601. God Hates the World

Comment #53056 by _J_ on June 29, 2007 at 6:33 am

David,

Thanks for your responses.

You know, it's frustrating because, after all the squaring up, we always seem to narrow in on something like a reasonable perspective that recognises the strengths and weaknesses of both sides - but then just fall short. I think most of what you said to me is eminently sensible, but I still disagree with you on RD's attitude to this video and I really think you are over-reacting (not that you don't have a point - just that it's weaker than you make out). I think that's probably as far as we can go with that.

This matter of evidence is behind everything, isn't it? I'd love to see you try to spend one day of your life living without the conclusions drawn by naturalistic/materialistic/rationalistic reasoning from evidence. Or even just to hear you try seriously to imagine what living in such a way would be like. I know what it's like to live without a religious faith - I do it all the time. But to live without, say, a physical-observation-based understanding that the water in the kettle is probably hot (to name one out of countless daily experiences) - that, I think, would be tough. Somewhere, you leap from one kind of evidence to another. The kind you leap to seems to include things like using existence as 'evidence' for God simply by choosing to call it 'The Creation'. I would love to understand how such 'evidence' works, but I think I need you to explain it to me!

I'm sorry if I've wound you up by being a smartarse. It's a personality flaw of mine.

Anyway, I only really came on here to say: have a nice holiday!

602. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52812 by _J_ on June 28, 2007 at 6:05 am

864. Comment #52802 by Dianelos Georgoudis

The question is not what you do in that situation. Rather the question is: if a naturalist and a theist found themselves in that situation, all other personal parameters being the same, who would be more likely to resort to an unethical course of action. If you had to place a bet in a reality show kind of situation, how would you bet?

You know what, Dianelos, I was writing something that touches this issue in a post to a Christian recently. I gave him a hypothetical situation in which he could save one of two imperilled rock-climbers – one, a Christian friend, the other a non-Christian stranger. It seems to me that (supposing he was somehow able to make a reasoned choice rather than a gut-instinct reaction) his faith ought to motivate him to save the non-Christian stranger. A dead Christian is just an eternal life sent early to heaven – no big deal in the long term. But a dead non-believer is a soul lost to damnation. Saving them creates the possibility of future conversion and another eternal soul won for god.

So, our Christian must surely save the faithless stranger. And this argument ought also to hold were the there two Christians on the one rope, or ten, whilst the other rope held a faithless murderer or terrorist. Whilst I, as an atheist, would save two people in favour of one (just as I'd save one rather than none at all), for my theoretical Christian it's a matter of potentially saving one soul or none at all. (Thankfully, though, this logic would not force anyone to rescue a member of the Phelps family.)

So, that's score one for sharing the island with a Believer - so long as you're not a believer yourself.

But then, on the other hand, we have 'Death to the enemies of Islam', which presents a wholly different theistically-based attitude to non-believers.

It seems to me that people's gods are capable of backing up or contradicting pretty much any prejudice or moral concern that they might already have. It strikes me as a factor that simply tips the balance in the believer's mind, over-emphasising whichever aspects of moral behaviour are characteristic of that particular god-concept.

I would rather share my island with someone who has no such added bias in making their moral decisions, but who can survey the field of options a little more evenly.

Unless I'm confident that their particular god is something that has been carefully moulded to add emphasis to a morality that I, from my secular vantage point, can share, that is. But even in this instance, I'd have a slight concern about what might happen should some unusual, unanticipated moral grey area arise. This kind of retro-fitted god presents problems when trying to adjust one's morality to new situations. ('Hmm, are you sure about all this research on homosexuality? Seems to me they're just being sinful…')

603. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52795 by _J_ on June 28, 2007 at 5:23 am

862. Comment #52794 by epeeist

Could I object to the word "believe" in your response. It has two much baggage connected with it in debates between theists and atheists.

Epeeist is right. I'm sure we all recognise the well-formedness of the formula '1 much + 1 much = 2 much baggage'.

604. God Hates the World

Comment #52791 by _J_ on June 28, 2007 at 5:03 am

191. Comment #52668 by Donald

It's a pity. If only David could do a Jonathan Edwards.

What a nice thought.

Seems that for Edwards, finishing his athletics career gave him the freedom on thought to realise how psychologically dependent he'd been on religion to support him in his profession.

Now, what does Rev. David Robertson do for a living...?

Oh.

605. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52689 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Dianelos,

Take any mathematical object or mathematical theorem. They make sense within the context of some formal system. This formal system can be simulated in a computer which is a material system. Therefore any mathematical truth describes a property of a material system. Therefore all mathematical truths can be reduced to matter.

Take any play by Shakespeare. They make sense within the context of some formal system of signifiers (ie a language, originally English). This formal system can be simulated on paper, using a quill and ink, which together amount to a material system (ie writing). Therefore any play by Shakespeare describes a physical system. Therefore the Complete Works of Shakespeare can be reduced to matter.

Of course! Shakespeare wrote in English, which he recorded on paper, therefore his plays are reducible to paper. If only Nelson Mandela had realised this while incarcerated, he needn't to have wasted all that time 'being inspired' by them.

This game is fun.

Dianelos, your myth of naturalism still eludes me a little. I still don't entirely get your strategy of reducing everything to some non-question about the existence of existence – apparently as a ploy for shaking off your concept of naturalism – before electing a highly questionable theistic rope ladder for hauling yourself out in your chosen fashion. And I'm scratching my head about what non-naturalistic science might be like. Perhaps I'm stuck with a myth. Please help me out.

(An answer to these questions might resemble an answer to my last long post to you, 829, actually – though you could be forgiven for taking my claim to be not doing this anymore at face value!)

epeeist - I get the point you were making earlier, now. Hadn't read Dianelos' post properly. I stand by my restatement of the logic, but I wasn't sure what I was restating it for when I wrote it!

steve99,

…my meagre efforts…

Whom do you think you're kidding? ;)

606. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52630 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Billy,

Hellfire preaching from the Free Church, eh? They're losing my sympathy, now.

