751. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122447 by Cartomancer on February 5, 2008 at 9:26 am

Dibs on Orko! Dibs on Orko!

And I notice with some regret that our PhD-with-three-tokens-from-the-back-of-a-cereal-box theist interlocutor has not yet taken up my challenge. I am rather disappointed...

752. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122210 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Hmm, well, I haven't read the book and nor, quite frankly, do I want to. Sounds from Baeoz and MPhil like the self-generated hype from the vile homophobic narcissist is just so much hot air. I can't say I'm surprised, it is as we expected. Actually, the image of Lucifer trapped in ice and frantically beating his wings from Dante's Divine Comedy springs to mind - the more he flaps the more the cold winds he generates bind him fast to his torments, and all he succeeds in doing is further freezing the hearts of those trapped in his circle.

The Enlightenment is not my speciality, but I know enough to say that Mr. Beale's caricature is woefully inadequate, distorted and narrow. Apart from the frankly astounding genetic fallacy with regard to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror (showing a tremendous lack of familiarity with the complexities of historical causation that would make A-level students blush)
he quite blatantly chooses his evidence with a careful eye to skewing his argument. It seems that in his eyes the Enlightenment was about little more than medieval-bashing - a phenomenon, or rather a conspiracy, sustained solely by conscious opposition to scholastic practices and medieval christian culture.

Now, my usual line of argument on here consists chiefly in pointing out the implict anti-medieval bias in most Renaissance, Enlightenment and Victorian thought, a bias which is still with us today. I do not thank Mr. Beale for lending his odious, bigoted voice to this cause, because it will now make it all the harder for sensible, credible historians to make the case for taking the middle ages on their own terms, rather than the terms of their post-medieval detractors. Or, at least, it would if anyone outside the internet fascist community and the internet atheist community had heard of the slimy little mountebank.

But this little caricature is entirely vacuuous. It can only be sustained by ignoring the substantial content of Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophy, ignoring the very real progress of scientific discovery in the early modern period and focussing narrowly on anti-religious sentiment and anti-medieval self definition among intellectuals. It seems that Mr. Beale's arguments rest on a conflation of religion with historical awareness - he is too ready to cast assertions of modernity and definition as non-medieval in the mould of dogmatic anti-religious fervour. Moreover, he misses the main thrust of WHY medieval thought, or a caricatured version of it, came in for such criticism - the academic world had moved on and outgrown the inductive, aristotelian basis of late medieval learning.

Nobody sat down and said "right, today we're all going to stop being medieval and start being Enlightened. Everyone put the smocks and the manuscript copies of the Glossa Ordinaria down and hand round the Plato - I want three tracts on the benefits of secular government from each of you by lunchtime, and don't spare the atheism". History's weave is infinitely more complex than that. Ideas change organically and have their own momentum. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were not a sudden and consciously maintained sea-change but gradual developments stemming directly from late medieval culture and society and moving, evolving, in a new direction. Intellectual history is not about conspiracy theories.

He should read Francis Bacon more thoroughly. Or Newton. Or Leibniz, or Spinoza, or indeed anyone at all with some care. And it's not just a case of new ways of framing historical awareness - technological change with the advent of printing and cheaper paper, political change with the ascendency of the mediterranean city state, consolidation of the northern European kingdoms, Imperial ambitions of the German princes etc. fuelling political debate, reformation of both the churches and the university system, and of course the productive dynamic of scholarship itself. Map those and a hundred more locally operative factors across a whole continent or more and the best part of four centuries and the scale of the reductionism is staggering indeed. In order to do justice to the very complex web of influences at work in the burgeoning intellectual culture of early modern europe one would need fifty such books as this one and decades of meticulous scholarship. Such narrow, reductionistic drivel is barely worthy of scorn - and one of the reasons I dislike potted histories so much.

I dread to think what his mangling of the medieval period must look like, if he attempts one... I suspect he might be one of those who denies islamic science its due from what I know of the man. It is hardly germane, so I shall leave that one for now and turn my attention back to those who are actually worthy of it.

753. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122113 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Is it just my uptight British sensibilities or does anyone else find it highly irritating when people use "to debate" as a transitive verb with the opponent in said debate as the direct object? Are prepositions in short supply on that side of the pond?

It should be "to debate WITH someone ON THE SUBJECT OF the issue".

Grrr. I'm going off in a huff to underline all the split infinitives in the newspaper...

754. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122053 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Unless there is some good reason to think otherwise it is a sensible policy to assume that pretty much everything I say is delivered with a excessive degree of sarcasm. I'm like that in real life too. Or was when I still had one...

