1. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #231050 by Eric Blair on August 15, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Utelme: yes, some of us have to work and have lives beyond the Internet.

You're quite right, people opposing Islam are not all white nor are they all xenophobes, crypto or otherwise. But (a) those Europeans who are xenophobes (and there are some) are mainly white, and (b) so are those who oppose Islam as a religion (white, that is) - just a demographic fact. And, more important, the Muslim apologizers will portray the criticism as race-based, so why deal them that card?

As for xenophobia, I don't think it's bigotry to say there are factions in most European countries that would happily close off immigration, and equal status among those already in the country, to non-whites. They too would be quite happy to use a campaign of "critiquing" Islamic beliefs to further inflame the issue.

And I also just don't think such "open discussion" would be effective. Case in point: how many Muslims come on this site to defend their faith?

As I suggested, we have enough weapons to face the challenge of Islam in our society in the rule of law and a commitment to secular government and institutions. Like Christians before them, it's up to Muslims themselves to cast off the yoke of their beliefs, or at least the more abhorrent of them.

EB

2. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230377 by Eric Blair on August 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm

I have problems with the supposed parallels and assumptions in this piece.

People in western society walked away from Christianity by just not going to church and by refusing to accept the intrusions into their private lives any more. It started as an intellectual trend in the late 19th century and spread as a cultural undercurrent after the experience of the First World War undermined blind acceptance of most traditional values.

When did this supposed popular questioning of Christian myths happen?

In the 1960s and '70s, various critics skewered the churches but it was as much for hypocrisy - supporting the status quo instead of progressive change - as for believing in incredible things. The Life of Brian is an exception but a bit late to cite as an example.

I suppose various people, publicly or privately, have raised doubts about various points of dogma but they were often doing so from within - think of Hans Kung. But telling Christians they believe in silly things is rarely effective because they all believe in slightly different silly things (response: oh, we don't believe in that, you're thinking of the Lutherans or whoever…)

Another point is that when people in the West started rebelling against the church they were rebelling against institutions with power - either because they were established churches or religious-minded people in government. Muslims in Europe do not have power, except in their own communities. In fact, in many areas Muslim people feel powerless and excluded from secular society. Add to this the racial element, that most Muslims are racially distinct from the majority, and you find an entirely different situation than what the Christian West faced 100 years ago.

I would question the value and worthiness of a campaign of "picking apart" Muslim dogma. The more horrible Muslim practices are already illegal and should be vigorously opposed on that basis, and we should resist pressure to create a parallel legal system based on Sharia law, for example.

But broad-based criticism of Islam by secular, white Europeans would, to my mind, only push Muslims to circle their wagons and fight against "racist infidels," thus making things worse for moderates and those who want to give up Islam altogether. And, too many 'secularists" are already crypto-xenophobes who would like to create such polarization.

There are more moderate and tolerant options available, and they needn't mean "yielding our democratic values" - a criticism that in this article as elsewhere is vague and unspecific. What's called for is vigilance and a strong response against the truly extreme elements, and tolerant intellectual engagement with the moderate elements guided by common sense and a spirit of community.

EB

3. Is Killing Liberals a Hate Crime?

Comment #222577 by Eric Blair on July 31, 2008 at 2:45 pm

An odd article - do I detect a note of detached satire?

Hate crime laws are designed of course to make it easier to prosecute acts that would otherwise be borderline criminal or not criminal at all. They could figure into motivation here, I guess, and thus affect the sentence. But this case seems pretty clear cut.

Does it matter that the church was Unitarian rather than, say, Baptist, or Catholic? A man died and people were wounded. Enough said.

EB

4. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220556 by Eric Blair on July 28, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Obviously, there is disturbing stuff in the survey results. But I would not categorize them as "hard facts" - they are yet another set of indicators waiting for balanced assessment.

The Centre for Social Cohesion, from its website, does indeed seem to have a strong anti-Muslim agenda, which doesn't in itself throw these results out the window. But I am curious as to how the "online" survey worked (600 Muslim students, 800 non-Muslims). If the participants "selected" themselves by choosing to take part, then that possibly skews results right there.

As for the interviews etc. carried out with Muslim activists, these seem unbalanced almost by definition.

I'm not sure if the purpose was to show organized and devout Muslim students are more extreme in their views (no surprise), or report on the views of more "typical" Muslim students. If it was the latter, then I don't see it as reliable.

On the other hand, many of the opinions (except the sharia law issue, which probably the most disturbing) are also signs of cultural conservatism. Imagine this survey on any English or American university campus 100 years ago, and you might end up with surprisingly similar numbers.

EB

5. The Return of Religion

Comment #215962 by Eric Blair on July 22, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Cut! Stop it right there! This thread is getting silly. We need something disciplined… and military!

But seriously.

Geoff Townsend:

-Science will certainly reveal many more things in time but I doubt it can ever "find" the purpose of life, or the universe. It may come upon things that cause people to think they now know the purpose or meaning of life, but science itself won't provide that conclusion. This is not a weakness, just the nature of science. And what it does mean, in Scruton's terms, is that science will provide no evidence that the great patterns and cycles of the universe have not happened, and will continue, for no particular reason. Which obviously upsets some people.

- "Yearning" may well come from human arrogance but wherever it comes from it seems to be pretty deep-seated. What's tragic about it is it can lead, in different people, to the creation of great works of art (and I don't just mean those inspired by specific religions) and to horrible acts like 9/11.

Black Wolf:

- Yes, religion has come up with thousands of wrong answers and will go on at that pace. What's important is people responding to those answers don't threaten others or the stability of society.

- (Religion won't admit it may be wrong.) I don't think Scruton or others of his ilk would say they know for certain they are right, just that what they are doing in seeking spiritual answers is deeply human and not unreasonable, even if non-rational.

Decius:

- What's the point of writing a book if you don't want to change people's minds? Dawkins says he doesn't expect to convert too many died-in-the-wool believers to atheism but I'm sure he thinks his book will nudge - and probably has nudged - a few agnostics and moderates toward unbelief. More important, over time, changing minds is exactly what all these authors hope to do, whether it's by convincing some religious folks to be more open with their children, or urging schools to take a more critical approach to religion, or stemming the tide of Creationism and Intelligent Design. Any way you slice it, it's about changing minds, and in some cases drastically.