I don't think DR's ever seriously going to question his faith. I think he believes that he does (he got very offended when I suggested otherwise) but if so then he bounces back to the same old nonsense every time - in fact, he seems to come back more extreme. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Your friend's blog sounds great. But I really need to try to step away from all this. I may be becoming addicted to online discussion. A break is in order.

By the way:

Concerning the flood, I read on a christian's blog a totally obvious question.Why did people with boats not survive?

You'd need an Ark to fit in a food supply sufficient to last long enough. (No - rubbish, you'd just need a fishing rod.)

I suppose god's point is to kill everyone. If he chooses to arse about with a flood as a way of doing that, it's his business, but he's not going to let a few clever dicks with luxury galleons do him out of an apocalypse. Maybe this is why he invented the kraken. (No, wait...)

(Not an issue if you're a Pastafarian, by the way. Arr.)

607. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52621 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 2:34 pm

epeeist - just for clarification of your logic argument:

1. All mathematics can be considered as formal systems.
2. Some formal systems can be simulated on computers
3. Therefore some mathematics can be simulated on computers.

Unless the 'some formal systems' are only the ones that aren't mathematics, of course.

As in:

1 All goats are animals.
2 Some animals can fly.
3 Therefore, some goats can fly.

(Only if you launch them very hard.)

Or is that the point you were making...? (But then, the example would suggest that no maths can be simulated, which wouldn't be your point, I take it.)

608. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52619 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 2:23 pm

1244. Comment #52617 by BillySands

I might saunter on over and check this guy out. Might be entertaining :-)

You haven't met Dianelos? Good luck. I'm with Quetzalcoatl. His references are way beyond me and I try not to try anymore. I feel like I can see where the reasoning of it all goes awry, but I'm nowhere near learned enough to be very confident about it.

609. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52618 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Cheers, Billy,

Yeah, it's a while since I've looked at Converts' Corner. I reasoned out of the whole religion shabang too. In some respects, maybe I was never cut out for it. I've got the desire, alright, but even before I (temporarily) became a 'proper' Christian, I wondered whether I could intellectually accept the argument. I managed for as long as the 'God doesn't need evidence' dam held. About nine months. Then Carl Sagan, Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins blew it out, probably for good.

I've spent far too much time the last couple of weeks trying a nicely-nicely, reason-out-every-point approach with Robertson on his own site. And it's futile. Unless it provokes a few of his own flock to think about it, at any rate.

Guess I'm just wondering whether these discussions are really any more than a zero sum game. In every debate I've witnessed, atheists build up the argumentational pressure on one side whilst theists circulate back to long-abandoned positions and demonstrate an essential unwillingness to entertain new perspectives on the other. This thread looks more reasonable.

But still, I'd love to see just one clear case to demonstrate that people aren't all solely committed to beefing up their own argument and maybe, just once in a while, change their mind.

610. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #52584 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 11:09 am

Hello, people,

I'm not about to join in here - sadly I seem to have discovered the most reasonable and interesting thread on the website (thank you, Billy) at the same time as I've decided that the RD site is bad for me and I have to leave it alone.

But it's lovely to see theists and atheists playing together nicely. I hope this thread continues to buck the trend by producing more light than heat.

I have one question, though, which is a side issue, I suppose. Does anyone know of anyone who has actually converted or deconverted as a consequence of a discussion on this site? (Or, secondarily, any site?) I'd love to think that there might be one. Just one...

611. God Hates the World

Comment #52583 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 10:55 am

BillySands Thanks for the info!

612. God Hates the World

Comment #52517 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 7:15 am

163. Comment #52476 by The Wee Flea

Jonathan, you may be very clever

I'm not. I'll let you into a secret: it's all about who you stand next to. ;)

I have not noticed any criticism of RD on this site.

You criticise RD on this site. Various other posters – darwin2, Dianelos etc – disagree with him at impressive length. Massive discussions proceed from these disagreements – the RD and McGrath thread is on 17 pages, now. If you mean 'I have not noticed the people who agree with RD criticising him on this site', then I think you can probably work out why that might be so.

I specifically gave you an example of a trivial criticism of TGD that I find reasonable. There's not much need to discuss it because it's not very interesting. Such matters aren't. This site is not about agonising in detail over whether or not Our Lord Who Art In Oxford is perfect. It's about ideas, reason and beliefs. Most people here find themselves in substantial agreement with Dawkins. You don't. We discuss. Problem?

this video was not posted here in order to demonstrate how evil and sick the Phelps are, but rather to show that religion leads to child abuse. No matter how you try to worm out of it, that is why it was posted here. And that is the view of most people here.

Honestly, in my view the video was placed here as a particularly shocking example of the dogmatic indoctrination of uncritical children that religions can, and do, give rise to and which can, when fairly severe, be reasonably considered a form of psychological child abuse.

The video does not suggest that all religious people are as guilty as the Phelps'. Neither does Dawkins' response to it. However his opinion, my opinion and the opinion (I think) of most posters here is that this is an example at the more shocking end of a wide spectrum. At one end there's liberal Sunday schools – not really deserving of the word 'abuse'. At the other end there are little kids waving machine guns and 'Death the enemies of Allah' banners. The Phelps' child is on the wrong side of the 'abuse' line.

David, if you had come on here and said something like:

'This video really is disgusting and it disturbs me deeply to see people taking their religion to such appalling and irresponsible extremes. Extremists like this are an embarrassment to the more liberal, thinking religions and a warning to us all of the dangers of fundamentalism.