And yes, I personally think that ANY religious group which includes proselytising activities in its agenda would automatically infringe the university's stated policy on actively opposing the beliefs of others. Given the traditional tenets of both islam and christianity on these matters I fail to see how such religious groups could be otherwise.

755. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122040 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Two religions with mutually contradictory doctrines about the nature of the world? Really? Could that happen, what with them all being divinely inspired and all? Well well, such peculiar thoughts we are all having...

LGBT is the usual initials for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (some people like to add a Q on the end too for "questioning" or some such).

756. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122026 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Do they have a Women's Society that the Islamic Society is, by its very nature, taking an active stance in opposition to? How about an LGBT Society that the Catholic Society are actively opposed to? A military cadet society of some kind which the Jain Society are opposed to?

Oh no, Silly me, I forgot - religious reasons for opposition trump all other kinds of deeply held sentiments don't they?

757. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121658 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 10:36 pm

While we're in melancholy humour...

"To the dead spirit of Cerelia Fortunata, my most precious wife,
with whom for eleven years I lived without a single quarrel.
Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler, but when you have stopped,
hear and learn, then depart.
There is no boat to carry you to Hades,
no ferryman Charon, no judge Aeacus, no dog Cerberus.
All of us below have become bones and ashes.
Truly, I have nothing more to tell you.
So depart, traveler, lest dead though I am
I seem to you to be a teller of vain lies.
Do not favor this monument with sweet smelling oils
or garlands, for it is but a stone.
Do not feed the funeral flames, it is a waste of money.
If you can give, give while I live.
Pouring wine on the ashes will only turn them to mud,
and besides the dead will not drink.
For so I shall be. And you have heaped up earth on these remains,
say that what this was, it will never be again."
[Epitaph of a cynic (Rome, 3rd century C.E. EG 646)]

758. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121638 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 9:32 pm

he2@usa -

I note, first of all, that you have not actually responded to any of our points. I wish I were surprised at this, but sadly I am not. I shall assume, therefore, that you gracefully concede to our arguments in these fields - though feel free to provide a reasoned rebuttal of them if you do not.

Secondly, the reason we spend so much time trying to argue with people who believe the sort of childish nonsense you believe is that we are all painfully aware of how damaging and dangerous it can be both to individuals - your own case proves the point most effectively - and more importantly to the societies in which they live. Given that reasoned discourse and consciousness-raising are the only tools we have with which to do this (for we have no argument to justify easy use of violence against those we disagree with) you will forgive us if we utilise them to the best of our ability.

Well, all right, in my case I also greatly enjoy talking down to credulous homophobic idiots like yourself. Allow me my little pecadillos if you will...

Thirdly, your talk of accountability is entirely premature. A being must exist and have some valid claim on responsibility before talk of accountability can even begin. With no evidence at all on your side in this regard you might as well castigate us for failing to live up to our responsibilities to the Flying Spaghetti Monster because we don't all dress as pirates.

Fourthly, Pascal's Wager is no argument at all. What if, when we die, it turns out that there is a god after all, but instead of your Yahweh it is actually Baal - and the especially nasty version of him that the Maltese Knights Templar were claimed to have worshipped with ritual buggery? If that is the case, and in the total absence of evidence either way it could just as well be, then it looks like I'm going to be in favour come the afterlife, while your miserly little cult is in for some serious unpleasantness. Especially given what your priests said about dear father Baal's followers. For other refutations of this trite little sophistry look to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, common sense et. al.

So I finish with a personal challenge, given that your intellectual capacity falls somewhere below that of a soggy turnip and the clarity of your expression somewhere lower still. Please tell me, in as much detail as you can, citing references to all apposite sources, precisely what I can expect from your wonderful fantasy afterlife given my romantic predilections? Oh, and I'm a practicing sorcerer as well if you take the pseudonym literally - surely that ought to buy me passage out of the burning sands of Dis and into the Stone Theatre of the Malebolge or whatever lurid atrocities your feeble mind can conjure.

And remember, I really do like the anal sex...

759. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121613 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 8:15 pm

hes2@usa - comment #269

Disappointing. So, so disappointing. This one provides hardly any sport at all...

a) We deny that there was a creator to the universe because there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of one. That is the reason why we deny that your stories are true - our moral predilections have nothing to do with it. If you can furnish us with the evidence we seek for your propositions then we would be greatly interested - until you give us one whit, jot, speck or smidgen of evidence to the contrary, we shall assume the negative claim is still valid. Oh, and don't even try Aristotelian first causes with me - I've probably read more pages of Aquinas than you've had deluded thoughts.

b) I consider myself a very moral person indeed. I am kind to people, go out of my way to help those in need, support charities where I can, give money to those around me who need it (such as paying my twin brother's tuition fees of 4000 pounds so he could do his Masters degree and professional translator's qualification), do volunteer work occasionally, look after my parents, try not to deceive people and attempt to enlighten deluded, self-defeating religous folks to the error of their ways whenever I can.

