601. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72404 by Corylus on September 21, 2007 at 2:05 am

Give this Skinner guy his due - this was a polite, thoughtful article.

I actually prefer this to a snide, patronising put-down written by a non-believer who is full of his own self-importance (amoungst other things!), due to his belief that the plebians need religion.

Bruno has a point in that this is fascinating psychologically.

Personally, I think it is particularly interesting in what it does not mention. It talks at length about different beliefs (naive/subtle), but never once talks about how people act due to these beliefs.

The world has been moving closer to the abyss due to the actions of religious believers - it is high time the moderates of the world did some "soul searching" over this. I sense this is a subtext in here.

I find it hard to pin down, but I find myself wondering whether this article is more about disillusionment than faith.

Then maybe I'm just talking out of my backside - happens sometimes.

602. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71926 by Corylus on September 20, 2007 at 12:32 am

Sentence 1

people are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious.

Ok. From there she could have gone on to talk about the psychological basis of resistence to science. E.G. She have talked about the naive sloppy thinking that makes people think that 'facts' can be 'morally pernicious'.

There could have been suggestions for improvement for the education of science, maybe a call for the teaching of critical thinking and logic in school (she is a philosopher after all). Let children learn things without being afraid. Hurray, I would have said.

But no. Wasted opportunity. Pity.

603. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71774 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Rational Thinking

Your responses may not be too helpful for anyone seeking one (a purpose, that is, rather than a cause).

Defining purpose is something that an individual needs to do for themselves. Without recourse to a non-existent being, or for that matter any other existing person's understanding of purpose.

My personal purpose is to continue to learn all my life, cherish the people that I am lucky enough to have in my world and to be silly when I jolly well feel like it.

Pretty much summed up in my post below...

604. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71757 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I will survive.

That's the spirit! Marshall1


First I was afraid
I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without you by my side

La La.

Dances round computer singing...

I will survive
as long as i know how to love
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my love to give
and I'll survive
I will survive

There's wisdom in disco :-)

605. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71621 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 11:18 am

Paul

... trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true.

Oh mate I can see you having such awful problems with this. At the risk of sounding like Dianelos I reckon your problem boils down to epistemology.

Question: how is:-
a) "what I know is right and wrong" more than
b) "an opinion"??
Other than the fact that 'a' is your view and 'b' is someone else's of course ;-)

Clue: the answer lies in changing the word 'know' in 'a' to 'believe'.

BTW: have you been reading my posts recently? I only ask because my little arguments addressed to specific people seem to be getting ignored all over the shop recently. I am beginning to wonder whether I have a big 'ignore me' sign plastered across my avatar :(

P.S. I agree with you about Damien Hirst. If you want to know how I believe (not know) that my view on this is 'more than an just opinion' do let me know...

606. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71518 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 12:54 am

Hi Biz, welcome back.

I don't know whether you have had the chance to read the entire thread on here yet. I would suggest that you do so. (There are some very funny comments on here)

I believe that you have some views in common with the poster Revcort on here. You might feel inclined to assist him (he has a lot of people with questions) at the same time you might want to think about areas where you disagree with him. I am trying to remember your previous posts, but I think that there may be a few.

From there you might want to consider your reasons for disagreement and assess whether these reasons are biblically or emotionally derived.

Cheers

C.

607. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71348 by Corylus on September 18, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Who's going to pay for the increased healthcare costs of treating rather than preventing this illness?

I know the Church will pay via their taxes!

.... Oh wait...

608. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71314 by Corylus on September 18, 2007 at 12:03 pm

If anyone is interested, Stanford hasn't replied. However, there has been a religious response in the letters page of the Independent today.

Theology of science
Sir: Professor Richard Dawkins' stock line, "Would you need to read learned volumes on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" (letter, 17 September) has splendid knockabout value, but I was more helped towards an understanding of science by the physics teacher who began his 1977 A-level class by telling pupils they would do best if they realised most of what had been taught at O-level wasn't strictly true, an idea which has sustained me through frequent startling changes of perspective in reading both science and theology since.
Canon Peter Mullins
Grimsby

I did snort a bit at the implication that RD never paid full attention in science class, but compare and contrast with Revcort. At least it allows for 'changes of perspective'. Also, the Canon neglects to mention whether he find the concept of god 'strictly true' :D The CofE is nothing if not predicable. I do wish people like the Canon Mullins would realise that people like Revcort exist. I'm hoping he googles his name and sees this thread...

Revcort said

Well, I would say that my interpretations (biblically speaking) in this instance are pretty much uniform with what all Christians have believed. I go to the church fathers for that. I go to Paul. I go to Peter. I go to Calvin. I go to Wesley. I go to Spurgeon. I go to Edwards. I go to confessions. I don't go to very many people who have lived in the last 100 years though, because the interpretations have become more and more corrupted.

There are some interesting names in there Revcort, (N.B. I am presuming you are referring to Jonathan Edwards - I read some quotes by him recently and nearly revisted my dinner).

Quite some guilt trip you've got going there. What did you do that was so dreadful? BTW what do you think of the Canon's letter? Someone else for the abyss?

609. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71036 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Kobi (if you are reading this...)

I know your reply was to Downunder, but I read it also. One of the pleasures of this sort of forum - you can read other people's letters without feeling guiltly...

You say

I in no way consider myself to be an intelligent person, or someone who even has opinions worth posting on a board such as this.

Bollocks sweatheart! You are obviously both. Do come and play if you ever want to have just a conversation. But, if you are too busy living that's good too :)

BTW: Don't assume just because someone is on here that they are supersmart - I know I'm not. Or for that matter alot older. Veronique thinks I am a mere stripling: love her.

610. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71015 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Revcort said

because I know Him and understand His love.

I see. So you know and understand god's actions and motivations. How gratified are we to have someone in our presence who's claims exceed the world theologian's.

Perhaps He's using me to reach to you. Hey, perhaps by sending me to this message board to speak to you,

All bow before the internet Metatron! Such humility. Such Grace.

Revcort I'm generally quite nice to Christians who post on here: I like to hear other people's views and stories. I flatter myself that I'm actually quite polite. However, since you have been spectatularly insulting, patronising, self-righteous and smug I am going to do something that I only do when cross....

I'm going to link to Phil Collins. Jesus speaks through him too.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RTrYE4a1BmE

However,unlike you, I'm too soft to believe in undeserved torment.

Therefore, I won't link to 'A Groovy Kind of Love' or 'Against All Odds'.

611. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70804 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 12:50 am

Well done to The Independent for publishing and giving a right to reply.

It would have been better if they have never published the badly written drivel that RD is responding to, of course.

However, credit where it is due.

612. A Table for One

Comment #70796 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Interesting. I believe that Colbert is genuinely a Catholic.

I would be interested to know that his real feelings were about this. I admit I'm puzzled.

Oh well. Can't figure out everything - I'm just going to go back to sniggering about that airport bathroom quip :)

613. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #70794 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 11:35 pm

Rar

You take issue with people describing a foetus as 'just cellular clumps' . You want to talk about personhood. OK.

Trouble is, you end your post with:

Scientifically speaking, it's not just a woman's body anymore.

Say that back to yourself: think about how that sounds. Not just a woman's body.

Excuse me if I find your argument inconsistent.

614. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70654 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Well done, RDF - sounds like a logistical nightmare to set up - great that you got there!

Clappers

Yes, I do think that this is a good idea. I am a bit of an education addict and each time I have toodled off to college I have been amazed at how these religious groups circle like buzzards over the new students. (Particularly the overseas students who are especially vulnerable). It is easy to get sucked in - loneliness can be a horrible thing. In fact it seems to get worse each time I go.

They are not just there at 'societies fairs' where eveyone can pick which social groups that want to join (completely their right), but there are leaflets under new student's doors as well. Posters everywhere about 'lectures' and 'talks'. N.B. I am sure that there are many members of these societies who are genuine people who want to provide comfort and community to students.

However, there is also a dark side to some of these societies. For example, I have heard tales of males in the muslim groups using these groups as a springboard from which to bully their female members into conforming in terms of dress and behaviour. A matter about which they, with breathtaking impertinence, feel they have the right to dictate.

There does need to be a 'bright' or 'humanist' alternative. Needs to be strictly supervised and regulated though, it is very important that this alternative never stoops to proselytizing. This should be about giving people time and space to question and argue.

615. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70609 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 9:44 am

Castigating isn't my style Spinoza :-)

However, I'm willing to play on this one. (Mmm, how to convince someone like you? I know)

I would say that it all boils down to how you feel about false beliefs. (Bear with me).

For example, when I was a child a was a snotty precocious brat and also quite sickly.

Consequently, I spent a great deal of time off school, reading books that most adults would have deemed too old for me. During this time I picked up a false belief. I was astonished at the range and amount of works that an individual called "Anon" had produced.

Being (in my own mind) quite erudite I noted that this name seemed foreign, hellenic even. I therefore came to the reasonable conclusion that "Anon" was some Greek chap who had written alot.

Did this false belief do me any harm? In the short term no, in fact it gave me a needed dose of humility in that I was impressed at the sheer scale and scope of his writtings. "I'll never be that smart!" I said.

Eventually, of course, I found out that "Anon" was merely a short form of the word "Anonymous". If I had continued with my false belief would this have done me any harm?

Actually yes. I would have been upset and confused at how contradictory some of his writings were, how strange it was that his very writing style could vary so much. Eventually the situation would have become worrying in that I would not have been able to compare and contrast different authors. Foreseeably it could have become very serious indeed that I might have acted wrongly, in all good faith, on the basis of faulty premises.

It is often noted that knowledge is cumulative, I happen to think that ignorance is also.

(I would make the point here that it is important to always be aware that knowledge you believe to be true is subject to revision.* and that it is very important not to be full of proslytizing zeal: people who are can be very tedious.)

However, if you don't attempt to persuade people that you know (or at least reasonably sure) are holding false beliefs due to them being "idiots", then I would say that you have to live with the possibility that your disengagement only makes matters worse...

Viewed in this light then the intelligence level of the person you are speaking to is irrelevant, it is the false beliefs that they hold (and that they may well act upon) that are the true irritant.
---
*In fact I rapidly coming to the conclusion that I was right all along about "Anon" being 'a Greek chap who has written alot' and that his real name is Dianelos, but that's a different tale ;)

616. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70596 by Corylus on September 16, 2007 at 8:27 am

Paul

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the conclusion that it is impossible to call an action (pick an emotive heinous example of your choice) objectively wrong.

However, there is a flip side to this that you might not have considered... If this conclusion is correct it is also impossible to call an action (pick an emotive, heinous example of your choice) objectively right.

This may appear scant comfort and a peculiar point to make, but think about it for a bit.

Consider those situations where every subjective intuition and feeling is overruled because of an appeal to 'objectivity'. When we are told that objectivity trumps all, because there are principles to be upheld and rules that must never be broken.

You may have already read this, but what do you think of Jonathan Bennett's essay entitled "The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn". Link below.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/jfb/huckfinn.pdf

IMHO - I think it's quite beautiful. Please read if you haven't already.