I think it is very important not to confuse this type of abusive idiocy with the practices of moderate religions. We should all be on the same side where respecting the rights of our children are concerned, whatever our personal beliefs.'

…then this would have been quite a different discussion. Sure, we could still have had a debate about just how the details of your faith differ from those of the Phelps', but we'd have had a wonderful area of common ground, some basis for mutual respect and maybe even a hope in hell of actually getting somewhere.

But no, you had to go and polarise things, didn't you?

There used to be a gang in Edinburgh who did roadside fire-and-brimstone preaching…

J and Lauregon – utter nonsense. Neither of you have heard time and time again people proclaiming 'God hates the world'. Why lie?

David, only one of us is in the business of propagating fairy stories and it ain't me. Why on earth would I spend so long on drawn out chains of reasoning with you if I could just make up some punchy lies and slap you down with them? No, I haven't 'heard time and time again people proclaiming "God hates the world".' I have seen exactly what I claimed: a gang of apocalypse evangelisers in Edinburgh, waving banners about how we're all doomed by God's wrath unless we repent, with not a smiley face between the lot of them. It was some of the worst evangelism I've ever seen. They were idiots, just like the Phelps'. Anyone who didn't themselves totally believe their nonsense could immediately see what a pointless exercise in nihilism the whole thing was. But they came back, day after day. The Phelps' may be the current high-profile bogey men of Christian fundamentalist, but if you think they're the only ones, you are lying to yourself.

171. Comment #52493 by BillySands

Sounds like an interesting debate. Is this at the Free Church of Scotland? Which thread?

613. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52499 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 6:23 am

This is very cheering news.

When I was temporarily devout, I went to a Christmas Christian event with lots of singing and so forth at Man City's old stadium. Jonathan Edwards spoke at it. He was as personable and genuine as he always seems to be.

I heard the news of his apparent Crisis of Faith a few months back and had been keeping my fingers crossed that he'd stay on top of it and reach a conclusion that he was happy with. I'm delighted for him that he has been able to do so.

(Perhaps, having realised how important sport was to him all along, he might consider returning to it as a hobby? You know, just something to do on a Sunday...)

614. Messiah

Comment #52490 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 6:08 am

Philip1978 and Rachel Holmes - I saw a show in the same tour as you're both describing, too, when he was in Manchester. Some really amazing stuff, and the video bit at the end was a serious mind-buggerer.

His book contains quite a lot of interesting material. As well as spending time going over some of the principles he uses, there's a long section on psuedoscience and nonsense and some quite reverential nods to Richard Dawkins.

On the issue of debunking, it was interesting to read his remark that the most difficult audience members to dupe are those who are not really paying attention. The more you concentrate and try to see through the performer, the more you allow him to manipulate what you are seeing.

Also interesting was that, out of all his TV specials (including this Messiah one, the Russian roulette and the 'armed-robbery' of the Heist) the one that got the most viewer complaints was: the one where he faked a seance. Just a seance. The most daft and harmless of the lot. Tells you something, doesn't it?

615. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52342 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 7:33 pm

836. Comment #52336 by Dr Benway

Seems to me I'm outnumbered. Ergo, my preference to leave God out of the affair.

No, Dr Benway, no! You have a tactical advantage! Your theistic opponent is reduced to one fighting hand (assuming he doesn't presume to launch divine headbutts) and is wearing only one shoe! Strike while the iron is hot, Dr Benway, strike while the iron is hot!

616. God Hates the World

Comment #52325 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 6:17 pm

152. Comment #52323 by Déjà Fu

Eh?

617. 4 page German spread on The God Delusion

Comment #52317 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Ah good. They've gone for the clearly superior UK cover design.

(This is the important thing, you know.)

618. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52255 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 3:23 pm

We need only access the other tools God has put in our toolbox, as the scientific method is incapable of getting us all the way home ...:)

Because (if I may tag on to you, krogercomplete) God, and the universe, are just a big one of us.

So it's 'Knowing me, knowing you - Amen', as far as understanding existence is concerned.

(Stop me if I'm getting this wrong, Dianelos...)

619. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52182 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 12:32 pm

1. Comment #52177 by MIND_REBEL

Africa needs atheism and rationality like a plant needs water.

Not sure I'd go that far. Africa's huge, remember, and religious practices various. I spent time in a village in central Tanzania last summer. Their church gave them a community focus, a serious dose of optimism and hope, and an excuse to sing (which was fantastic). Negatives were less apparent.

Can't speak for S. Africa.

620. God Hates the World

Comment #52173 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 12:18 pm

145. Comment #52150 by Lauregon

Great post.

Time and time again I've heard such prosetylizing on street corners.

There used to be a gang in Edinburgh who did roadside fire-and-brimstone preaching at festival-time. I'm pretty sure they weren't an act - they seemed a lot more keen on the world ending than on selling any tickets. People walked politely around them.

621. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52162 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 11:40 am

821. Comment #52030 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Pity. I am interested in your thoughts.

Well, just for you… ;)

Thanks for responding.

I'm tight for time and haven't read the intervening posts, so I appreciate this may all be old hat, now.

Even though there were no sparsely populated countries in the Middle Ages with naturalistically inclined folks who'll reason and experiment

Yeah, I know. Ta for taking the point anyway, though.

After all, why do you think theism should use science's methodological framework in the first place?

I don't. In fact, I'm fairly confident that it can't. A mode of thinking consistent with the principles of the scientific method – what Carl Sagan referred to as 'science' or 'scientific thinking' in a loose sense, and which I tend to follow him in using – seems inevitably to steer one away from theistic constructions. It certainly has that effect on me.

Are you suggesting that therefore we should use objective experiments in all other cognitive fields also? Would you criticize politicians for not using objective experiments before making decisions? Or ethicists for not using objective experiments before developing ethical theories? Or mathematicians for not using objective experiments before proving theorems? Or sculptors for not using objective experiments before creating a sculpture? Or people for not using objective experiments before choosing their friends? Or people for not using objective experiments before choosing an ontological worldview?

