with that.
Other Comments by lazlow
160. Comment #238396 by mixmastergaz on August 28, 2008 at 4:56 am
Does anyone think Dr Cooper himself is persuaded by these 'arguments' (What arguments!? The whole thing is unsubstantiated bluster!)
He repeats the old 'vilage atheist' slander (by the way, I've met the village atheist and it's a misnomer; he's a christian, and a fool to boot) and then treats us to his dodgy version of the old kalam/cosmological argument as if this wooly thinking were original and hadn't been completely and successfully overturned ooh...about two centuries ago.
Cooper is banking on the fact that his readers will be even more stupid than he is and won't notice this article has more holes in it than a lump of Swiss cheese. He patronisingly underestimates the intelligence of his readers whilst flattering them for their wonder!
Nothing new here.
Other Comments by mixmastergaz
161. Comment #238458 by jwdink on August 28, 2008 at 7:29 am
Wow, four pages already.I've seen a couple of people saying they were going to send letters to the editor, which sounds like a great idea. Thanks to rod-the-farmer for the email. I think I'm also going to send a copy to Mr. Cooper's email address.
Other Comments by jwdink
162. Comment #238460 by ~manic-depressive on August 28, 2008 at 7:38 am
Well, let's give him a break; he is after all only a professor of political "science". I wonder if he knows what science means.I've seen a couple of people saying they were going to send letters to the editor, which sounds like a great idea. Thanks to rod-the-farmer for the email. I think I'm also going to send a copy to Mr. Cooper's email address.
Always a good idea. (Although, I think I'll delay my email until I am in a better "mood", lest I send an email that, Jehovah-forbid, gives anyone cause to think I am just another fanatical atheist.)
Other Comments by ~manic-depressive
163. Comment #238462 by Tack on August 28, 2008 at 7:39 am
@rod-the-farmer: reasonably argued rebuttal. However, I too winced when I read that "the Big Bang is only a theory." As a theory, it's surely less developed than Evolution, but the term "only a theory" is one we are fighting hard to extirpate.Other Comments by Tack
164. Comment #238491 by NMcC on August 28, 2008 at 8:38 am
bachfiend:"(does anyone know what has happened to Dr Kent Hovind PhD lately?)"
Last time I heard, he was in jail for tax fraud.
Other Comments by NMcC
165. Comment #238493 by Quetzalcoatl on August 28, 2008 at 8:40 am
Hovind was sentenced to ten years, he won't be getting out for a while yet. Bad news is, apparently his son has simply picked up where he left off. Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
166. Comment #238502 by jwdink on August 28, 2008 at 9:07 am
I made this as short as possible, which makes it very un-thorough. But hopefully it works.To the editor:
There's a lot to address in Mr. Cooper's August 27 article about "shouting Evangelical Atheists." He plays fast and loose with facts (it was Diderot, not Voltaire, who produced the "vulgar" quote), doesn't support his main thesis of "shouting," and uses a tired and impotent argument to justify God's existence--all while maintaining a tone of hypocritical stridence and aplomb that would match his fictitious caricatures any day. It's beyond my abilities to decide which of these faults would be more easily dismantled, so I'd like to briefly attempt to address both problems. I should preface by assuring Mr. Cooper that I am no unwavering fan of the New Atheists, so any obvious and trite metaphor which occurs to him ("Let's think… if Dawkins is a fundamentalist preacher, then this guy is surely one of the faithful followers! Wow! This metaphor is not only original and clever, but also boundless in potential!") should be considered wasted. I've only read one of the books in the "New Atheist" canon, and while this is (I bet) one more than Mr. Cooper has, it's not exactly unflappable fandom.