(Apologies if this has already been mentioned in this thread, but my poor brain can't keep hold of all of the arguments on here at once) In the words of the great philosopher Homer Simpson...

D'oh! Whenever I learn new stuff, it pushes old stuff outta my head.

617. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70332 by Corylus on September 15, 2007 at 1:25 am

Downunder

BTW, please tell me how do you get bold and italic in your posts?

Just above the little text box in which you write you comments you will see a clickable link called 'comment posting guidelines'.

It tells you how to make things show up in bold and italics and how to blockquote. (I would write the instructions on here - but they disappear)

Some smarts types (aka. showoffs!) seem to be able to make text appear in different colours and fonts and embed links. That I don't have a clue how to do :)

618. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70247 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Interesting Lana, thank you for responding.

I practice in the U.S., in Virginia, where the unspoken presumption often seems to be that the defendant must be guilty if the police said so.

In the UK there doesn't seem to be that presumption.

In fact, the opposite - if the defendant turns up in a nice suit and seems like a nice lad - he often gets away with it.

I suspect, but I am not sure, (if anyone experienced in both the US and UK systems wants to speak up I would be interested to hear them) part of this is due to the whole 'plea-bargining' business in the US. E.g. if they are in court then they must be really guilty.

Negotiation happens in the UK, of course, but not so openly.

You state:

I really had no problem separating the emotional from the facts and always hoped I'd get a jury that could do the same.

Fair enough, but I suspect that many people (especially those with the finances to pick and choose) assume that juries are incapable of doing just that.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the case with this trial.

619. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70231 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Lana

I do understand your take on this - as I said I completely agree on the ideal of a impartial trial.

Out of interest did you practice in the US the UK or somewhere else??

My take on this is that for a time I worked as an administrator for the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service in the UK) I believe the US equivilent is the DA's office.

My experience is understanding just how unbelievably difficult it is to get sexual offences to court. The ones that get to court represent just a tiny fraction of the victims who are told that there is not enough evidence to take the case further.

We come from different viewpoints, but that's fine. That is what an adversial system of justice is about.

My other take on this is purely practical, if I were sitting on a jury and listened to a female defence lawyer in one of those cases* then a purely emotional part of me (I believe I was honest about my view being purely emotional) simply wouldn't like it.

I am interested in your view, as someone who has dealt in these matters, as to whether or not choosing female defence lawyers in these cases comes across as merely a cynical ploy, and is ultimately counter-productive.

---

*Depending on how she conducted herself, of course, if she were completely professional I could probably deal.

620. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70219 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 11:46 am

A defense lawyer, Tara L. Isaacson, told jurors that the state had failed to prove that Jane Doe had been raped by her husband.

Nasty and manipulative use of language here. E.g. "her husband".

Marriage is basically a contract - minors and contracts don't go together - therefore the term 'husband' is unjustified.

I suspect the pointed use of the term is merely a cynical manipulation in the hope that the jury might consist of some dinosaurs who consider the notion of 'rape' by a 'husband' an impossibility.

N.B. I completely agree with the ideal that everyone is entitled to a fair trial with a competant defence.

But,... but...

Female lawyers for the defence in rape cases - my gut doesn't like it. Screams desperation and money on the part of the accused. Also, an absolute b*&^h of a lawyer.

Not particularly impartial and rational of me, but sod it, I can't be vulcan all the time.

EDIT: I regret having been so mealy-mouthed and unkind to dinosaurs... "bastards" was the term I should have used.

621. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70073 by Corylus on September 14, 2007 at 1:48 am

Philip

I too have been swotting up on science - so that I don't only get to play in the arty debates. Plus I hate it when I can't understand what people are saying :-(

You might enjoy John Gribben's Science: A History. Doesn't just lay out scientific arguments, you also get lot of fun anecdotes about famous scientist's escapades.

Barking mad most of them....

[Ducks and runs off]

622. Mind Over Manual

Comment #69999 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Ooooh I loved DSM as a psychology student. Hours of fun diagnosing myself and my neighbours/colleagues/friends with all manner of ailments!

I have lots - some I will admit to online (e.g. my simple phobia of bees/wasps) others I'm keeping very quiet about ;)

Here's hoping they have lots of fun new categories on this one.

623. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69991 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Dianelos

In response to my my championing of consequentialist morality you state:

I need some flexibility of thought here...The interesting question is: "How do we know the right answer in the first place?"

You're right. I need to give an answer to this question.

You have been responding to various criticisms for some time now - it is only fair that I allow you (and anyone else that cares to) to criticise my position.

I would charactize myself as broadly Humean (I reject the notion of objective morality). This is because people are not objective about morality, moral decisions are, at heart, emotional decisions.

So why do I champion consequentialist morality? Or as you put it:

Why discuss a particular ethical theory such that its results must always be checked by our own ethical intuitions to find out if they are any good?

Well. This is because if you throw yourself unthinkingly into either naive subjective morality or naive objective morality you end up with having to live with possibly vile outcomes that anyone with a talent for thinking up thought experiments can show up ;-)

So yes, while I am totally unabashed at how my ethics are based on subjective notions, I don't want to degenerate into naive emotivisim (i.e. that's wrong because I don't like it) or relativism either (no one person's view is better than any other).

So how do I bring objectivity in, without being accused of fudging the issue?

Well, I have been further influenced by other two things:

1) Ethics of care - one thing that our natural empathy tells us is that causing harm is a bad thing.

You can argue that this is a prescriptive matter. Maybe, but can I refer you to my answer to Dr. Benway below concerning the descriptive/prescriptive distinction.

2) The understanding that all types of knowledge are cumulative.

This needs expanding on even more.