Actually yes, I am. But I would be using 'objective experiments' in a much looser sense than you. Sheer objectivity is, as far as I can make out, an unattainable Holy Grail. All we can do is try to water down our subjectivity.

I think we would both expect a politician to give a better reason for a policy than 'Well I bloody like it!'. But we would both also accept that there's no way s/he can be perfectly objective about it either. We expect references to be made to precedent, to statistics, to the opinions of experts and the reactions of the people who will be affected by the policy, and more measures besides. We might even expect some sort of dedicated trial period. The amount of effort we will expect to be taken over this will be in relation to how severe we judge the effects of the policy to be.

Take the Iraq war issue in 2003 as a case in point. Large scale international violence wasn't something we were going to take lying down, so the types of justification had to look pretty strong, and to face up to a hell of a lot of scrutiny. Hence all the wrangling about 'sexed-up' dossiers and WMD. A few cabinet meetings and a confident smile aren't enough in that context, because of our (reasonably objective) understanding of the consequences – death and destruction.

(Politicians and others, of course, can be great masters at using our own subjectivity against us here – as in the 'A good day to bury bad news' debacle).

I expect similar attempts to constrain subjectivity and aspire to objectivity in all of the other situations. Here's a quote from James Goldman's play The Lion In Winter:

Henry Ask any sculptor, ask Praxiteles, 'Why don't you work in butter?' Eleanor, because it doesn't last.

That is, in my opinion, a fairly objective observation. We can all go and fiddle about with some butter and thereby become quite confident that it's not a great medium for robust works of art. 'Fiddling about with some butter' might strike you as not very objective, but we'd try harder were our efforts to prove inconclusive. Or we'd find out further along the line, were our insufficiently rigorous initial dabblings to tip us in favour of butter as a sculpting medium. We may never need to ask others whether their observations of butter back us up. Hopefully we will never have cause to lament the time spent on our masterpiece, 'The Golden Madonna', which transformed unexpectedly into a rancid puddle during that very hot day last summer.

It might seem to be reducing the matter to absurdity to take this approach, but I actually don't think it is. We all appeal to a 'making it as objective as we can' approach for dealing with most of the predictions we have to get through a day in the real world. The scientific method is straightforwardly a system for maximising objectivity. It does not assume the possibility of total objectivity, it just recognises that doing your best to overcome sheer subjectivity pays dividends, and it can demonstrate this through centuries of progress.

Of course, we all say 'bollocks to objectivity – I'm going with my gut on this' at times. That's justifiable in matters of little or no consequence or that only affect our individual selves. But 'Is there a god?' seems to me to be a more important, and more consequential, question. Our beliefs on this matter will effect the other people we interact with.

Let's see. I assume you yourself have chosen the naturalistic ontological worldview. What objective experiment did you perform before deciding that this is the correct ontological worldview?

It's entirely possible to decide afterwards, pending practice and evaluation. I find that by treating reality as objectively real, one can apply a naturalistic methodology that gets results. The question of what reality 'actually is' is irrelevant to this observation: even if we are living in The Matrix, to use the example you've used once or twice, this has no bearing on the observable efficacy of the scientific method as applied within reality - or on the equally observable inefficacy of theistic alternatives (here, for evidence – which is only a valuable concept if you accept some degree of objectivity - I refer you to the millennium before the seventeenth century). Personally, even if The Machines are running the show, I'd rather live in a simulation with antibiotics than one without.

I'm at a loss for how you take outright scepticism about what reality is to be in any way a useful position. If you refuse to accept 'stuff's real' as a productive model, what, of any use, are you left with? Back in world of The Matrix: 'Gosh', says Neo, 'That really was a simulation! Wow, next I'll find out that Zion is really just a movie sound stage! Wherever will it end…?' Where, indeed?

I also find the strategy you then employ (some time ago, now!) for getting yourself out of this existential whirlpool unpersuasive. Having rejected the lifeline of 'let's take objective reality as a functional working model', you instead seem to claim that your knowledge of yourself is special and true in a way that your knowledge of other things is not. Somehow, whilst you regard all sense-data about the world at large as suspect, you take sense-data about yourself to be beyond question. This assumption made, your keen philosophical thinking kicks in and pretty soon you're reasoning that, so long as all reality is the construct of a being that is in some essential way like you yourself, then knowledge of external things is actually of the same sort as self knowledge after all. (This really appears to be a species of extended, projected solipsism, although you reject charges of solipsism outright, apparently by deflecting such accusations with a definition of normal, vanilla solipsism.) If you had been prepared to acknowledge this equivalence between the two types of knowledge in the first place, you could have avoided the train of thought that sent you in search of a Dianelos-shaped god, and perhaps joined the rest of us in the 'working model' approach to the whole problem.

And as for reason, my goal in this thread has been to explain the reasons why I find theism to work much better than naturalism. And if one finds that one worldview works much better than another it's reasonable to adopt the first one, don't you agree?

Here's Carl Sagan (in The Demon-Haunted World):

If different doctrines are superior in quite separate and independent fields, we are of course free to choose several – but not if they contradict each other. Far from being idolatry, this is the means by which we determine the false idols from the real thing.

…and, to lend philosophical support, Bertrand Russell (in The Problems of Philosophy):

There can never be any reason for rejecting one instinctive belief except that it clashes with others; thus, if they are found to harmonize, the whole system becomes worthy of acceptance.
[My emboldening]

My point is that I persistently get the impression from your argument that there is a serious clash between a kind of naturalism that you must automatically apply on a day-to-day basis, and the supernaturalism that you claim allegiance to when questions become sufficiently complex to demand your full attention. I would argue that your 'theism works better' opinion only holds if you limit its application by adding either 'so long as not everyone shares it' or 'but not for long'. For, if we all subscribed Dianelosian theism, scientific progress would grind to a halt within a generation (and we'd soon learn to hate those drug-resistant bacteria…).