Nevertheless, I call nonsense when I see it. It's more than annoying when Mr. Cooper refuses to clarify or support his thesis that the New Atheists are "shouting"--it's just bad writing, bad argument, and bad thinking. The raucousness of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, etc. is an oft repeated, but seldom supported assertion (Hitchens excepted--but this is not unique to his writing on atheism). I typically find myself baffled at these assertions of stridence, and the bewildering dearth of good, in-context support; but Mr. Cooper doesn't even deign to give us bad support--for him, the vague and useless "We can see it all on a daily basis…" is more than enough to sustain his point. Certainly there are legitimate criticisms to be dealt to the occasional overstatement or onerous argument, but there is little to no evidence of genuine disrespect, or "shouting." Such labels belong to certain voices in the religion debate, but in a bipartisan manner: Dinesh D'Souza, for example, is just as (if not much more) guilty of metaphorical and literal shouting as any.
Mr. Cooper's aversion to good support, and penchant for arrogant proclamations, extends to his belief in God. "For my money, their arguments don't amount to a hill of beans," he says, as if this is an interesting or helpful opinion. Why does he find arguments against God unconvincing? We return to the well-tread "first-cause" argument, restated with a startling unawareness of its stale and dismantled nature, in an aggravating and enervating tone. Mr. Cooper wonders at the naivety of a big bang without explanation, then commits the philosophical suicide of filling such a gap with the worst possible entity: a mind, which science unequivocally tells us is complex and improbable (ask Libet). If such desperation--arguments which are anathema to parsimony and (hopefully) common-sense alike--is what Mr. Cooper needs for awe and wonder at the universe, then I confess bewilderment. As Douglas Adams famously stated, "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
Sincerely,
Jacob Dink
Thoughts?
Other Comments by jwdink
167. Comment #238506 by rod-the-farmer on August 28, 2008 at 9:21 am
Not quite sure I understand the wincing over my use of "only a theory" about the Big Bang. Is this because the phrase is so often used by anti-evolutionists ? Surely the phrase is accurate enough in the context I used. Guilt by association ? Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
168. Comment #238519 by Dog Boots on August 28, 2008 at 10:03 am
Biggest pile of BS I've ever read on here, and that says a lot."High decibel"!?!?!? May I suggest he watch the debates with Rabbi Schmuley Boteach or maybe Dinesh D'Souza...
Other Comments by Dog Boots
169. Comment #238546 by kaiserkriss on August 28, 2008 at 10:52 am
jwdink:
While I personally think your response is spot on, I doubt the average reader of the Calgary Herald would be able to understand many of your arguments. It unfortunate that, in order to appeal to the masses, one is forced to "dumb down" arguments so that the lowest common denominator of the population can understand it. If I had the time, I would add my 2 cents with a letter to the Editor as well.
Cooper is an embarrassment to the UofC, an institution my son currently attends, albeit in the sciences department. jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
170. Comment #238551 by John Locke on August 28, 2008 at 11:01 am
jwdink
very good letter. particularly like the last paragraph and the adams quote.
in general i think you focus well on the largest singular flaw of cooper's article...sweeping subjective statements not even attemted to be backed up even with opinion.
Other Comments by John Locke
171. Comment #238616 by justncase80 on August 28, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don't like how religious people try to use religious terminology when referring to atheists. They like to call them "evangelical atheists" or "dogmatic". These words clearly have religious implications and they just use them to irritate atheists. Other Comments by justncase80
172. Comment #238621 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 12:21 pm
justncase-What irritates me, is how they get away with using religious terms in a negative connotation without them sticking to THEM.
They're all but admitting religion is dogmatic, evangelical, irrational, barbaric, and kills people.
But, they pull a simple "I know you are but what am I?", and people fucking fall for it.
Other Comments by Diacanu
173. Comment #238629 by Jesus was a zombie on August 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Every time someone kicks up a stink about athiesm I keep expecting (like a fool) that they have came up with some reasoned and logical arguments to really knock atheism down. Time and time again though, they just keep on spouting the same old bullshit. Hell, I could have wrote this myself if you'd asked me to parody a theist (poe's law, yet again...) I don't know whether this should be celebrated (because they actually have NO arguments) or treated with contempt, seeing as they keep wasting our precious time.