To that end I am going to copy and paste a response I gave to PaulE on an earlier thread (apologies to any that have already read this, but I'm lazy)

You are right: my position is that there is no such thing as objective morality - I hope I get credit for not skirting this one!

This is for the simple reason that humans are not (about matters of morality) objective. Moral statements are subjective emotional statements; they are not objective or practical statements. This admission of mine leads you to state:

I found it very hard to agree with Corylus that morality could still be moral without being objective.

So, as I understand it, your challenge to me is thus: Taking on board the above, how do I prevent myself from falling into moral relativism, depravity and general naughtiness? Or even if I don't do that, how do I legitimately condemn those that do? How can any moral judgement I make have any claim to universability?

OK, firstly, we need to look at how morality develops. We are physical beings, who learn by interacting with our environment and knowing what it is to feel harm. We experience empathy (the feeling of another's pain as our own) because of our own understanding of harm. This harm can be mental or physical. (Although as a monist I take the view that these terms are just different ways of describing the same thing).

However, if we don't know that an action causes harm, it is impossible for us to condemn it. We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We learn facts about what hurt other people, i.e. we might learn that some traditional remedies have side effects that were previously unknown and ultimately kill more than they cure. When we learn facts like these our emotional reactions change in relation to these treatments. This is what at meant when I said that I said that facts (ultimately) only inform our emotional moral judgements.

This is where facts come in, it must be understood that when we make moral statements we do so in the context of the information and knowledge presently available to us. This is why the relationship and distinction between values and facts is actually quite complex.

Now, if I learn about someone in some place using this remedy on their child, I can say that it is understandable that they do so (in that they think it will help) however, I can also say that they are 'wrong' to do so: in light of the information that I have to hand. (However, I have to leave open the possibility that further facts might be uncovered that renders my judgement invalid). This then is how I I see universal moral statements. What you you mean as universal is based in rule based systems. E.g. This is wrong and will be wrong for ever.

I actually think that this is a really depressing conclusion to draw, in that leads no room for further learning. For example, we know more about mental illness now, should we call someone with Multiple Personality Disorder 'possessed'? "My name is Legion for I am many." Should such people be hounded from town?

I can consider the possibility that the actions that I view as moral might; in some future time; be considered the actions of a savage. I find this though both humbling (a feeling that can be good for people sometimes) and hugely optimistic. Moral knowledge, just like any other form of knowledge is cumulative. There is no place for this sort of understanding in rule-based, theistic morality. This is why I reject it. This is also why I think that obtaining moral guidance form simple unchanging statements is actually a deeply immoral position. (For example, that ridiculous "All you need are the 10 Commandments" drivel one often hears from hardline American Christians)

There you go Dianelos - Corylus' morality in a nutshell. Go ahead and tear it apart :-))

624. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #69974 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Northern Bright

What a lovely review! (I have gone to amazon and marked it 'helpful')

I do hope RD reads it - even if he can't comment on it.

625. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69968 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Dianelos Comment #69890 Thanks for your answer, I will respond soon (I like to start with shorter comments!)

Dr Benway said (69916)

I'm not sure I understand your distiction. "Good" means "that which one ought do." The word "good" hides an imperative meaning within it.

Descriptive: "Fred believes he ought to give to charity."
Prescriptive: "We ought to give to charity."

Yes, I hear you, to a certain extent you can argue that consequentialist theories like utilitarianism are prescriptive (or normative) in that they will talk about something being 'a good' i.e. happiness. From there the implication is,of course, that one 'should' act in such as fashion as to maximise happiness.

However, I would argue that there is an added level of subtlety in consequentialist 'should' statements (as opposed to religiously based 'should' statements) in that there is the realisation that for some people, and in some situations, what is termed as a 'good' can vary. This is where the 'descriptive' part comes in.

This for me is not about collapsing into relativism. This is about understanding that if you posit one single thing as an absolute good that all people must strive towards, you are, by definition, assuming that the vast majority of the human race are complete failures.*

Some people are just failures of course, but to term the vast majority as failures (when they often don't see themselves as such) seems unfair. It is also unsatisfactory as an explanation in that human beings are born into different circumstances with different requirements for what they themselves would term as 'the good life'.

The best explanations are those that account for the most variables - they might not be the most precise, but we live in a complicated world, and moral judgements are complicated things.
---

*N.B. This is generally a problem for morality based on religious edicts: not many saints about. However, to be completely fair, I have to say that it is also possible to do this from a non-religious viewpoint (look at Nietzsche and his "Superman").

626. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69865 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 3:13 am

Dianelos

(Apologies to Newatheist for butting in here! However, I can't resist this one.)

I have to say that I find your rejection of consequentialist morality somewhat sweeping.

1. Assuming it's feasible to reliably compute all consequences before deciding for a course of action (which is normally not the case), how does one compare the value of the consequences of different courses of action? It seems that consequentialism is an empty theory because it simply moves the problem from "what should I do?" to "what is good?" which is just as hard a problem.

Yes "what is good?" is a hard question. However, it is a superior question to "what should I do?" for the simple reason that it is a descriptive rather than a prescriptive statement.

I believe the question of whether or not one can make prescriptive moral statements has come up somewhere on this thread ;-)

2. When using broadly accepted values consequentialism often gives the wrong answers. For example we all agree that human life has a very high value. Now suppose you are a medical doctor with 6 patients. The first has terminal cancer and will die with 99% probability in the next 30 days. The other 5 urgently need an organ transplant and will all die with 99% probability within the next 3 days if they don't get one, but if they get one each has a 90% probability of living for the next 10 years.