- No, you don't have to "respect" anyone's beliefs or motivations. But it might make sense to acknowledge them. As any salesperson or communication expert will tell you, you need to understand what drives people if you want to change their way of thinking.

- I'm not suggesting, nor is Scruton, that there's any "conspiracy" within science to halt inquiry into basic questions like the purpose of the universe. It just can't address such things, as I've said above.

Coodgee: Science may well someday be able to understand and explain consciousness but I have "me doots." I find it hard to see how it will get beyond second-hand observation. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not me. But if I'm not me, who am I? And who is asking this question? Whoever it is they sure can't type…

I think Scruton makes two points that aren't unreasonable: 1) that many intelligent religious people (talking mainly about Christians) have absorbed the basic principles of the Enlightenment and don't see a contradiction between their beliefs and the scientific view of the universe). 2) Faced with mysteries like the origin of the universe and the nature of consciousness that science can't explain, seeking a spiritual "answer" is not irrational - though to admit this is not to say the religious response is true.

His charge against atheists - or what I call the neo-Darwinist atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris - is that they do not want to yield on these points.

I would add that despite occasional nods of benevolence toward moderates, their shotgun-like attacks on extremists easily spray out to all religion and thus leaves moderates feeling they've caught a few rhetorical pellets, too.

To strain the metaphor…

EB

6. The Return of Religion

Comment #215292 by Eric Blair on July 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I feel like I'm on a party-line (pun intended) or maybe living above a pub.It's hard to keep track of this discussion when one has limited time to jump back and forth between entries.

I certainly don't think everything Scruton says here is valid or logical.

My general point is that not everything Scruton, or others like him, have to say must be chalked up on the "plus" or "minus" debating scoreboard. Some things merely help to reveal a mindset that, like it or not, is shared by many educated, intelligent people.

I think some of this stuff is interesting, even useful to know, without immediately jumping in to "disprove" it.

If neo-Darwinist atheists wish to convince believers that science offers a more complete and rational way than religion to explain (or even offer the hope of explaining) every aspect of their lives and behaviour, the apparent longstanding need of humans for a sense of purpose and continuity is a major challenge.

(I will try to get back and address some other points people raised later - but real life calls!)

EB

7. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #214517 by Eric Blair on July 20, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Well put, Dr. Hofmann. To those on the far right, liberalism does in indeed "enable" communism, though communists see a huge and unsupportive gap between themselves and liberals (in fact, they would say liberals enable Nazis).

And so it is with the moderates - extremists continuum.

EB

8. Calling World Conference on Dialogue a Symbol of Unity Among Different Traditions

Comment #214070 by Eric Blair on July 19, 2008 at 12:58 pm

While I don't for a moment expect this conference will actually do very much, I don't see what's inherently harmful in a bunch of religious groups getting together to support what are essentially securalist principles.

The first step toward a secular society, after all, is to guarantee freedom of religion, as in the United States' First Amendment.

The fact that these guys are meeting and not fighting each other offers some cause for hope.

As for the "debunking of the myth that religion causes violence," I think there's room here for disagreement and counter-arguments. I have no problem with them putting forward arguments based on evidence.

EB

9. Calling World Conference on Dialogue a Symbol of Unity Among Different Traditions

Comment #213543 by Eric Blair on July 18, 2008 at 2:36 pm

The United Nations will continue to support these efforts through its long-standing work to promote tolerance, to speak out against bigotry, to counter extremism and to uphold the right of all the world's people to freedom of religion, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Together, we can expand the scope of these initiatives, reach more and more people and faiths, heal the divisions that threaten our societies and build a more secure and stable world.

10. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #212916 by Eric Blair on July 17, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Believer: "I am not interested in debating. I am interested only in seeking common ground so that atheists and believers can get along in society. And I don't mind if you call my religion a myth - I would prefer unproved hypothesis - if that makes you more comfortable.

"But I may also call some elements of science a myth or 'unproved hypothesis', like how the universe came into existence or how consciousness intersects with brain tissue, or how human "memes" get passed on from one generation to the next."

EB

11. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #212906 by Eric Blair on July 17, 2008 at 8:27 pm

This is a truly bizarre comeback.

So Latebloomer, an atheist, is going to tell someone what they "must" believe to be a good Christian/Muslim/Jew? You are not only an expert in what the "real" god is, according to the sacred texts, but also a mind-reader.

Sorry, I don't think this will persuade anyone.

EB

12. The Return of Religion

Comment #212679 by Eric Blair on July 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm

(Sorry to cut into the tangental conversation here)

I'm surprised, again, at the response of most here to yet another reasonable attempt to explain why intelligent people believe in God or in some element of transcendence in their lives.

Scruton can be faulted, at first blush anyway, on two counts: that he exaggerates the "violent" nature of the Dawkins-Dennett-Harris-Hitchens anti-religious campaign, and that he states that most religious people see no conflict between science and their beliefs.

I say at first blush. The first criticism is really over semantics: though they're not calling for a fatwa (a "fact"-wa?) against believers, the neo-atheists are not likely to approach their opponents with "gentleness," to use Scruton's word. They are looking to drastically change minds, not find a common ground. Writers like Scruton are saying the common ground already exists for most folks, so why keep pouring fuel on the fire. I think he has a valid point.

As for the second point, being British, Scruton is talking mainly about Christians and the situation in the UK (and Western Europe). Yes, he leaves out Creationists, who are mainly in the United States. But the US is a major exception, having become more religious over the same period that every other modern nation has become less so.

So, those points aside, Scruton, like others before him, is basically answering Dawkins' implied question: "Why don't you feel embarrassed at believing in fairies?"

Scruton is saying that a large chunk of Christians, at least those who are able to articulate what they believe at all - an extension of his educated friends and acquaintances - are not regular church-goers and don't believe in much of the Bible literally. But they still "yearn" for a sense of purpose and transcendent continuity in their lives.