To come full circle:

Anyway: I'm not here; I'm not doing this debate anymore

Pity. I am interested in your thoughts.

And I'm interested in yours, but the time I'm spending on debate is doing me more harm than (what I now think of as) naïve theism ever did! And also, I don't feel philosophically literate enough to tackle you head on.

You see, in your arguments, I get the sense of a cloud of philosophical abstraction into which naturalism quietly leads and from which theism exits, but through which we can't see that the two don't meet up. I rather agree with Russell, again, when he questions (in the same place as before) the notion that philosophy can really 'give us knowledge', instead affirming the 'more modest function' of helping us to arrive at 'an orderly systematic organization of our knowledge'.

No, I'll leave it with a quote from the most brilliant lecturer I had in my university days in his book The Printed Voice of Victorian Poetry. Having spent a few pages shooting gaping holes in Jacques Derrida's '"deconstruction" of Western metaphysics', he rounded off the section with a remark on the 'absurdly schematic relation of human practices to their philosophical articulations' he had identified therein:

It is quite possible to think…the converse of what the Derridan critique suggests – to think that philosophy is itself only a secondary elaboration of the rationality of what is already actual, a fallible attempt to bring practices to articulated self-consciousness, whose failures may reveal the difficulty with which we make forms of life articulate. In such attempts, we may commit philosophical mistakes without showing up all philosophy as mistaken, and the discovery of those mistakes is part of the history of philosophy as one of our practices rather than a demonstration of the groundlessness of our behaving. Some philosophers have also held this, or a similar, view – Aristotle, Hegel, and Wittgenstein, for example.
---Eric Griffiths

But maybe I misunderstand you.

Anyway: once again, and for the same reasons: I'm not here; I'm not doing this debate anymore…

622. God Hates the World

Comment #52138 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 9:35 am

38. Comment #52130 by steve99

I actually find it quite offensive and very unhelpful that you think that Richard Dawkins' views are typical of all atheists. More than angry, I'm just very very disappointed. It's easy for you to take pot-shots at the lunatic fringe of the atheist spectrum (if a spectrum can have a fringe), but this is not typical of what most atheists believe.

I do hope I am reading this wrong, and you aren't accusing Richard Dawkins of being on a 'lunatic fringe'.

If that's not a spoof, I'm a loofah.

623. God Hates the World

Comment #52104 by _J_ on June 26, 2007 at 6:53 am

Well, I knew what I was going to say, but Robert Maynard (Comment 101) and Philip1978 (Comment 111) and others have already done it beautifully.

David, it's nicely clever of you to call me clever and nice, but argumentationally that cuts no ice. I am very happy for people to criticise Dawkins. This is how we will notice his errors. He's not infallible. There were a few arguments in TGD that even I (in my blind, fundamentalist atheist reverence) thought a little suspect -

[aside: to half-recall one off the top of my head: it seemed nonsensical to criticise believers who regard Jesus as symbolic and still stake their lives on him as 'giving their lives for a symbol'. Clearly such people give their lives for the thing that is symbolised, just as soldiers who risk their necks 'for their country' don't do it for a particular arrangement of the letters C, O, U, N, T, R and Y, but for the thing that is thereby signified. Right?]

- but a book doesn't need to be inerrant for me to recognise that it is overwhelmingly making a good argument. That would be a very childish position for me to take (though it wouldn't be the first time…).

My objection is not to the Phelps being exposed…my objection is to your linkage of the Phelps with religion in general and Christianity in particular. The fact that Jonathan cannot (or will not) see that only illustrates the extent to which love makes you blind.

Robert Maynard has given just the examples needed to show that the 'linkage' you claim isn't actually present in Dawkins' comment. Sometimes, the failure of one person to see the same thing as another stems not from the blindness of the former but from the hallucinations of the latter.

And for the record it should be blatantly obvious that I abhor everything that the Phelps stand for and do. I think they are an evil, twisted and very sick family – and personally in this country (the UK) I think their children would and should be taken into care. .

Why, for the love of [insert object of worship here] are we having this argument at all? Surely we have actually found something we can agree on? (You know, this 'well, I just don't like the way you're saying it' attitude is one of the main reasons you Christians don't seem to be able to keep your churches in one piece.)

624. God Hates the World

Comment #51947 by _J_ on June 25, 2007 at 3:44 pm

17. Comment #51894 by The Wee Flea and thereafter,

David,

I don't get it.

An atheist points to religion in general and says 'This seems to be factually wrong, and parts of it are harmful' and you are angry that he should leave most of it alone and concentrate on the fundamentalists.

An atheist points specifically to the fundamentalists and says 'This is wrong and harmful' and you are angry because criticising the fundamentalists is bad because it somehow implies (to you - it's definitely not in Richard's words) that all religion is bad.

So we can't question the validity of the whole and we can't criticise the excesses of the extremists. Are there any criticisms that your religion will allow?

Obviously there are: you kindly allow me to rant away at your site. And yet here you seem to have simply decided to take offence and then imagined something to take offence to.

It is very silly, by the way, to say 'this isn't religion' and 'this isn't faith'. You do not hold the power to define these words for everyone. Ask any of those people and they will tell you that it is their religion and their faith. And ask them for their justification and, horror of horrors, they'll point to the same book as you will.

This is what I was getting at when I talked at your site about the role of personal and doctrinal interpretation when making the bible cohere, by the way.

Seems to me you could have done yourself and your faith a power of good by just agreeing that the sort of religion we see in this video is bad and wrong and unfairly gives your sort of friendly religion a bad name. But if you can't make that distinction, you're inviting us to worry about you and your church.