There you go again with the impossible thought experiments. If a patient is highly likely to die within a month of cancer than this is because that cancer has metastasised. None of their organs would be suitable for transplant. (Well maybe the corneas, I admit that I'm not sure about that one, but that is not a life saving procedure anyway).

Consequentialism would require that you kill the first patient and harvest her healthy organs in order to save the life of the other 5 patients. But I trust you agree that to do so is clearly wrong, notwithstanding the fact that the consequences of such an action are very good.

No consequentialism would not require that you kill the patient! Consequentialism is about looking at long term consequencies as well as short-term ones. For example, if it became general knowledge that one might be bumped off in hospital in order to have one's organs harvested then this might stop people seeking medical treatment - which could very well lead to more deaths than just five.

N.B. I don't personally think that it is helpful to view all moral dilemmas in strictly consequentialist terms, but I don't think most consequentialists do that, of for that matter argue that this is possible.

627. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69855 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 2:19 am

Fides-et-ratio said

...but I wonder if the receiver in need cares about the motives of the giver. I think at that stage they probably don't.

Maybe, maybe not. It is hard enough to accept charity at the best of times. I would argue that the knowledge that the person giving is more worried about themselves than then person in need might make this even harder.

When this assistance is in the form of blood (and one's life is at stake) then concerns about motivation will probably not register. A second of reflection though will inform the recipient that; although the giver may well be devout; they will not be a devout Jehovah's Witness.

628. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69843 by Corylus on September 13, 2007 at 1:49 am

I have to say I have a lot of amount of respect for Haidt.

I read his essay first and for the first 10 ten minutes I sat and wondered what Sam would be responding to. For example, Haidt makes the points that:

a) important to be open minded when studying morality (in fact when studying anything)
and
b) moral judgements are (at heart) emotional judgements

Fine.

Unfortunately all became clear later on. Haidt correctly states that

...that academic researchers may have inappropriately focused on reasoning about harm and rights because we primarily study people like ourselves—college students, and also children in private schools near our universities, whose morality is not representative of the United States, let alone the world.

Absolutely. However he then spectacularly falls into his own trap when he puts forward his own definition of morality:

So here's my definition of morality, which gives each side a chance to make its case:
Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.

Does Haidt honesty think that that the average proponent of religiously based morality would consider that a workable half-way point??

(Some of them wouldn't even admit that psychological mechanism have evolved!) Notwithstanding this, the vast majority would completely reject this societal definition of morality wholescale. Morality for them is about objective truths and values which they either get from scripture (naive version) or via their god-given reasoning abilities (sophisticated version).

This brings me to Sam's killer point:

Perhaps Haidt's thinking on this subject has been powerfully distorted by his own atheism, as he seems incapable of seeing the world as the faithful see it. We might well wonder, at this juncture, just which of us atheists are in danger of "misunderstanding religion." At least Dennett, Dawkins, and I have made some attempt to understand what it might be like to actually believe what people of faith say they believe.

The average religious person reading Haidt's essay would find it unbelievably patronising and condescending. The more sophicated ones would smell a rat. "Is he saying our faith makes us more controllable?"

When atheist thinkers talk about 'respecting' religion I actually think that they are doing the opposite. When you respect someone you listen to them and do them the basic courtesy of assuming that they mean what they say.

629. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69747 by Corylus on September 12, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Northern Bright

Answer #2. Was addressed to our boy Bizarro Dawkins!!

Heartbreaking isn't it?

20 years old, very smart, articulate and polite .... also priggish, prudish, self-righteous and a right pain in the proverbial (but I'm hoping he will grow out of that).

A good mind completely squashed by that bloated pustule Falwell. (I'm with Hitchens here, I reckon he was well aware he was teaching lies). May this quote be etched upon on his grave:

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.
Thomas Paine

One thing that would make me very happy indeed would be to see an ex-Liberty student sue that 'university' and the Falwell estate for providing a (I hesitate to even call it a sub-standard) "education".

Dormice are even poorer than Church mice, but I would happily donate cash money to their legal fund....

Dammit, I was determined to be cheerful, but here I am getting all wound up!!

Please forgive :-)

630. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69731 by Corylus on September 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm

I wonder whether David Attenborough's laid back attitude is due to the quiet glee with which any sensible person would approach the situation of being censored whilst in their eighties.

I am put in mind of dear old Christopher Lee being delighted when nominated for the MTV "Best Fight Scene Awards" when he was about 84.

Go David! Release a version of 'Disposable Teens' or 'Fight Song' - I'd buy it :-))

(Yes, I know this is a serious subject, but everyone has been so damn serious and miserable around here recently that I have decided to have a silly phase).

631. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69648 by Corylus on September 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

Dr Benway - you've just made my morning :)

632. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69519 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm

What a nice clear interview :)

OT. I wonder whether Flagellant's Avatar is going to change to Anita Roddick soon?

Seems to be a deceased theme going on there...

633. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69514 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Result! Found it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WsfiD78Cy0s

Q: Is this satire / irony / parody / just funny or just plain weird??

:P

634. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69495 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough for you Fides

I'm reading the above as a skit (I'm not even going there with the irony/satire debate!) on how critics of Dawkins persist in talking about religion and ignoring his central point as to whether god exists.

It is therefore about fascism/religion and not god/fascism because the question of god's existence is simply is not addressed.

This piece is about bringing to light faulty methods of argumentation.

I can't believe I am sitting here dissecting different viewpoints on a humourous piece :-)

I'm off to watch something less subtle like Monty Python - I believe they have a good sketch which involves grown men slapping each other with fish...

635. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69483 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Wee Flea said,

1) All those who say that they know what is in these books without ever having read them, just serve to illustrate the arrogance and ignorance of some atheist fundies.