Rant over with, thank you to rod-the-farmer, br0k3nglass and anyone else who has thoroughly rebuked this moron (haven't had time to read all of the replies, soooo maaaad!)My faith in humanity has been restored!
Other Comments by Jesus was a zombie
174. Comment #238670 by Andrew Stich on August 28, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The author repeats the mistaking of turning science into some abstract concept, something analogous to religion as a means for finding truth. But what is science? It's formulating a hypothesis, testing it, and following wherever the RESULTS lead. If there is uncertainty in the results, then remain uncertain. I can't name one example where this process, if performed correctly, could lead to an incorrect view. And what is religion? It's formulating a hypothesis, usually an outlandish one that stimulates the emotions. Oftentimes there is room for testing (i.e. when Jesus said that one can move mountains through prayer), and oftentimes tests are performed, but in the case of religion, it is the ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS, and not the results, that are followed.Other Comments by Andrew Stich
175. Comment #238740 by SamKiddoGordon on August 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Wow, I got a reply from Mr Barry Cooper
He replied,"you may take some comfort that, so far as I know, I do not represent Alberta."
He is a prof from an Alberta University, in a well read publication, who gives advice to the PM. He definately doesnt represent this Albertan, but what do you think? Does he not imply that he does represent all Albertan's other than the "village atheist"?
Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon
176. Comment #238791 by PeterMcKellar on August 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Apologies in advance if my post has ignored anything obvious contained in this thread - I spent so long working on my letter to The Calgary Herald I haven't had time to catch up with all the posts.This was the (lengthy) response I sent to the paper:
I found Barry Cooper's rant of 27th August 2008 - "It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud" published in The Calgary Herald.
Clearly the Alberta educational standards have deteriorated if they hand out professorships in Political Science at the University of Calgary to semi-literate christian apologists like young Barry. Alan Harrison (University of Calgary), just because Barry can spell "existentially" doesn't mean he understands the word. I guess Stephen Harper is the price Canada has to pay when your Nation's political skills fall that low.
And Barry, how embarrassing that someone with a Ph.D should publicly expose his ignorance so proudly. But fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. You really should have done some basic research. The quote of Diderot's, wrongly attributed to Voltaire is more frequently presented as:
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
although this is not the literal translation, it seems (to me) the closest semantic meaning in modern English. The form you used pre-dates Diderot's and is attributed to Jean Meslier (but only in derivative works and commentaries). Like Nobel Peace Laureate Mother Teresa, Meslier (born in 1664) was revealed in writings published post-humously to be a confirmed atheist masquerading as Catholic clergy. Since they stopped burning atheists as heretics we can now live amongst you as humans (with full voting rights). The Catholic clergy has to settle for harbouring pedophiles instead these days. Sigh.
Diderot tends to get attributed with the quote regardless. Sure, he was only a philospher and one of the first Encyclopediaists, what would he know? What again is it you do Barry?
I didn't quite understand how I became a Marx follower or dumped in as a "Darwinian", but I'm sure it must have made sense to you when you wrote it Barry. Hint: proof-read it before you hit the "send" button - better still have a sympathetic friend or your psychiatrist go over the finer details of its "reasoning" first. And stay on the medication.
This whole "Darwinian" thing is getting a little tedious. Darwin was mostly right, founded the study of evolution, described the process as Natural Selection but had no idea of DNA, genes or the outstanding work of Watson, Crick, Venter and so many countless individuals that have devoted their lives to building this science, fact by fact, atom by atom into a description of our world that is so verifiable and accurate that it permits not a single base pair to be claimed by your fictious sky fairy. Geneticists died for your spins.