You say you're off to bed. Probably wise. I hope you're feeling a bit more clear-headed about this tomorrow.

625. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51890 by _J_ on June 25, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Dianelos,

(Hi, again)

Just want to agree with Dr Benway. Your brain's not like mine on this one, either.

And the other thing I like about the 'desert island' scenario (which, Benway, was an argument I was also putting into a long post for David Robertson's site - have you been reading my mind?) is the issue of who is going to be the most practically useful.

Put it another way: suppose, by virtue of Industrial Light and Magic, your flux capacitor strands you and 99 like-minded others in the year 1000. You find a nice, sparsely populated country to call your own.

Now, which society of stranded time travellers has the best chance of recreating the sort of world you're accustomed to living in - ie one where you don't die of tuberculosis before your thirtieth birthday, and where more than one-in-five kids makes it to adulthood? Is it a society of naturalistically inclined folks who'll reason, experiment and produce? Or is it a society that holds a theistic interpretation of 'reality' which accepts scientific discoveries but contradicts the methodological framework necessary to make any?

On another point, have you seen the charming video posted today featuring the song about how 'God Hates The World'? You've been challenged before on the basis that your perspective allows equally for an interpretation in which God is not the fluffy waver of virtue-flavoured carrots that you suppose, but rather a stick-brandishing thug. You denied this. I see a room full of grinning idiots (and one deeply unfortunate child) who beg to differ.

(Anyway: I'm not here; I'm not doing this debate anymore; Steve99, Epeeist and everyone are much better at it...)

626. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51884 by _J_ on June 25, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Excellent! I'll get some ginger creams in...

627. God Hates the World

Comment #51881 by _J_ on June 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Wow...that's just......wow. It takes a special kind of unselfconsciousness to fail quite this spectacularly to judge the way your performance is going to be received by...well, just about anyone.

And the girl at the end! I suppose that was meant to be sweet? Urgh. If anyone who sees this recognises her, could they please make a call to social services?

Sort've ironic, though. Could these maniacs find a better way of demonstrating that theirs is a 100% No Critical Thinking Required Doctrine of Ignorance? Maybe they could teach a dog to sing it...

628. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #51759 by _J_ on June 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Hello, darwin2,

One of the laws of physics is reincarnation and karma.

Forgive me, sir, but I think you are confusing life with My Name Is Earl. You may want justice to be automatic and universal, but if it actually was, we wouldn't need all these lawyers...

I'll stick with the Tysons and Sagans.

You and me both! I'm a simpleton with regard to science! If it weren't for Sagan and Dawkins and a few others, I'd barely know my science from my seance.

But the thing that Sagan did most of all for me was teach me how the scientific method and it's more generally-applicable sister critical thinking underpin everything. And, if you apply just a bit of stamina and follow through with that thought, it lances 'god' like a boil.

And it's not actually a loss. Even though personally I totally, totally agree with you on:

I don't go to any church now but I miss the social interaction.

I miss things about church. I've got other sources for sheer social interaction, but church can do more than that, so I agree. But you know what? 'God' isn't the source. He's essentially just an organising principle. You can synthesise the same effects just fine without 'him', with a little effort.

Aside from your 'First...' point, your ideal church sounds brilliant. I'd join. I just recommend that, instead of praising god, you praise humanity, nature, discovery, charity, companionship, courage, curiosity, people who have helped you in the course of your life and those who have done the same for others, and bask in awe at the complexity of things we do not yet understand. There's no need to hang a beard on it and call it 'god'. Credit where credit's due - simple as that.

(From a first-hand report I've heard, the United Unitarians can be pretty good for this. Very similar to what you describe, even acknowledging a multiplicity of faiths.

Or, found your own church. Why not? It's not like you need any evidence...)

So:

I am 66 years old and retired. Alternative career paths are not in the plans.

Good luck to you. I think you're wrong about god (and I think Sagan can show you that), but that's not the end of my world and I doubt it's doing you any harm. And your general perspective sounds pretty good (from the few posts I've read...). You can have tea and biscuits with me if you're ever in the neighbourhood.

629. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #51356 by _J_ on June 22, 2007 at 1:09 pm

9. Comment #51186 by Robert Maynard

I'm with chezzyd. Brilliant post.

630. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51163 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 7:53 pm

I gave the bird the benefit of the doubt and thought it shy.

Ah: evidence first, explanation second. Dr Benway's newly evinced potty mouth gives cause for reinterpretation.

By the way, what animal is that on your avatar? Not a badger, not a ratel... I'm stupid, help me out.

631. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51158 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 7:46 pm

59. Comment #51155 by BAEOZ

I'd thought from your bucolic picture

Yes, it's a small bird. Aw.

But - forgive me - isn't there a clue in the way that it's mooning us?

632. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51151 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 6:53 pm

55. Comment #51147 by hehner

That was an excellent comment.

As for this:

The surest way to scuttle a movement is to support it badly.

Just what I was trying to say in Comment 53.

Of course, responses in this thread can quite happily be all the things you said ('semi-literate, misconstrue Manning, are illogical, are easily rebutted') because this is free comment for anyone to take part in, whether trying a serious response, having fun or just venting steam. But you're spot-on right to remind us that indulging in the above doesn't advance our position at all, and is positively dangerous if we allow ourselves to confuse it with Clear Thinking. Of which this site is, of course, an Oasis...

633. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51142 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 5:10 pm

51. Comment #51132 by LeeLeeOne

Scream loudly and often! Show what anti-theism and what science have to offer!

Hey, no disagreement from me! (Well, I prefer atheism to antitheism; but still, in principle.) But the Question Time debate isn't quite like that. If you get chance to see it, you might see what I mean.