That is spectatularly unfair David. I spent some time writing a review of one of those books (I even mentioned yours) in a polite response to someone who I was pretty sure wasn't really listening. Others on here have mentioned reading some of these books.

You powers of selective reading and quote mining never cease to astonish.

:-((

Incidentally, I seem to recall you mentioning having bought Grayling's book on a previous thread.

You might want to check out Chapter Three entitled Can an Atheist be a Funadamentalist?

Why do you continually come on here only to throw insults about??

I saw a sign while swimming the other day that amused me - it read:

We don't swim in your toilet - please don't wee in our pool.

Please, show some manners!

636. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69343 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:22 am

Fides

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here.

The analogy is between religion and fascism not god and fascism.

Do stop trolling.

637. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69342 by Corylus on September 11, 2007 at 12:15 am

Mr Jami, 22,

22! Is that right? If so, and he is responding to 9/11, he must have abandoned Islam at 16. Very brave. This shows why the mullahs are terrified of Western influence on their young people.

I sometimes find myself wondering whether that vile troglodyte Bin Laden's actions were as much about fostering division between western muslims and non-muslims as attacking America.

Nothing keeps hatred and terrorism going more than making everyday people pick sides due to 'faith'.

638. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69210 by Corylus on September 10, 2007 at 2:36 am

Pewkachoo

Try using the "swap comments feature" at the top - has saved me getting RSI from the scroll button :-)

[SNIP] I yielded to the tempatation to bring up the Euthyphro problem again!!

Ignore me everyone - I am thinking that we are not doing Paul any favours here. Maybe he would have to give up his job if he went over to the Dark Side.

Paul some good advice from Veronique there :-)

639. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68999 by Corylus on September 9, 2007 at 12:47 pm

HAVNB

If you want to start off with something general I would recommend Ethics by Peter Singer.

In this book he picks out some really seminal pieces of writing (short extracts). You can go through and look at the development of ethical thought.

Guarenteed there will bits you like and bits you loathe in this book. From there you can decide what thinkers you want to look into further - and who you want to avoid.

Might save you some pennies :-)

640. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68789 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Steve99

Of course there are scientists who are sure of their religious beliefs, and there are 'arts and humanities' people who are atheists. My point was that there seems to be a general (although obviously not universal) division, resulting in two groups who seem to find it almost impossible to sensibly debate each other, as they seem not to share any common ground about what reasonable and rational debate should consist of. .... However, I am starting to give up. I think that discussions on these matters will generally get nowhere.

Don't give up! Yes, there is a great deal of talking at cross purposes. Personally though, I don't think this because that science and arts types are 'in principle' incapable of talking to each other. I reckon a great deal of the problem is due to the fact that postmodern drivel has suffuced the arts (and is attempting to get into the sciences).

You need to look to analytic philosophers and proper art 'critics' to understand that this situation will not last forever.

Deconstructualism, post-modernism, and epistemological relativism are merely phases.

All things pass :-)

641. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68768 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Van Youngman said

Now that the pissin' contest is just about over, it would be helpful if many of you would get back the real problem expressed eloquently in Jonathan Gore's post which indicates that some of these fleas are not really fleas but sincere naïve believers whose beliefs have been exposed in a most eloquent way by Dr. Dawkins. Some of the fleas are true fleas and are out to make a buck.

Agreed Van Youngman - I have given it a bash :-)

Trouble is, I am leaning towards the view that McGrath falls into both categories...

Some people are very good at compartmentalising.

642. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68755 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Fides-et-ratio said

Has anyone on here read 'The Dawkins Delusion'? It makes a lot of sense and was written by someone who must be taken seriously by anyone wanting to truly engage with this subject. It'd be handy to hear from those who have as the rest is just ignorance.

Yes,Fides, I have. I have also read some of the other books above. Not all, I haven't read the ones unavailable at present, and I admit I have only read David Robertson's truncated version of his book on his website (which was enough!) However, I do agree that it is important to look at both sides of any argument. Eventually, I will work my way through them. However, I refuse A.N. Wilson on the grounds that I find him unsufferably smug: even intellectual even handedness has its limits. (He could write about something as funny as bumping into Ann Widdecombe at a swingers party and I wouldn't bother to look).

Anyway, what did I think of the Dawkins Delusion? Let's start with the good points.

What I did like.

1) Outright and clearly dismisses 'intelligent design'.
2) Grammatically correct - if a little convulated at times. (I'm a natural pedant, such things are important to me!)
3) Not overlong.
4) The presence of a proper section of end notes and references.

What didn't I like.

1) The constant and unjustified use of the term 'fundamentalist' to describe both atheism and Dawkins - notable examples p.xii and p.6. &p27.

2) McGrath accuses Dawkins of 'being out of his depth' when it comes to philosophy. However, on p9, McGrath fuses the telelogical and the cosmological proofs in a totally unjustified fashion.

What explains the explanation? Or, to change the metaphor slightly: who designed the designer?
p.9

McGrath is either even worse at philosophy than he accuses Dawkins of being, or he is being deliberately disingenuous. (I like to give people the benefit of the doubt - so I will go with the former).

3) In an attempt to diffuse the tension between NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) and scientific claims about the world. (These often and blatently overlap!) He puts forward the alternative thesis of POMA.

For there is, of course, a third option - that of 'partially overlapping magisteria' (a POMA so to speak), reflecting a realization that science and religion offer possibilities of cross-fertilization on account of the interpenetration of their subjects and methods.
p19.

What?? Absolute drivel. Complete lack of understanding of the distinction between 'justified' and 'unjustified' knowledge. Totally ignores the principles of the scientific knowledge and what it means for truths to be contingently valid and subject to falsification.