Darwin isn't my god, a saint or some high priest, no matter how many times you say it. Like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, I respect and admire Darwin, but in the dod-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world of academia, other researchers are scrabbling up their backs to stand on their shoulders for a better view. There is no dogma. There is no god. Scientists must state their case and provide evidence to support it, otherwise don't waste our time. Dawkins is as much a target as anyone else, scientist or not, to be torn down if their logic is shown to be flawed or their hypothesis is not supported by observation.
Having seen your novel description of cosmology and startling grasp of philosphy, history, theology and biology, why don't you take a crack at literature? That stream of unconsciousness you put your name to could be presented better without any spaces and sub-titled "A Homage to James Joyce".
I know for your parasitic theist leaders that the frocks, fetish collars and accessorising with all those funny hats is a lot of fun, but does that really justify tax exemptions, grants and an oft used "get out of jail free" card given to the pious? Maybe a government subsidised travelling drag show would be cheaper entertainment for the great unwashed? Professional Drag Queens also tend to put more care into matching shoes to the rest of the ensemble where the clergy favour drab black leather and never stillettos (in public). Banish the thought of rainbow colours dahling!
The thing I found most offensive about your article Barry, even more than villification of the "Selfish Gene", "End of Faith" and "God is Not Great" without actually reading or understanding the texts, is that you would call a quiet spoken gentleman like Dr Richard Dawkin's a shrieker. I suspect that you must have had the volume too high and running around in apoleptic rage may have doppler shifted the pitch up somewhat. Take a diazapan man, chill a little and....think (for-your-self).
And why do you fear crossing swords with the well known Transubstantiated Host Violator - PZ Meyers of the Pharyngula website? He has received numerous death threats and is cursed worldwide just for ritually abusing a confessional wafer. Surely he too is worthy of your contempt for re-nailing the bread product version of the latest incarnation of your Jesus zombie (as created by the magical waving of hands and mumbling of latin from the holy writ of God's Grimoire). It should be treated with respect and the ritual consumption of Jesus gobbets must be washed down with a good chianti (or whatever rough red the preacher has close at hand).
Labelling me an Aetheist (evangelical even) is just typical of the marginalisation applied by the deluded to the sane. Even you Barry, I suspect, are an a-Zeusian, a-Raian and possibly an a-astrologist. I checked the dictionary, and Aardvark wasn't followed by Aastrologist, so on the same basis A-theist is about as non-sensical as "a-fairyist". As a self-confessed reality denier are you also an a-climate-changist (the gullible often bunch in groups for mutual reinforcement and solace). What a shame god has to be proved on evidence rather than popular vote. Then again, with 2 billion heathen Chinese, even 1 billion Hindus in India wouldn't kick Vishnu over the finish line. Who would have thought all three of the "God" god team (the father, son and the holy ghost) fumbling the baton over to Abrahamic runners Yahweh and Allah still couldn't beat the "no god" non-contestant we atheists didn't enter in your race. And just because we weren't in the photo-finish goes to prove how awesome we are - your puny mind can't even grasp how omnipotent, omniscient or transubstantiated is the divinely revealed, epiphanous nature of the faith required to believe this fundamental truth (roflmao). I will hold out the option that the Flying spaghetti Monster altered the image with Its Noodly Appendage, but we will never know. Trust me.