While science has over time shed more light on the context of such yearnings, it will never provide an answer because it can't ask questions about purpose. This is what he means when he says science "stops the enquiry."

When it comes to understanding the origin of the universe, relationship between the brain and consciousness, and what death truly means, science today is still only sraping at the edges of explanation. It may never fully explain such things.

And Scruton says, again, where science remains stumped, humans still want answers, and answers that relate to their own lives.

This in no way "proves" God exists, nor is it necessarily a convincing argument. But I think if you want to understand why people believe - espcially more intelligent people - then listening to what they themselves say is only logical.

Otherwise, you're left with second-hand analysis about the "need to be part of a community," or responses like "They're idiots, at least in this area of their lives" or "They're intellectually dishonest," or "They're just looking for some kind of rationalization for the warm fuzzy thoughts of their childhood."

One may say people who ask such questions and yearn for a transcendent purpose are misguided, weak, irrational, and so on. But this is unlikely to stop them from asking or yearning, nor does does it really address what seems a basic human need.

EB

13. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210611 by Eric Blair on July 14, 2008 at 10:28 pm

I say a plague on both their houses. On PZ for proposing a contempt-ridden publicity stunt that would needlessly offend all Catholics, not just the stupid ones, and on Donohue and the RC thought-police for being assinine enough to "bite."

If PZ gets even mildly disciplined by his university, he should reconsider whether he wants his name associated with such a namby-pamby school of "higher learning."

I fail to see how he can lose. Either nothing will happen and the RCs will just look sillier than ever, or he'll push it to the max - as I would, once it's started - and get his pick of jobs elsewhere as the publicity paints him as a hero.

I find it ironic that he is asking for civil, respectful letters on his behalf to the president who, odds have it, is a Christian of some sort.

(I have a hard time imagining that PZ's life is truly in danger. Do the equivalent to a Muslim symbol, however, and it would be a different story...)

EB

14. Harper says new mosque shows 'the true and benevolent face of Islam'

Comment #205643 by Eric Blair on July 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Harper's comments are not a policy statement nor indicative of anything in particular. He could have been at the opening of a new curling rink. The fact he used it to "celebrate" freedom of religion etc. is just his people trying to get the biggest bang out of the event.

Traditionally, new immigrants (in the last 30 years or so) vote Liberal because Liberal governments let them in, so it might be seen as a vaguely new foray into Liberal territory - interesting as much because it's in "red-neck" Alberta as anything else.

"Our Mormons,"eh? You mean "morons"? More seriously, that would be borne out in how they themselves treat outsiders and "apostates" - Mormons have never been too liberal on that score...

EB

15. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204666 by Eric Blair on July 5, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Well said, Rachel Holmes. You have expressed a subtle but important position that is as crucial to maintaining principles of liberal democracy (and resisting the slide into demagoguery) as the "other side" claims its arguments are vital to avoiding "giving in" to the Muslim hordes.

But let's recall this latest round of discussion comes from the trivial (puppy image) and, originally, the stupid (Archbishop's vaccuous comments about sharia law). Phillips comments put a little more precision on the latter but still were politically unwise. There was really no need to state the obvious, or make it sound like existing alternatives only applied to Muslims, as this may have created false "hope" for fundamentalist Muslims and a false issue for those who oppose them.

I agree, too, that many comments on this thread are drifting - or being pushed - away from fact to paranoia.

As I said earlier, the best way to ensure this sharia chimera does not get out of hand is to work to ensure existing laws are applied consistently and fairly, and to help make Muslims, especially women, more aware of their political and legal rights in Western societies.

EB

16. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204262 by Eric Blair on July 4, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Ditto to Rachel Holmes' question as to why or in what context Lord Phillips said this.

The fact that some horrendous aspects of sharia law - like provisions for killing dissidents and apostates, mutilating young girls or kidnapping would-be wives - are going on in Western societies below the radar is obviously troubling and a looming undertone to this whole discussion.

But this is not necessarily a slippery slope, any more than criminal organizations like the Mafia or gangs like Hells Angels enforcing their own codes outside of the justice system in America means police will be "whacking" crooks in backlanes with tommy guns.

As others have said, such activity has little bearing on limited, voluntary use of culturally based guidelines for mediating disputes or creating agreements. Their status in law should be that they are informal contracts, which is what I believe they are. So no big deal...

There is a legitimate concern about whether all the parties, notably women, enter into such agreements truly "voluntarily." But this would be an issue with a full legal contract, too. Our legal system is not really designed to advocate on behalf of victims anyway. So education about basic political and civil rights to Muslim women and children (and even men!) should be a priority, regardless of the role set out for sharia law.

EB

17. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203675 by Eric Blair on July 3, 2008 at 10:54 am

Let's be clear: like others, I find the idea that anyone would be offended by the puppy images pretty hard to swallow and am still not sure anyone truly was.

But let's keep in mind this issue is not really about free speech but communicating information.

No one - save perhaps a few "outraged" Muslims - is saying you "can't use puppy images any more." What this situation suggests is that if you want to communicate a phone number - or, for that matter, information about a product you're selling - to a Muslim target market an image of a dog is not going work.

If you don't care about communicating to Muslims, then use any image you want.

It's about what works for your business (or organization).

This example, and the response here, also seems to be less and less about religion, and more about social tensions over the integration, or lack thereof, of immigrants, many of whom happen to be Muslim.

You might expect similar reactions to examples that have nothing to do with religion. In Canada, we often see government agencies communicating certain type of information in a variety of languages. One might argue that this is being too "accommodating" of immigrant groups, that they should learn English (or French, our other official language).

A practical response is, No doubt they should learn the language of the country they have moved to but, realistically, many do not, or learn it not very well. And if you want to tell them about vital programs, having some information available in their native language (where numbers warrant the expense involved) seems a reasonable though not essential option. You don't want people to go to the wrong health care or social service agency - or whatever the information relates to - and waste everyone's time.

So it is with the puppy images and the police phone number.

EB

Ps - Nice to see Bonzai's enlightened comments again.

PPs - I think Canada's more moderate approach to immigrants has been shaped by the fact by most people or their ancestors - except those of British background, like me - have been at the other end of the discrimination game.

18. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203261 by Eric Blair on July 2, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Taking this article and knee-jerk interpretation with a large chunk of salt, the only possible lesson here is for marketers - including those who do "market" the local constabulary.

If you want shopkeepers, Muslim or otherwise, to post your new phone number, the puppy image is not going to work. So put out a new card with a better image.

If you don't care whether they post it or not, then leave it as it is.

The same would apply for any commercial product where the advertising offends people. There's a long history of advertising or branding efforts running into issues when companies moved off-shore, dating back to when Imperial Oil began using its Exxon brand instead of Esso because the original was offensive in Japanese.

The root of "offence" here is probably as much cultural as religious, for what it's worth.

If Muslims are truly outraged by the puppy image, then they are over-reacting. But if the police refuse to change it, then they are being pig-headed.

Let's face it. Many of our common cultural touchstones and icons are Euro-centric and may affect people from non-European backgrounds differently.

But a cute puppy image is not a core value of western society. The only reason to persist in using it to help convey information to audiences that include Muslims would be spite ... and racism disguised as secularism.

EB

19. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #202003 by Eric Blair on June 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm

The article engages in some hyperbole - including an overestimation of the actual influence of Dawkins, Dennett et al. - but his main point is bang-on, in my view.

The two issues where DDH&H come closest to the line of illiberalism and intolerance are precisely those where they are the most vague about what their criticism might naturally lead to in practical terms: these are the raising and education of children, and the response to moderates versus extremists.

It is quite true that atheism has a mixed history and as expressed in leftwing anti-clericalism -the early French revolution, the Mexican-Spanish civil wars/revolutions, Bolshevism, Maoism and Pol Pot(ism?) - was horrendously violent and intolerant.

While it's quite natural for DDH&H to take assume no one would be silly enough to mistake their generally scholarly approach for thee historical variations, it's surprising they have been so complacent about the possibility. They may have seen it as a small price to pay for being provocative and get people thinking and talking, but the problem is it has gotten people talking about the wrong issues, or at least not the key ones even in the neo-atheist agenda (vague as it may be).

Hitchens and Harris have been most guilty of questioning liberal values without clearly revealing their own. Hitchens wanted the US to fight Saddam Hussein - as a stand-in for Muslim extremism - sooner rather than later, so he endorsed anything the Bush regime did until they showed their indifference to morality was only outdone by heir incompetence. Harris was more circumspect, keeping his support at the theoretical level for using extreme measures such as torture and pre-emptive nuclear strikes to fight the looming thought still nebulous threat of Islam. (On the issue of religious moderates, Hitchens had to hold his nose while supporting Bush and tone down his instinctive animosity; Harris has needed no such compromising and is the hardest of the bunch.)

Dawkins apparently opposed the war on Iraq, and is less focused on Islam, the darkest religious threat of the day, thus he avoids getting dragged to bitter and explosive debates about immigration and multiculturalism in Western European.

On an intellectual level, however, as a neo-Darwinist, he has been quite consistent. If religious "memes" are going to survive into future generations, they will do so more in the genes of moderates than extremists, driven by sheer numbers. Likewise, though the functioning of these memes is still hazy, it's clear on a common sense level that religious ideas are mostly transferred within families, from parents and other adults to children. Thus Dawkins' ongoing fixation, beyond what seems reasonable at times, on chipping away at moderates and highlighting "child abuse" that he won't call such.

EB

20. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #200411 by Eric Blair on June 27, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Often this question - or challenge - comes in response to the charge that religion is inherently violent or that most violence and wars can be attributed to religion.

The common response, that the appalling and unprecedented wars and slaughter of the 20th century had nothing to do with religion, is perfectly valid and reasonable. Hitler may or may have not been an atheist but Stalin and Mao were certainly anti-clerical and anti-church in their methods, both for practical political reasons and because they believed their success depended on rooting out all ideologies competing with their brand of Marxism. Similarly with Pol Pot.

The tactic, suggested even on this thread, of saying communism and Nazism are closer to religion than "scientific atheism" because they are irrational and authoritarian ends up ultimately in tautology: anything that isn't neo-Darwinian atheism may have been or will be responsible for violence.

Better, I think, to admit that religion is just one human creation that has led to violence, and that over the span of history the common factor causing violence may simply be human institutions and the quest for power.

EB

21. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #199346 by Eric Blair on June 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Scientific development has responded to human needs, within the framework of human institutions. For most of the past 2,000 years, these institutions have been religious (Christian, mostly Catholic - where church and state were not separate). The biggest ongoing need was the demand for better weaponry. So science, or its practical applications, arose mainly from wars.

To say religion pushed science along is true but doesn't make religion any more valuable, since warfare did so even more directly and that doesn't mean we wish to adopt war as method of promoting science.

Science does not stand apart from society and unfortunately does not have values of its own, besides those of the people who practise it.

EB

22. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #198836 by Eric Blair on June 24, 2008 at 2:49 pm

In general, anyone may - and should - of course question anything. But some people's questioning is more insightful than others. Thus Dawkins' book is doing better than mine! :)

Seriously, it also depends what the issue is. Do you need "qualifications" to judge whether an argument proves God exists? Not really. Reasonable intelligence, logic and an understanding of scientific principles should do.

"Does Religion have a negative influence on society?" Some knowledge of history would be helpful (and not just the ability to use Wikipedia!).

"Do most Christians believe the Bible is literally the word of God?" Some background in research on popular attitudes toward religion would be more valuable in arguing this point than awareness of a few surveys from the Internet.

"Why do intelligent people believe in God?" Anyone can speculate on this question, but hewre some understanding of more sophisticated responses of articulate lay people and theologians would make your own response more valuable.

And so it goes ...

EB

23. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #198323 by Eric Blair on June 23, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Clearly Islamism - I think McEwan defines it as the most aggressive and illiberal form of Islam - presents a host of issues for Western societies, both as a source and supporter of terrorism from afar and of tensions within our communities. It is, in a word, despicable.

However, in the current climate where many Europeans are responding viscerally to changes in the racial makeup of their traditional, homogeneous societies as much as to true threats to liberal democratic values, we must be aware of how easy is to slide into demagoguery.