I mean, you don't get a church full of believers to listen to you by stepping up to the altar and shouting 'Alright, you twats! Now, watch while I kick this child!' There's a line between 'forthright' and 'self-defeating', somewhere.

52. Comment #51134 by Dr Benway

You are a genius. I nearly hurt myself laughing.

634. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51129 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm

1. Comment #51127 by Winckle

Shame. Given his beliefs, it would have been more apt if he'd ended with the words:

"If one does not devote oneself to God, then one becomes a devotee of power or munnee"

635. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51128 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 3:29 pm

OFF TOPIC - RE: HITCHENS ON QUESTION TIME

43. Comment #51116 by Scott McMeekin

Apparently Christopher Hitchens and his brother (?) will be on Question Time tonight at 10:35pm (21Jun07) on BBC1.

Thanks for the reminder! I missed the first 10 minutes, in which Christopher Hitchens apparently had a lot to say. They were discussing the Rushdie honour. Hitchens made a couple of excellent points - one, in particular, about the foolishness and moral irresponsibility of viewing all Muslims in terms of their lunatic fringe minority.

On the other hand, Hitchens is a little bit in danger of alienating a lot of people who watch him just through the way he handles himself in debates - he looked sullen, and he sniped and interrupted frequently. (And anyone watching this who also remembers the Mother Theresa book might start to wonder if he just has some grudge against elderly ladies...) He wears his 'couldn't give a damn what you think' attitude well, but sometimes it's less than endearing and could prevent people from actually listening to his arguments. (And it can play into the hands of camera operators, show producers and interviewers who know the entertainment value of creating a good villain.)

However, as I said, he made one or two very strong points as I was watching and was as eloquent and controversial as ever. And I still like him.

Anyway, I've stopped watching before the end, because the show has become frustratingly hooked on a pointless cycle of unedifying speculation (often the way with Question Time) about Gordon Brown's Labour Party recruitment tactics. (Christopher Hitchens, in fact, fell completely silent for a long time and, when prodded, immediately confessed that he had no interest in the subject at all. He and I, both.)

636. Bush Vetoes Measure on Stem Cell Research

Comment #51109 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 1:58 pm

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical," Mr. Bush said

But Iraq, Georgie, Iraq...

637. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51014 by _J_ on June 21, 2007 at 5:18 am

Just fantastic.

I'm looking for a hat so I can take it off.

638. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50885 by _J_ on June 20, 2007 at 10:04 am

39. Comment #50869 by Friend Giskard

Why are we giving £480m in aid to these ungrateful dogs who have obviously spent more than that on nuclear weapons?

I think I read - in the same paper - that Pakistan is regarded as 'an important ally in the War on Terror', or something. Don't know how long that'll last now their politicians are suggesting that suicide bombings 'to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad' are 'justified'.

Although, when our politicians see that as a good reason to apologise...! Baffling. 'I'm sorry that you are homicidally deluded idiots who have unjustifiably chosen to take violent offence to something that has absolutely nothing to do with you', perhaps.

639. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50817 by _J_ on June 20, 2007 at 4:48 am

There was a photo in my paper this morning of some Pakistani folks burning an effigy of Salman Rushdie in the streets.

First, it was a rubbish effigy. It didn't even have a face.

Second, the people doing the burning seemed to be having a whale of a time, which makes me think we might be missing out on an entertaining pastime. After all, Bonfire Night is fun.

Anyone fancy joining this invigorating international debate by burning some poorly made effigies? I think, to avoid inciting violence against any particular living person, we should opt for a fictional character to burn - but one that's still relevant to the topic, of course.

How about Muhammad?

640. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50752 by _J_ on June 19, 2007 at 7:54 pm

1. Comment #50694 by USA_Limey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/mayo.shtml

Who would have thought it? That really is a great interview! I should have been asleep ages ago, but I had to listen that one through. No ads, short and sensible questions that gave Christopher chance to expand on his points - excellent good.

641. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50741 by _J_ on June 19, 2007 at 7:00 pm

I agree with the above posts. Those invited to comment in the second half were reasonable, scientific types (like Laurence Krauss, who is extremely praiseworthy and familiar to anyone who has weathered the whole of Beyond Belief 2006). Their criticisms of Dawkins seemed to be limited to the observation that his tone seems a little different in conversation than in print. I rather think that this has more to do with the difference between recorded conversations and print than anything else.

642. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #50735 by _J_ on June 19, 2007 at 6:23 pm

I'm in the middle of trying to respond to the latest response from David Robertson at the Free Church of Scotland website. It's late and I've called a halt for today, tired and now just a little bit woozy from red wine.

I would like to put forward the observation that I love Richard Dawkins. I still think he sells the 'religion gives consolation' argument a little short (I think Douglas Adams' Biota 2 speech gives a very good instance of how religions, themselves factually ridiculous, can nevertheless be vessels for genuinely useful and interesting intuitions about ourselves, and are thus worth our study and attention, even if we rightly withhold our credence) . But, that little quibble aside, I think that Professor Dawkins, his arguments and the way he makes them are all really quite wonderful.

After all, he played a massive role in deconverting me. He has utterly earned his place at my fantasy Dinner Party Full Of People From Across All Time Whom You'd Really Like To Meet.

And The Extended Phenotype was great - even for an arts grad like me - as are all his books.

I am an ocean of respect for Richard Dawkins. I literally (well, figuratively) am.

Slosh.

643. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50517 by _J_ on June 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm

220. Comment #50513 by Benjamin Michael

darwin2 is a plagiarist:
http://www.tmatp.com/script/book.pdf

Having just blundered onto this thread and glanced at 218. Comment #50511 by darwin2, my immediate assumption was that he was a satirist. And now, while I'm still reeling from the revelation that that poetry was advanced in earnest as argumentation, I'm to believe that he's not even the first to try this?