And this tends to be the pivotal problem with the whole God Delusion to which you cling, it's a memetically transmitted and insidious mind virus. A most toxic pathomeme. It may have less dangerous forms, and certainly I doubt the Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems killed as many in the name of their various gods as the Maya and Incan gods. These worshippers tended to be the victims of Christians rather than the aggressors, but in fairness, most christians were killed by other christian sects and no single non-christian cult, mainstream or otherwise can claim a body count in the ten of millions as can christianity - but most haven't had a stranglehold on their civilisations for the last 2,000 years. Then again, the indirect numbers killed through famine and disease resulting from systematically destroying approximately 8,000 years of accumulated knowledge and science (setting humanity back about 1,200 years) can be counted in the hundreds of millions of dead. Maybe it was necessary to burn all those books and people, but why do stem cell researchers have to be damned to the flames of hell forever? Some of these people are my friends. Methinks all that time in Hitler's Youth, basking in the magnificient and ethical wisdom of Pious's reign went to Ratzinger's head and he now wears a brown shirt under his robes rather than the self-flagellate Opus Dei hairsuit vest of his two predecessors - versions 1.0 and 1.1 of the older model - John Paul (George and Ringo). What a magical mystery tour. Its almost gone full circle, a disinherited Egyptian prince trips out on local hallucinogens, thinks he's getting strangled in bed by god, lops the foreskin off his son and here we are two thousand years later sitting with Lucy in the Sky (one assumes with her gentials unmutilated). Maybe there is something to that papist circular bull.
We are at a cusp, walking a razor's edge with Dark Ages 2.0 on one side and Enlightenment 2.0 on the other and atheists are now claiming disease is a result of virii and bacteria rather than sin. Soon they'll be saying they prefer having polar ice caps, clean water and breathable air. So when we are up to our necks with rising ocean levels will the religious be praying for god to hit the 'smite-with-extreme-prejudice' button and finish the job on we sinners or will they be so enraptured in thrall to their god they are left behind while the rest of us get on with fixing things?
I don't get defensive when exposed to ignorant and uninformed ramblings like yours Barry, but it seems that we atheists are being profiled for every religion's personal hate list - again. And its crowded on that list next to gays, women, Jews, black and all the groups that have been singled out over the millenia. I know it may burst your sanctimonious bubble of supercilliousness, but its been 2,000 years. There is no god, Jesus never existed and sure won't be coming back. Lycurgus scammed the Spartans into stagnation and atrophy the same way - having learned the lesson it would do to pay it heed or degenerate and die as a civilisation like ancient Sparta.
Why are "New Atheists" so challenging when confronted with ignorant religious blathering? Look to this quote from Thomas Jefferson's (and like Diderot's above, it takes many forms, one is):
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligble propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
(Barry - Thomas Jefferson was a politician, look back through your notes or google him).
So Barry, as you sit there smugly in your certitude remember, next time you have a "Job Day", hair a mess, wife has left you, the dog died and the kids have been slaughtered, as earthquakes shake the ground, tsunami's wash over you followed by pestilence, plague and famine, these Acts of (your) God are his way of saying he's your own personal god with a water-boading schedule tailor-made just for you. After all, he loves all his mindless sheep. And after its all over he can replace the family with another. After all, aren't all kiddies born as evil sinners and interchangable if god sees fit (in his infinte wisdom) to kill one he particularly likes?
I pity those members of my family still living in Calgary, such a beautiful city to have fallen so far.
And to the adminstrators and faculty of The University of Calgary, no longer do I have any regrets about not applying to study there at the end of 1976 - the career choices I made, culminating in my now being a self-made unemployed goatherd were obviously far better than being whined to by a religious obsessive from the lecturer's pulpit. Considering your lax academic standards I suspect I am more qualified than your graduates. Barry Cooper has the analytic wisdom of pebbles and short pieces of string.
Contemptuously
Peter McKellar
Other Comments by PeterMcKellar
177. Comment #238822 by rod-the-farmer on August 28, 2008 at 4:05 pm
OK, Peter McKellar, why don't you tell us how you really feel.And I thought I was hard on poor Dr. Cooper.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
178. Comment #238834 by vaillancourtroch on August 28, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Mr. Cooper responded to my email:"You may be surprised to learn that I am not reallypissedoff and I am not a theist. I just thinkthat dogmatically stupid arguments are not brilliant insights.
bc"
Pasted as it appeared in the email, so sorry about the lack of spaces between words.