4) The misuse of technical terminology:

It [religion] is an epiphenomenon - and a socially and psychologically disfunctional one at at.

Epiphenomenon is a term used in the philosophy of mind (and should stay there).

5) Continual appeals to authority (Francis Collins et al). Not an argument.

6) The constant use of condenscending, patronising, snide language. I personally don't think Dawkins is rude. However, I have to say I prefer being insulted than being talked down to, but that's just me.

7) The use of the author's biographical details to make a point (one person's life experience may be interesting but corrobation is needed if you want to use it for evidence).

McGrath states (and he thinks that this is important enough to italicise)

Except that once I too was an atheist, and was awoken from my dogmatic slumbers through reading books that challenged my petrifying world view.

How apt! A sotto voce wink to those familiar with Kant. His little book is full of it. "Cant" I mean ;)

What I found funny.

1) When attempting to refute Dawkins pointing out that 144,000 is the number of the saved (and evidence of the out-group hostility fostered by religion). McGrath counters with the following:

The 144,000 are probably Christian aesthetic 'warriors' who are using pacificist means and spiritual warfare to resist secular atheist powers and cosmic evil powers" (p74. End note 26)

Wonder how McGrath views himself?? Methinks a little snapshot into his psyche right there...

2) In the "For Further Reading" Section the first book mentioned is interesting:

"The most widely used textbook of Christian theology, which sets out what Christians beleive and why, clearly and impartially is: Alistair E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction. 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007"

Totally worth wading through this book, just to read that gem. "Widely used", "impartial", "clear". Classic!!

The worst bit:

I gained my doctorate in molecular biophysics while working in the Oxford laboratories of Professor Sir George Radda, but then gave up active scientific research to study theology.
p.ix

How unutterably, painfully sad. I read this and I wanted to cry. What a waste of a good mind. So few people are that smart - how awful when they waste it. (I agree with you that he is an intelligent, educated man).

N.B. I do not make the silly mistake of assuming that science is the only thing that is worthy of study (my studies are in the arts), but I do think that he could have put his skills to other uses. Literature maybe, or politics, anything practical that attempts to improve people's lives rather than merely telling them to bear it in the hope for something better in the next. (I have to say though, I am glad he didn't go into philosophy).

He puts me in mind of the character of Casaubon in Eliots Middlemarch.

If you haven't read this book Casaubon was a dessicated, humourless, failed scholar unable to admit to himself, or those around him, that he had wasted his life in the fruitless investigation of an intellectual blind alley. Grim.

Apologies if I have bored you Fides (and anyone else) with my analysis of The Dawkins Delusion. I hope that I have written enough to prove that I have actually read it and my comments are not 'just ignorance'.

[Edited for clarity and typos]
Erratum: I have just noticed that it is not A.N. Wilson that wrote 'Deluded by Dawkins', but 'Andrew Wilson. Apologies to A.N. Wilson - in my defence an easy mistake to make!

643. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68724 by Corylus on September 8, 2007 at 9:53 am

Theo Hobson said

The same applies to AC Grayling, who is presumably a competent professor of philosophy, but chooses to conceal the fact when in 'militant atheist' mode.

Presumably. Presumably! Can't you be bothered to look him up? Some level of journalism Theo is:-

a) showing
b) admitting to

Theo, do some research. Even if you don't want to wade though all of his work (some of which is routinely used by students) you might like to check out the following:

1) Against All Gods, (a short book - no excuses that you don't have the time), with an interesting chapter on why atheists are not fundamentalists.

2) Or maybe The Meaning of Things (a lovely book full of short essays concerning the definition of commonly used words and concepts, like "love", "hope" and "reason"). You might want to note how "christianity" and "faith" are filed under "Fallacies" and the justification given for this attribution.

N.B. Guys. This individual irritates me no end, and I share the frustration expressed, but please, less ginger prejudice. Thanks.

644. In God we doubt

Comment #67869 by Corylus on September 5, 2007 at 3:38 am

Veronique said

Such perorations about the preposterous proposals of the pre-inclined protesters to a pre-determined progenitor is pathetic. I am just a pragmatic person living in a proper world with little in the way of pretentious posturings. I want no longer to address the BS that the bilious believers bring to this site. I bow out.

Great!! I do love the smell of alliteration in the morning ;-)

Keep posting V - sentences like that make me smile :-)

Northern Bright very interesting posts - enjoyed reading them.

645. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67700 by Corylus on September 4, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Woo-hoo - everyone noticed the 'swap comment' feature that now stops all that tedious scrolling to the end? Well done Josh! (Anyone wanting to scroll down quickly - just press 'ctrl' and 'End' at the same time)

Paul
Sorry for the slight delay in replying - I try to think more about my posts on this thread. Seems disrespectful not to.

I asked you whether:

Have you considered the possibility that the analytic/synthetic distinction is not a clear cut as you think? As you state "Analytic means true by definition". Simply by using the word 'rape' aren't you defining the act as wrong??

You reply.

Not at all. Rape is basically forced sexual intercourse. There is of course huge emotional baggage with the term, as there would be with incest, necrophilia etc. However, there is no assumption in the definition that it is wrong.

Really? No assumption in the definition that something is wrong? "Murder" is the killing of another human being. Why then do we call it "murder" in some circumstances and "manslaugher" in others? I think we do make huge assumptions and assign moral culpability by way of the terms we use to describe actions. You can dismiss this as 'emotional baggage' if you wish, but I think that you are actually missing out on a very interesting level of analysis by doing so. (Huge field of meta-ethics out there for the discovery).