Six impossible things before breakfast is all well and good, but this leaves my belief not so much beggared as buggered.

(Although, it is possible that darwin2 is George Killoran. That would ease my pounding headache of overstretched credulity – slightly.)

((And indeed you've actually pointed that out yourself, Benjamin Michael.))

644. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50484 by _J_ on June 18, 2007 at 12:02 pm

732. Comment #50474 by steve99

Apart from grilled skate. That HAS to have capers.

That sounds disconcertingly like a very strongly held conviction of an objective truth…

(Mind, I suppose I screwed up first by claiming that you were 'Absolutely right'. Clearly that's not a judgement I can make – unless I persuade myself that you and I are both people within a larger 'person' of creatively talented objective good, allowing me to utilise my assumed ability to objectively know myself for the purpose of – apparently via a syllogistic fallacy – drawing conclusions about objective facts such as the nature of god, of you, and of your opinions on grilled skate. If I'm understanding the argument for theism correctly so far. Which is certainly not a given…)

645. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50467 by _J_ on June 18, 2007 at 10:16 am

730. Comment #50464 by steve99

All you need to do to make all of your ideas simpler is to remove the 'good person called God' aspect. I am being serious here! You will see that everything works fine without it.

Absolutely right! Or, as I once heard a chef say on the radio: 'Every recipe for capers can be improved by leaving out the capers'.

646. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50272 by _J_ on June 16, 2007 at 8:40 am

675. Comment #50155 by steve99

…so have I.

I apologise if I have said the same thing. It can be hard to keep track of such long conversations.

Tell me about it! No need to apologise. Just pointing out relevant material that I'd hate Dianelos to overlook.

647. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50153 by _J_ on June 15, 2007 at 9:57 am

671. Comment #50151 by Dianelos Georgoudis

This is not a conflict. Again a conflict would exist if science claims a proposition which this theistic worldview denies, or vice versa. If no such conflict exists then all propositions of science are logically compatible with all propositions of this theistic worldview. But then no scientific proposition can possibly serve as evidence against this theistic worldview. Which is the same as saying that this theistic worldview is completely compatible with science. Which is really a simple claim easily demonstrated; I don't understand why we are stuck with it.

I've got to dash out or I'm going to be late for something quite important, but the issue is that you are repeatedly overlooking a profound methodological conflict. Science isn't just a collection of facts, it is the process by which we attain those facts. This process hinges fundamentally on Occam's Razor and on the falsification of hypotheses. When you say:

I don't have to justify the hypothesis I put forward, for I can assert any hypothesis I like. I only have to justify any proposition I claim about that hypothesis… And one proposition I claim about that hypothesis is that it represents a worldview that cannot possibly contradict or conflict with any piece of scientific knowledge…

…you are directly conflicting with these principles. This is absolutely the opposite of how science works. Were we universally to adopt such a perspective, science would be unable to proceed.

I don't know if this is a helpful metaphor or not(must rush!), but: Diesel doesn't directly contradict the petrol engine of my car, in that they both exist nicely in the world. What will happen if I fill my car engine with diesel?

648. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50152 by _J_ on June 15, 2007 at 9:47 am

669. Comment #50144 by Dianelos Georgoudis:

That's not what "conflict" means in our context.

You are mistaken.

670. Comment #50147 by steve99

Sorry to jump in, I have already covered my view of this in a post above - 661.

Indeed, Steve99 has addressed this. And:

660. Comment #50129 by _J_

This is all old news and is more thoroughly covered in the other posts that I'm hoping you'll come around to.

…so have I.

But, in case there's something about the sound of Steve99's and my own voices that makes this matter hard to appreciate, I'll steal a chunk from the Jerry Coyne article that everyone's been waxing lyrical about. He's debunking Michael Behe's IDology as a competing theory against evolution, but some of what he says applies nicely to your proposition of theism as an equally valid theory to atheistic naturalism:

But who is being disingenuous here? Evolution has been tested, and confirmed, many times over. Every time we find an early human fossil dating back several million years, it confirms evolution. Every time a new transitional fossil is found, such as the recently discovered "missing links" between land animals and whales, it confirms evolution. Each time a bacterial strain becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it confirms evolution. And evolutionary biology makes predictions. Here is one that Darwin himself made: that the earliest human ancestors will be found in Africa. (That prediction was confirmed, of course.) Another was made by Neil Shubin at the University of Chicago: that transitional forms between fish and amphibians would be found in 370-million-year-old rocks. Sure enough, he discovered that there were rocks of that age in Canada, went and looked at them, and found the right fossils. Intelligent design, in contrast, makes no predictions. It is infinitely malleable in the face of counterevidence, cannot be refuted, and is therefore not science.

(My subtle emphasis)

Is any of this sounding familiar?

649. The Great Mutator

Comment #50149 by _J_ on June 15, 2007 at 9:34 am

That was a really nice article.

Behe's publishers should consider adding it to future editions of his book. This would also have the pleasant irony of creating an (intelligently designed) artefact of which the most useful part was the appendix.

650. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50129 by _J_ on June 15, 2007 at 7:26 am

659. Comment #50126 by Dianelos Georgoudis

How then might such a theistic worldview conflict with science?

By being a massively superfluous and unwarranted hypothesis.

Suppose some scientists, perhaps feeling a bit lightheaded in the sunshine, pursued it anyway. Can they find proof to support it? Is it even testable?

…there isn't any evidence or justification or reason at all to believe that God exists.

No, then. So our superfluous and unwarranted hypothesis fails to make the jump into accepted scientific reality and our happy-go-lucky researchers move on to studying something that they can actually get some results out of.

…conflict with science? Clearly it can't.

Clearly it does.

This is all old news and is more thoroughly covered in the other posts that I'm hoping you'll come around to. Looking forward to hearing from you.