Other Comments by vaillancourtroch
179. Comment #238835 by kaiserkriss on August 28, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Peter,
What a waste of a good rant. It will never make the pages of the Herald. Send it directly to Barry Cooper. His email was posted above somewhere, and at least you will have the satisfaction of not preaching to the choir, but getting at old Barry himself..jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
180. Comment #238838 by Quine on August 28, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Comment #238791 by PeterMcKellar:Geneticists died for your spins.
Nicely done, Peter. It was fun to read.
Other Comments by Quine
181. Comment #238847 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Peter-Phew, rock-em sock-em stuff!!
But, I agree with kaiserkriss.
Best to send it right to the guy.
Other Comments by Diacanu
182. Comment #238849 by PeterMcKellar on August 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Thanks for the kind comments, I guess maybe I shouldn't have been so gentle ;)Agreed tho, I doubt it will get published either - hence the posting here (sorry about the length). It still gives me a chance to hone my arguments and ridicule and you guys will immediately point out any errors. Its a shame I ran out of steam before I could work in something about spit roasting Templars, but sigh, other opportunities will arise.
Other Comments by PeterMcKellar
183. Comment #238851 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 4:38 pm
vaillancourtroch-
"..and I am not a theist.."
No, he (Cooper) just shovels theist bullshit for his repulsive neo-con agenda.
Other Comments by Diacanu
184. Comment #238859 by Nova on August 28, 2008 at 4:47 pm
LBraschi:Another moron with a PhD. Guess he won that on a lottery.Heh, it only takes a bit of looking into this kind of thing to shatter your confidence in the education system.
Other Comments by Nova
185. Comment #238864 by rodentfuel on August 28, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Why are they shouting so loudly? Gee last time I listened to Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins speak - the tone was always calm and reasonable. Now I can't exactly say the same thing about the religous nut jobs out there. Being an atheist requires a dependency on reason and logic, being religous nut requires a dependency on faith and emotion. Other Comments by rodentfuel
186. Comment #238866 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Nova-
..to shatter your confidence in the education system.
Indeed.
I never went to college, because I was poor, my grades were bad, and I felt like the moron I was.
Now I see I could've fucking gone for it, and had some letters in front of my name to make people "ooh!", and "aaah!", with.
See, my realistic sense of self, and pesky conscience got in the way of being a fevered ego tainting the collective subconscious.
Silly me.
When will I learn?
It's all about money, and power, and image, not helping people, and being a decent person.
Why can't I ever learn that?
It keeps bashing against my head from all sides, but it just won't go in.
Other Comments by Diacanu
187. Comment #238897 by HappyPrimate on August 28, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Have you ever noticed that you could turn these articles around and substitute religite for atheist and it would sound perfect? They accuse atheists of exactly what they do. I've never heard RD or CH or SH call for violence toward any religious believers. Have I missed something? I have heard them raise their voices on rare occasions but for the most part, they are very soft spoken and calm in discourse unlike those they have debated who get highly vocal and loud, not to mention obnoxious and arrogant. I am absolute afraid of Xians and their tendency toward violence. Islam also hs not shown me a lot of peace and love, not to mention tolerance. Other Comments by HappyPrimate
188. Comment #238898 by vaillancourtroch on August 28, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Rod The Farmer:Not quite sure I understand the wincing over my use of "only a theory" about the Big Bang.
Fom Wikipedia:
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation.
Isn't the big bang more than just a theory?
Other Comments by vaillancourtroch
189. Comment #238906 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 5:54 pm
HappyPrimate-
unlike those they have debated who get highly vocal and loud, not to mention obnoxious and arrogant.
Oh, but don't you see? That wasn't human loudness, or arrogance, it was the holy spirit commin' down upon 'em!
Praaaise Jayyy-zus!!
Other Comments by Diacanu
190. Comment #238910 by youmemeyou on August 28, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Ah yes, I somewhat suspected Barry was only baiting us.He was more disingenuous than I suspected, and his article was purely manipulation of tone, nothing of substance. To what useful end I cannot imagine.