I think the term implies [morality] that there is a good, right, proper, decent way of behaving. There are things one should do, and things one should not do.

We are back to prescriptive statements again. I notice you are avoiding the word "ought"... ( Incidently, I have to say that I prefer the term 'ethics' to 'morality'. The former has less 'emotional baggage'. Humour me :)

Ok. Then you hit me with the killer...

I dislike the term 'objective morality' simply because there are thoroughly decent, relativist moralities that still hold that some actions are wrong and others right.

You dislike the term 'objective morality'! Then what the (pauses) Sam Hill have we been arguing about?? (BTW - just because a moral system is not deontological it does not, by definintion, become 'relativist'.)

There is a subjective element to Situation Ethics, and I'm not sure that it would be helpful to talk about it as 'objective morality'.

There is a subjective element to all ethics, that's why it is not helpful to talk about 'objective morality'. This has been understood from Hume way back to Bishop Holloway at the present time. Incidentally, have you read his book Godless Morality? You could probably get away with reading this at work ;)

You seem to have this deep seated need to be able to make broad 'ought' statements, but (unusally) you realise that this is based on shaky philosophical grounds. The world is a complex place, full of hideous moral dilemmas, competing needs and possible consequences that must be considered. This is why the vast majority of religious people stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the part of their holy books that talk about blanket rules.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with this. The world would be a vile place indeed if they decided to follow rules without question (look at sharia law). However, what I am not fine with is when they turn round and accuse atheists of having no morals: they always say 'morals' not 'ethics' - have you noticed that?

There is a crass version of this:-

"Atheists have no reason to be moral. Why, if I were an all atheist I would go around doing hideous things like killing people I don't like and buggering the cat!"

There is a more subtle (but ultimately quite patronising) version of this:

"How do atheists make prescriptive judgements, how do they ensure that their moral statement have universability? Morality must be objective and God-given. Moral relativism cannot be right - every moral intuition we have appears to say that somethings are just plain wrong!!" (Not realising, of course, that a 'moral intuition' is a $%^&ing subjective thing!.. growls...) "Maybe these poor deluded atheists are really tapping into God's love without realising it."

Paul, you haven't come up with the first one - to your credit :)

However, you steer very, very close to number two :(

I am not denying that atheists may have codes of conduct. They may think that they are behaving morally. ...Just because an atheist says s/he is behaving morally, this doesn't mean that the atheistic world view allows for there to be moral principles that one ought to follow.

That's why you get accused of using 'morality' as a proof of God. At best it's a priori as opposed to a posterori (in which case you need more that just that!), at worst it is merely wishful thinking.

You can counter with saying that you aren't arguing that morality is a proof of God - you are arguing that Kantian ethics based on reason is the best way to go. Fine. However, you don't need God for that. There are some atheist Kantians out there you know. Needless to say I don't agree with them, but I don't deny their existence.

I had some other things to say about the difference between types of knowlege (moral/scientific) but I have already wittered on enough. Will save for another time.

I was going to apologise for the long post, but I have just spotted the tome that Dianelos has just posted - so I won't!

646. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67435 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Blimy. This smacks of desperation, and a really low budget, (i.e. no printing or distribution costs).

I have read a couple of the flea books above in the interests of intellectual honesty and fairness, but I really don't think I can face listening to them.

I got my ipod mixed up with my older sister's the other day. There I was innocently sitting on the train... and The Carpenters came on. Damn near had a stroke (and my fellow travellers learnt some new words).

Sorry not plugging this into my brain. Bridge too far. Uh-uh.

647. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67304 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 3:19 am

She's just peeved because her favourite telly programme got axed!

On Sunday, I was on the last ever Heaven and Earth show on the BBC which, for nine years has been a gentle dale in the noisy world of modern television – pleasurable, tranquil, receptive, candid and at times profoundly revealing of the place of religion in today's world.

I sympathetise. I was gutted when Angel finished and don't even get me started on Serenity.

Just paint 'geek' my forhead :P

648. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67291 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 2:54 am

I do find her mail irritating (thanks for posting it V) - particularly this bit.

I have read the God Delusion which I liked less than his other books. His self aggrandisement is intellectual not personal – the largest number of references in the book are to his own work.

I really don't think that this is true. Maybe she just got confused between TGD and McGrath's book.

Anyone wanting a laugh need only turn to the end of The Dawkins Delusion. There are copious references to himself and his own work and there is even a section 'Recommended reading' where he shamelessly pimps his own books.

649. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67261 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 1:38 am

Looks like Salley doesn't want to come on here. Understandable.

Pity though - as an English teacher she might have been able to contribute a few fun limericks.

C'mon Salley you can be a direct as you want! You know you want to ;)

On a more serious note, I believe this demonstrates that it is important to always consider that the person whose article you are commenting on may be reading what you say.

So, I try not to be really, really rude. Unless of course I am very much hoping that the person in question will be reading... (E.g. Ted Haggard)

650. In God we doubt

Comment #67249 by Corylus on September 3, 2007 at 12:51 am

I like John Humpries and I'm not going to be harsh on him. (I loved the quote about the IKEA manual). He is obviously a humane and intelligent man. I might even buy his book.

However, I do think he is being shortsighted here. The trouble is when hanging with sweet and funny Anglican vicars it is easy to get a false idea of the state of the world. This statement leapt out at me.

Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But we've survived monotheist religion for 4,000 years or so, and I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.

Not 4,000 years when monotheist religion is going nuclear we haven't. Please Mr Humpries look at Iran.

Even without this, I find that once you strip away all philosophical verbage over the nature of ultimate proof and understanding you are left with one simple question.

What's the point of having a mind if you can't make it up?