I don't think we should start discarding the principles and practices at the heart of our liberal democracies to thwart presumed and/or theoretical threats, when generally our legal system and immigration framework already provide a range of remedies.

As some here have suggested, a big problem is attitude of our leaders toward accommodating people whose values contravene ours. If that is the issue - and I think it is, though perhaps to a lesser extent than many believe - then let's focus first on applying laws and principles fairly and consistently.

For me, the devil is in the details. Whether we're talking about "accommodating newcomers," "the threat of Islam to free speech" or using immigration laws to contain the issue, we must look at each specific issue or response on its merits or true threat to society, and not respond in broad brush form to complex issues.

Because some forms of accommodation are signs of capitulation and weakness doesn't mean all are. And because parts of our immigration system is flawed with respect to meeting our desire for social harmony doesn't mean we scrap its basic principles and apply arbitrary rules instead.
EB

24. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #197202 by Eric Blair on June 21, 2008 at 10:44 am

I think the distinction about answering why or how questions is better seen as being about asking them. Or, to put it another way, science and rationalism generally seek explanations and understanding, while religion - and other "non-rational" (as opposed to irrational) human behaviour - seeks meaning and purpose.

As evident on this thread, many people have no interest in exploring the "meaning" or "purpose" of their lives or the world. Which is fine. To science such questions are unanswerable, beyond the realm of inquiry.

But to others, obviously to religious folks but also to others such as many philosophers, artists and everyday people who may or may not believe in a god, exploring and trying to define the meaning of their lives and their world is important, at certain times even overwhelming.

Many never find an answer, just spend lives (usually intermittently) seeking. Others may find some meaning, which is inevitably personal. But sharing the quest with others, looking at how other people (whether those they know personally or know through their creative works) have addressed the question, seeking insights and wisdom, helps some folks come to terms with the question, or maybe the fact it can't be answered.

Many of these people may actually be scientists or otherwise follow a rationalist approach in much of their lives, but still at times look for answers science doesn't consider. I don't mean that they necessarily are religious. They may simply develop a great interest in certain artists or writers, or find themselves pondering the imponderable when spending time with their loved ones... or simply watching a sunset in awe.

The tug between seeking explanations and seeking meaning shouldn't be scoffed at or bemoaned. It's part of the human experience and likely always will be.

EB

25. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #196273 by Eric Blair on June 19, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I'm not sure how you can separate religion as an influencing factor in history and say definitively whether it was good or bad.

Even if we limit the discussion to the behaviour of religious institutions or religious people, all we can say is some was good and some was bad.

But so what? Except as the topic for an academic debate, the question has no relevance.

It also implies that we have a decision to make whether to keep religion or do away with it, and/or that somehow if religious people realized that the historical ledger for religion is on balance bad, they would stop believing.

The first possibility only encourages those who view atheists as closet totalitarians, while the second is simply bizarre.

EB

26. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #193449 by Eric Blair on June 15, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Nicola Holt:

Your concerns are real and serious, and I hope none one here is dismissing them. I think a lot of what's been expressed here is a concern about pragmatic issues, both about what a reasonable response might be, and that an ill-conceived campaign might undermine longer terms efforts to change behaviour.

Seeking "evidence" is not so much to prove such trauma exists as to provide a standard, a litmus test to separate black-and-white from grey.

You're also right that many people take these threats as a matter of course, and strictly related to "private life."

But I think one step at a time would be a better approach, beginning by getting some stories out in the media involving a variety of religious traditions, about how kids have been traumatized. These are obviously anecdotal but they do lay the emotional groundwork.

Then you look to a broader and ongoing educational and awareness campaign, which may start to make the legal route unnecessary or at least much more limited in scope.

Jumping immediately to the judicial approach will inevitably raise bring a strong response, including accusations of "totalitarian" measures, which as I say may sabotage the campaign.

EB

27. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #192583 by Eric Blair on June 13, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Stuart Paul Wood: We've been down this road a few times in discussions about Dawkins' statements about religion and child abuse.

Threats of any kind that cause psychological abuse in anyone, especially children, are intolerable and should be stopped. This much is obvious and, one hopes, inarguable. But the question does become how and when to respond, especially since this petition calls for the government to ensure laws adequately address such situations.

The most likely response, at least judging from what happens in Canada, is intervention by child-protection agencies and removal of the children from the parents who are threatening them. (The main difference between existing laws and possible tougher standards would be that, potentially, the report of "threats" would trigger the response rather than report of the "trauma.")

This is obviously highly controversial, even among people who believe talking of heaven and hell to children is wrong. (This petition is the first time Dawkins has suggested he would support some kind of formal intervention.)

In Winnipeg, we have just had a case where social workers removed kids from their parents because they had Swastikas and neo-Nazi references written on their bodies (they were 7 and 3, I think), and they went to pro-Aryan meetings with their mother. The implication was that the kids were removed because their parents were instilling an ideology of hatred in them and using them to promote this ideology, which could lead to psychological issues.

Neo-Nazi ideas are as odious to me as the next guy but I think the agency should provide a little more evidence of direct harm and exactly what was going on with these children before removing them. (I'm not sure what their status is right now.)

Any formal response to this petition would similarly slide into debates about when parents' behaviour toward their kids constitute "making threats" and how do we tell when their actions are really causing trauma, not to mention do we want to remove children and/or do we want to formally charge parents with a criminal offence?

Better, I think, to focus on education on good parenting, and be more vigilant in enforcing existing laws in situations where the signs of abuse are clear and beyond question.

EB

28. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #192203 by Eric Blair on June 12, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Ian, Comment 44:

By including a link to this petition on his site and a large link to this site on the survey site, I think Dawkins has clearly departed from his previous position. If not, he should say so.

EB

29. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192196 by Eric Blair on June 12, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Let's not take this as the "Canadian view." The tribunal hasn't made its ruling yet and, whatever it concludes, this case will likely go to a "real" court, where the betting is the "freedom to offend" will be ultimately supported. And I think most Canadians would be OK with this … not so if the gavel falls on the side of the aggrieved Muslims.