On this very site I have been accused of being a theist despite denials because I was critical of the positions that some atheists take.
I feel trolls like Barry are only making matters worse. A troll with a PhD, how about that! (See Stanislaw Lem, pirates also may have PhDs)
Watch out guys. Some of your critical thinking meters have come loose. Keep a level head, and give people the benefit of the doubt.
Other Comments by youmemeyou
191. Comment #238912 by root2squared on August 28, 2008 at 6:04 pm
There is a grammatical error in the article.
Barry Cooper, PhD, is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
That should read
Barry Cooper, who is a PhD, is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
Also they forgot this footnote:
PhD = Pretty Huge Dick
Other Comments by root2squared
192. Comment #238916 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm
(continuing from 187)*Sigh* I'm genuinely haunted now by the lack of standards.
I mean, I knew books and journalism were rotting away, but if PHDs are meaningless, then there's just no order in the world, and society is just in a fucking bedlam.
This is deeply depressing.
I imagine an alternate world where I could've been a PHD of something, and it becomes even more horrific.
If that could happen, and it looks like it could've, then there really is no one minding the store.
Everything I thought held things together is vapor.
Horrible.
HORRIBLE!
I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep tonight.
:(
Other Comments by Diacanu
193. Comment #238925 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 6:35 pm
(Continuing from 193)...well, that's why I slacked off, isn't it?
I didn't think anything I said or did mattered, so I did bare minimum, and assumed someone else was minding things.
Someone smart.
But there wasn't.
Everyone else was a moron doing bare minimum too.
Guess I have to start being responsible then.
What a nasty way to have to wake up it.
Other Comments by Diacanu
194. Comment #238933 by SamKiddoGordon on August 28, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Diacanu.
Here are a few words of advice someone gave me.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. (There are some truely exceptional people that contribute to the world, the rest are bald apes)
Shit runs down hill (All you need to know to be a journeyman plumber)
If you cant Dazzle them with Brilliance, Baffle them with Bullshit. (it can be only one message, some it will Dazzle, others baffle.)
But for the most part, I think your bullshit is brilliant.
Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon
195. Comment #238938 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Um......thanks?? Other Comments by Diacanu
196. Comment #238944 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 7:03 pm
SamKiddoGordonI was expecting that post to end with
"Pass this on to 10 of your friends and be blessed with good fortune within 24 hours."
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
197. Comment #238946 by SamKiddoGordon on August 28, 2008 at 7:05 pm
What I think about Barry Cooper, with his political ties, is that he was pandering for votes, maybe even trying to start some issues, with Harper about to call a vote. I Like Harper except his faith sucks. Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon
198. Comment #238949 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Sorry for the ramble, fellas.The weight of the horror of humanity just whacked me over the head as I was typing, and it kinda came out.
It got past my shields today. :P
Sorry for the gloom and doom.
We'll pull through somehow.
We keep being the most successful species on the planet despite being the most failed species on the planet.
Other Comments by Diacanu
199. Comment #238951 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 7:18 pm
DiacanuI imagine an alternate world where I could've been a PHD of something, and it becomes even more horrific.Are you putting yourself down there?
If that could happen, and it looks like it could've, then there really is no one minding the store.
Judging by your past comments on this site, I think a PhD is well within you. And that devalues PhDs nothing.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
200. Comment #238952 by SamKiddoGordon on August 28, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Diacanu.
My response was about the same. It was more like, "what an asshole?!?"
Peace.
ha, ha, .
Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
151. Comment #238346 by Mark Till on August 28, 2008 at 2:59 am
This casting of believers as curious star-gazers hungry for answers is really quite funny! Is he seriously suggesting that, uh, scientists don't wonder about these things?
I mean, what?
Reading this you'd think religions were nothing more than fora for vague philosophical discussion, rather than sets of very precise answers, plucked out of thin air, based on nothing, that you aren't even allowed to question.
Other Comments by Mark Till