The key issue here is that the author and magazine are being held responsible for the possible actions of someone reading the article. This is not the same as consciously inciting hatred (or even being "complacently indifferent to reactions that might be reasonably expected," if that's a valid legal concept).

EB

30. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #191665 by Eric Blair on June 11, 2008 at 12:22 pm

We should view most historical parallels or warnings with suspicion, and this certainly applies to the Stalin/Hitler bogeymen vis-a-vis atheism in general.

However, it's worth acknowledging that both Stalinism (or Bolshevism, before 1930)and Nazism were reactions to "complacent" bourgeois values, including both Christianity and political (and culural) liberalism, and arose after the experience of WWI shattered those values for a whole generation.

The two ideologies were quite different - Nazism was more popular and populist, at least in its early stages - and the battle for the hearts and minds of the people was played out differently in Germany and the Soviet Union. But atheism - or at least anti-clericalism - was certainly part of the mix.

Both regimes introduced the concept, if never clearly defined, of "thought crimes," and adherence to religious belief and traditions was almost always suspect (political necessity interfered with this, particularly once the war had started).

Stalin inherited a nation of peasants whose lives centred on their villages and their church, so religion was a natural enemy in his quest to transform Russia into a technocratic-communist state. Germany had many similarities, but Hitler's ideological foes were as much the incipient ideas of liberal democracy as religion, weak as they were in the 1930s. In fact, the churches (Catholic and Lutheran) detested these novel ideas (for Germany) and, of course, Bolshevism, as much as he did. So Hitler found ways to work with religious leaders - including the Pope, of course. Some grassroots Christians, especially Catholics, resisted being absorbed into the Nazi culture, though most Germans of whatever faith, or none, followed with apparent willingness.

Any cultural transformation, like a massive shift away from faith to atheism, will have social implications. In that sense, those who warn of the dire consequences of the death of religion have a point. But all change brings risk.

EB

31. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191643 by Eric Blair on June 11, 2008 at 11:44 am

I find it disturbing that a scientist like Richard Dawkins would support a vague measure like this that is apparently unsupported by evidence-based research ("talk to people who have experienced it"?) and that capitalizes on our visceral emotional response to the suffering of children.

I am not concerned that any government would actually do anything with this as it's far too vague, and the issue would be a political minefield even if a government had an inkling as to how a revised law would deal with the issue of "religious bullying."

By all means, let's do the research and see what the true connections are between psychological trauma in children and adults, and their religious upbringing.

Then we could look at what proportion of the population it affects who wouldn't be addressed through existing measures.

And finally we could look at how to address the remaining issue, in realistic, pragmatic ways that don't open the door to abuse through overreaction from whatever agency would enforce such measures.

EB

32. We happy hooligans

Comment #191312 by Eric Blair on June 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Boy, you were fast off the mark, Steve Zara. I deleted that stuff in parentheses barely a couple of minutes after posting it (it was unclear and unnecessary). What more evidence do you need of the existence of unexplainable phenomena? ;)

I think we've seen this discussion before, why religious studies might be OK but theology isn't. You could argue it should be a sub-set of religious studies, or anthropology or even literary criticism - but this is all semantics.

My original point is that these theologians - I mean the more sophisticated ones who don't insist their ruminations be mistaken for truth - are in the same realm as many (most?) great artists and writers, in that they are seeking meaning over explanation.

Maybe seeking meaning is less important or "serious" (since it never seems to yield tangible results) than seeking explanations, but nonethless many people continue to do it. It's like those who seek "true love" in a cynical world that explains human attraction through biology.

The dichotomy here between reason and the rest (I hesitate to call it the "irrational"), I think, goes well beyond believers and atheists, and rests at the core of the human condition. Faith is just one expression of it.

And any one of us wrestles with how to marry the two sides, with obviously varying reuslts.

EB

33. We happy hooligans

Comment #190787 by Eric Blair on June 9, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Steve: But, as they say, what is reality, man? Is science the only reality?

Art, literature, music, philosophy are also real, though not in the same way science is, and often driven more by the search for meaning than explanation. And so are the thoughts and feelings they inspire. And I don't mean that these things are all seeking the divine, though clearly some works are. But they are pursuing something quite different than science and reason are.

Does this make them unworthy of serious study?

Or to take another track, Zeno's paradoxes, which occupied a lot of the time of medieval philosophers (who, of course, also happened to be theologians). These logical and linguistic problems serve no practical purpose and do not describe reality, though they appear to. They may help us think about how we describe and think about reality, which may or may or may not eventually have some practical purpose.

You and I may have no interest in these paradoxes, and say they are just linguistic errors (or whatever), but does that make people who are interested in them worthy of ridicule?

So it is with much of theology (that Dawkins is accused of not studying). It's not focused on proving God exists but how we might think about the divine or the supernatural or phenomena science can't explain or give meaning to.

Again, this may be of no interest or value to you or me, but I don't that it is worthy of quick dismissal, particularly without some study, simply because the dismissers say "It's talking about stuff that doesn't exist."

Those who take this approach, to my mind, see science as the only legitimate prism for viewing the world and human experience, which is simply an opinion.

EB

34. We happy hooligans

Comment #188263 by Eric Blair on June 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm

SteveN: Don't apologize for misunderstanding my point, that's my fault for not making it plainer. But this is pretty swampy ground we're into.

I still think there is a basic distinction between people seeking explanations and understanding, and those seeking meaning and purpose. For many, on both sides of the divide, the inspiration is the search itself, not necessarily the end, or what's being sought.

I think, though, our basic shared predicament as humans should move us to seek ways to bridge this divide.

And that's all I'm going to say about it.... for now. :)

EB

35. We happy hooligans

Comment #187762 by Eric Blair on June 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Steve N: I think you may have read my post too quickly. I'm not suggesting scientific types don't have moments of awe or wonder but that their reaction to their feelings is different - as you seem to agree.

There may be no answer to the Why questions but some folks, such as artists, believers and others - mainly but not exclusively non-scientists - will keep asking these questions.

My observation (I don't really consider it an argument), right or wrong, is that many of these believers being mocked on this thread probably know their answers to the Why questions are woolly and vague, and they have their own doubts about the nature of God and things supernatural. But they still pursue the Why, believing our existence must have a purpose even if there's no objective way to confirm it.

It's easy enough to say the only purpose life has is what we give it. But I'm not sure that's any better an answer than the vague notion of God many of these theologians present. (No worse, perhaps, either.)

All this to say that this discussion needn't be about whether God, however defined, exists, but the possibility of purpose or meaning, and how to live with absurdity, which is one definition at least of lack of purpose or meaning.

Since we all share this fate, it seems to be something we might talk about.

EB

36. We happy hooligans

Comment #186549 by Eric Blair on May 30, 2008 at 3:05 pm

'What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I don't know why these "discussions" are always positioned as debates, since believers are unlikely to put forward anything that is debatable and few Dawkinsians are likely to listen to anything else.

I think there's more than one great divide at work here: as well as that between faith and reason (or skepticism) there's the chasm between science and art, or, in academics, the sciences and the humanities.

A poet or musician will describe a stunning sunset differently than will a scientist, and the esthetic description will highlight the feeling the sunset stirs in them. Many artists will even suggest that feeling is somehow derived from and connected to the sunset itself, and is not "all in their head."

The scientist will describe the sunset in mainly empirical terms, though he/she may also note the feeling it seems to evoke, but the feeling will be secondary. And the scientist will almost certainly not ascribe any inherent meaning or value to the sunset's beauty.

For artists, for believers of the "sophisticated" variety who are described on this thread as "liars and charlatans," for many if not most people, the beautiful sunset may simply offer hope or promise of meaning. Less subtle believers jump to the conclusion that the sunset is an example of "God's handiwork;" the variety under discussion here tend to see the connection as more vague and opaque, perhaps eternally undefined but in many ways not so different from the esthetic experience.

Those of us who see something "ineffable" in a sunset, or in great art, music, literature and even ocasionally daily interactions with those one loves, are, I submit, responding to a deep yearning for meaning, especially, ultimately, personal meaning in the face of death and disconnection with all one loves.

Science may theorize that these feelings are simply reflections of psychological (and biological) needs. This may even be true. But this approach papers over the distinction between the search for knowledge and understanding (science), and the search for meaning and wisdom (pretty much everything else, including religion).

The search for meaning is not more valuable than that for knowledge - in fact, it depends on knowledge - nor does it necessarily lead to religion or faith. But it will lead beyond the purview of science, because science, rooted as it is in logic and reason, has nothing to say about what our lives may mean, if anything, and how we become wise, beyond analyzing probabilities.

That said, whether we are seeking understanding or meaning, it seems unwise to automatically close doors to the ideas of others based on a narrow for-us or against-us mentality.

(I'm not sure if my thoughts here are quite coherent - now there's an easy target for someone - but perhaps some will understand the point I'm making.)

EB

37. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183231 by Eric Blair on May 21, 2008 at 2:42 pm

It's good to see some discussion here about abortion without getting stuck in religious versus atheist rut.

There are both practical, social issues at stake here as well as more abstract philosophical ones -- but that doesn't mean the practical ones will forever win out (though in the short-term they are more pressing).

The abstract issues relate to the definition of human and person - which are not yet carved in stone - as well as innate value. Nor should these be dismissed as matters of personal belief.

There must be some reasonable basis for drawing lines or limits, as to when abortion is entirely up to the pregnant woman, and when society has a stake.

This does not mean "sending women back to the streets" or making decisions based on religious dogma. (Religious dogma, or at least Christian and Jewish dogma as reflected in the Bible, has little to say about abortion and the sanctity of unborn life.)

All it means is that we must expect, at some point, to better balance all the factors at work here, just as we would in any other rational decision-making process.

EB

38. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178525 by Eric Blair on May 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm

As Paula Kirby's comments suggest (I just realized... her last name might have originally meant "by-the-church(kirk)?), I wouldn't read too much into these "squabbles."

They've been going on in Protestant churches for hundreds of years. That's why we get need ones... some weirder than those who went before.

EB

39. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177723 by Eric Blair on May 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Styrer: I think the multitude of posts after mine and yours, mainly supporting mine, eclipses your rebuttal.

They also illustrate how a flippant off-the-cuff comment can lead to a tangential dead-end discussion that simply gives Boteach more credence than he deserves. Yet I don't think we should let comments like the Hitler comparison go without comment. Dawkins should know better.

EB

Deeper issues? Sorry, don't follow you.

40. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177290 by Eric Blair on May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I have to agree with Belcanto 78 here.

Did Dawkins really think he could compare anyone - let alone a Rabbi - to Hitler, in any respect, and then pretend it was an innocent statement? Either he intended to be malicious or he is terribly naive.

The ensuing pointless discussion about screeching preachers is beneath the usual standard here. I'm sure there are some atheists who have annoying speaking habits.

EB

41. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #160906 by Eric Blair on April 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

The author of the Guardian article and Dawkins apparently agree on the aesthetic and anthropological value of studying religion, as many here have noted.

But what is the chance that kids wil actually study the Bible in school, before college or university. Even high school comparative religion courses are more likely to be based on someone's summary of the great religions, not actual texts. One can imagine the furor if schools suddenly put the Bible on the reading list, after decades of building up walls to keep it out.

Will we see the professor waving a placard reading "Study the Bible for art's sake"? T'would be a bizarre and ironic sight.

EB

42. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160901 by Eric Blair on April 14, 2008 at 2:30 pm

A strange and misdirected article, to be sure. The author and Dawkins apparently agree on the aesthetic and anthropological value of studying religion, as many here have noted.

What few if any have asked is, what is the chance that kids wil actually study the Bible in school, before college or university. Even high school comparative religion courses are more likely to be based on someone's summary of the great religions, not actual texts. One can imagine the furor if schools suddenly put the Bible on the reading list, after decades of building up walls to keep it out.

Will we see the professor waving a placard reading "Study the Bible for art's sake!"? T'would be a bizarre and an ironic sight.

EB

43. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159194 by Eric Blair on April 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm

I know I'll get spanked for this but I keep hoping Dawkins will get off his "religious indoctrination as child abuse" hobby-horse. I think he got whatever rhetorical value the point had in his book and has been mainly raising hackles ever since.

He raises it here (in one of the segments, I didn't follow them in order) where he mentions a 12-year-old girl who trotted out the usual pat Creationist phrases (evolution just a "theory," humans walked with dinosaurs, etc.), and he says her parents abused her by feeding her this religion-inspired nonsense.

To me, the abuse is that they clearly put her up to challenging Dawkins publicly, not necessarily the content of what she said.

I'm not sure why telling a child such things is abuse. It's not as bad as threatening them with hellfire and damnation, which to my mind is abusive. Parents may tell their kids all kinds of things on many subjects that are not true and even ludicrous (even though the parents think them true)... is that all abuse?

If this child, at 12, has any inkling of what she's talking about, she's obviously clever enough to get over it in a few years. If it's all just rehearsed cant, well, she may still learn real science - though she may not get over her parents' setting her up to take on the Great Atheist.

I think the response of the religious moderates here gave a good picture of this issue. Few are forcing dogma down the throats of their kids, and those who are - besides not being moderates - are not going to listen to Dawkins anyway.

EB

44. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159191 by Eric Blair on April 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Anyone interested in the dead-end Holocaust debate should find enough on Wikipedia to avoid taking it seriously. If you're obsessed, no doubt it goes on (and on) like a poor badminton game on various sites, as do arguments over the 9/11 conspiracy theory or various world domination paranoias.

I doubt tossing quotes and websites back and forth is going to convince anyone here.

What I do find curious is that conspiracy theories seem to be really big in America (the US, not Canada), where of course literalist Christianity is also rampant. (Holocaust denial cuts against the grain here since many proponents, like our friend Senor Marques, live in Europe - though I think this relates to neo-Nazism and ongoing anti-Semitism.)

Think about it: Pearl Harbor (advance knowledge), Roswell, JFK, 1969 moon landing, Tri-Partite Commission/NAFTA, Federal Reserve...

What's with them Yanks anyway?

Now there's a topic worth discussing!

EB

45. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147465 by Eric Blair on March 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm

AKirkland:

The "atheist extremists" arguement gets on my tits like no other.

My argument was in response to Henri Bergson and Michel Onfray's suggestion, after Nietszche, that "true" atheism must discard most modern institutions and philosophy because they derive from Christianity.

I'm not sure what this means on a practical level. But on an intellectual level it sounds like an extreme view.


As for whether theology is a worthy academic subject, the answer ultimately is found in terms of either "bums in seats" or the pleasure of those who pay the bills. If you run the place, then obviously you can determine what studies survive.

I must say, though, I don't like the Jacobin-like suggestion that we should close down areas of study on the basis of their basis in "rationality."

Lots of academic studies, from psychology and philosophy to classics and art history, might fail the litmus test of being "true."

Theology may, as suggested, have implications for anthropology, but are we then to tell such scholars, "You'll get your office as long as you produce something that adds to our understanding of human society"?

Who's to judge? Do theologians like Augustine and Aquinas now drop off the accepted reading list?

EB

46. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147120 by Eric Blair on March 19, 2008 at 9:32 pm

This book is meaningless after Nietzsche.

Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise).

You're joking, right?

47. Jesus saves

Comment #146782 by Eric Blair on March 19, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Witticisms aside, surely it's all grist to the mill.

I'm not sure this particular pot of money will be well spent but it seems to me if you want people to stop doing something (like, say, hitting themselves on the head with a hammer) you might look at why they do it.

If their ancestors and in fact many people's ancestors hit themselves on the head with hammers (different shapes and sizes, different strokes, etc.), all the more reason to try to find out what's at the root of this head-hammering.

This is assuming, of course, that direct appeals - from the subtle "That must hurt" to "Stop hitting yourself on the head!" -- have fallen on deaf, if not crushed ears, and that you don't want to simply take away the hammers, believing this is a decision they must make themselves.

Then once you have some inkling of why they persist in this activity, then maybe you can offer something less harmful that addresses the same need.

(Or give them a helmet, if they're not Sikh...)

EB

48. A God blog

Comment #137443 by Eric Blair on March 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm

"Dawkins spends a lot of time discussing evil acts committed in the name of religion, but little time disentangling religious motivation from political or economic factors, or acknowledging the acts of charity or goodness directly inspired by religion."

I think it's important to note that Dawkins acknowledges TGD is a polemic, not a scientific or "balanced" work in all its elements (though it contains many sections that are scientific in all but tone).

On the other hand, Dawkins often says he is pursuing truth in his discussion of the existence of God, not practical or political goals. This may apply to God but not to his analysis of religion.

While he brings to this study a fine mind (one of the best around today), his field is not anthropology or history - which provide the best lenses to scrutinize the role of religion in society. And, it must be said, he does come to the subject seeking to confirm certain answers.

On the Bible vs Qu'ran (which is worse?) debate, from my limited understanding I think the Q is probably worse in its directives regarding treatment of non-believers. More important, though, is the point Ayaan Kirsi Ali has made that Islam is yet to go through an equivalent of the Enlightment, which means it has not yet sought to re-interpret its dogma in the light of reason (as has Christianity to a limited extent) nor has it at all embraced the notion of a secular state overshadowing religion.

EB

49. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137437 by Eric Blair on March 2, 2008 at 9:28 pm

pkruger: on "begging the question."

It's a lonely and losing battle. It's gotten to the point that whenever I see the phrase, I assume it's used incorrectly and I'm rarely disappointed.

Technically, it's an argument where you're simply restating what you're seeking to prove in other terms, or presenting an argument that assumes its conclusion in its very formulation. An example: "If God exists, he would have created an orderly universe. The universe is orderly, therefore God exists."

EB

50. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #135384 by Eric Blair on February 28, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Response to Paula Kirby.

I understand why RD asked Bunting about the Virgin Birth. I just think it keeps the debate so narrow and misses an opportunity to show some listeners who might support Bunting because of her social "progressiveness" that her RC dogma actually limits her ability to respond to social issues (unless she doesn't believe in the dogma either).

EB