I also like to kiss, hold, caress and have long, passionate sex with men. I really like anal sex with attractive men - it feels very good indeed. One day I hope to marry the man of my dreams and live very happily with him. Having lots of anal sex, naturally.

The fact you think the latter is in any way deleterious to the former indicates just how tainted and skewed your understanding of reality has become. Please come up with one reason I might accept why I am not a thoroughly moral individual.

c) Steve corrected you on your error about circular reasoning in a previous post. I advise you read that before repeating the same defunct criticism again. If you ask nicely he might help you with the long words when you don't understand them. You might also learn from this lesson in elementary dialectics that the one using the circular arguments is you, in the case of your special magic book and the nasty celestial protagonist contained therein.

d) Each species does indeed reproduce "after its own kind". You got that one right. Well done. However, with each reproduction you get tiny variations from genetic mutation, which survive in greater frequency the better suited they make said creature for survival. Thence changes in individuals and eventually from one species into another. If my reading list of ancient and medieval authors is too much for you, might I suggest going and reading a proper book on evolution by a respected scientist. The acclaimed scientific opera of a certain professor Dawkins spring to mind in this capacity, although perhaps something from the children's section might be more suited to your level - the Usborne Book of Dinosaurs perhaps?

e) Please cite the works of a single astronomer or astrophysicist working after, ooh, let's be generous again, 1750 CE, who has produced a mathematical model which suggests our universe is 6000 years old. Enquiries should be directed to Dr. Steve Zara, myself, or anyone else patient enough to listen. Such a shame that old Job fellow was a fictional character eh?

f) If I was ever on the same wagon as you I am most glad to have fallen off it. I suspect it was taking you back to Isengard or Moria or wherever it is you hail from, and I really don't want to go there thank you - we get enough stray trolls anyway without tracing them back to source.

760. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121607 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 7:37 pm

They probably think it means cutting the supplementary sections out from the backs of books, and heartily approve on the grounds that they might contain some heresies that were too complicated for the main text.

761. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121603 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Just what is so superb about this owl anyway, and why do the religious like it so? Are its eyes bona fide irreducibly complex? Does it eat transitional fossils? Can it fly away to distant climes that science can't reach and come back with evidence for the existence of god?

762. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121595 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Afraid not. I think it's in End of Faith, but I only know about it through the Four Horsemen video so I'm no entirely sure...

763. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121587 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm

And yes, dlitt, I find it mildly offensive too, though I find it more desperate and pathetic so I can let it go...

764. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121584 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Is he starting on the old "bible has some science in it and secular science was trying to catch up" routine? I despair of these people, really I do!

First of all, can you cite one source from the "Dark Ages" wherein is contained an inaccurate scientific idea? Let's be generous and count the medieval European "Dark Ages" as perhaps 400-700 AD and north of the Alps. This does let you choose the later works of Aurelius Augustinus of Thagaste, but I'm guessing you'll want to steer clear of those for obvious reasons. Same for the Venerable Bede. I'm waiting with some amusement for a tortured attempt to call Gildas' De Excidio scientific in any way.

When you can't do that, because we have very little written material indeed from these centuries, and virtually nothing even approaching science, go away and look up Aristarchus of Samos. Then look up Avicenna's theories on hygeine and infection. While you're at it, check the bible's account of mathematics, specifically the value of pi, with that of Euclid or Pythagoras. Look up the geometries of the Parthenon, or of Chichen Itza, or the Pyramids, or even of Stonehenge. Then look up Hippocrates, and Galen, and Hunayn Ibn Ishaq and Constantine the African, and compare their medical knowledge to what is found in the bible. Hell, even the Peri Didaxeon, Herbal of Dioscorides and the Anglo-saxon Leechbooks are better medical texts than the bible. Even Pliny's Natural Histories and the high medieval English Bestiaries are better on zoological information - and the latter actually crib from said confection of inanities.

Then thoroughly familiarise yourself with the idea that vague, allusive references with hardly any concrete content do not valid evidence make. Go read Sam Harris's interpretations of Prawn Jambalaya recipes to see how easily texts can be twisted and interpreted beyond all useful import.

Then, if you've taken it all to heart, come back and talk to us...

765. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #121501 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Oh, I wasn't actually trying to ENGAGE in the debate over original sin, my word no - that would be a capital crime for an historian like myself! All I was doing was pointing out how inconsistent the church has been on this very doctrine with its "souls from the moment of conception" line. In fact there are a fair number of medieval and early modern theologians who would have said such ideas were outright heretical.

Pretty much every catholic I have ever spoken to, and most of the protestants too, seem to think that this has been the position of the church since the beginning, when it most certainly has not been.

766. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121450 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 12:22 pm

And to think that muslim doctors led the world in medicine in the tenth century...

Of course the covering of the arms thing is a publicity stunt - the flexing of muscles, nothing more. What you don't see is muslim women, or indeed their menfolk, complaining when they have to have their clothes removed for emergency surgery - after a traffic accident or even a routine operation. When it is obviously a matter of life or death for the muslim in question, where are their little religious rules now eh?

One could extend this little "islamic morality" game further. What should a muslim woman do if she is locked in a room with a man who is unrelated to her, and who will bleed to death if his wounds are not staunched with bandages. The only viable thing she can use to bandage him is her own covering, and doing so will leave her immodestly clad before him. Is it preferable to let him die or to expose herself but save his life?

767. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #121436 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I think another thing to consider about the apparent preponderance of male-on-male paedophile priests is that paedophile abuse is very often cyclical - the victims sometimes go on to abuse in their turn.

If the abusers are recreating their own childhood abuse then surely they would be drawn to recreating it with members of their own gender. They were abused as boys, so they abuse boys because that recreates their own situation - and if they were abused by a priest then surely that too might be replicated by the simple expedient of becoming a priest specifically to abuse others. Add in that the priesthood is a refuge for those whose sexual predilections might get them into trouble and you have the beginnings of a very nasty vicious circle.

Of course, the girls who were abused by priests can't become priests in their turn, so any cycle of abuse behaviour they exhibit won't go down on the priest tally. One wonders what goes on in the nunneries though.

Sadly, the priesthood also attracts homosexuals into its ranks because their sexuality is problematic as well, and so the two are easily conflated. Inevitably the gays are then blamed by the church for the paedophiles and the homophobic standpoint of the church is reinforced.

768. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121431 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 11:47 am

Actually, as regards snail souls, even medieval christendom and the medieval islamic world were perfectly fine with the souls of animals, and even the lower "animal" and "vegetative parts of the human soul being purely physical, corporeal things generated by the biological processes of the body. Generally speaking only the "rational" soul (i.e. the bit of the human soul that animals do not have) was supposed to be incorporeal and "ghostly" - a doctrine they derived not from scripture but from Aristotle. Of course, the catholic church only really espoused this explanation because it shored up their immortal soul doctrines and let them explain the afterlife in something approaching scientific terms.

769. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #121419 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 11:30 am

Oh, and I usually try to say something in comments on articles like these about how modern and non-traditional this catholic obsession with souls entering the embryo at the point of conception. This time I think I'll just furnish a translation of Alexander Nequam's "Mirror of Speculations", a theological work of c. 1210, to make my point for me. I have tried to keep the rather stilted flavour of medieval scholastic discourse.

(Book III, Chapter lxxxix),

5. "Surely then it is the case that the soul did not, before having a body, have organic members which could be perfected. Why, then, does the church teach that the soul is infused after 46 days? This opinion annuls the authority of Moses when he says (Exod. 21.22) “If anyone strikes a woman with a child in the womb and causes abortion, if the child was formed, he shall give a soul for a soul. If, however, it was not formed, money will alleviate the problem”. This authority posits that the soul is not present until the body is fully formed. If, likewise, the soul is present in essence in the semen then it follows that the woman can abort before the formation of the embryo's body begins. Surely in this case the soul is not punished eternally? Or do many souls perish when the semen perishes? The prophet Zacharias says [to god], among other things, that "you make the souls of men in them” (Zach. 12.1). And Isiah: “Just as lord god said, who made you and fixed you in the womb” (Is. 44.2). The [accepted scientific] story of the formation of the body agrees. And furthermore David says: “Who fixes his seal on their hearts” (Ps. 32.15). The word heart here designates the soul. And again in the Gospel: “Good and bad thoughts arise from the heart”, i.e., from the soul. (Matth. 15.19). (cf. ps-Augustine, Quaest. de Vet. et Nov. Test. xxiii)

6. And so I say it has been satisfactorily proved that no human soul is drawn from the matter of its body. But how then does the soul inherit original sin? It is preserved in its own place. It is apparent from what has been said already that the embryo is not an animal since it does not have a soul. We should not call it a rational animal, but we can call it human, since it will become human and so is human accidentally. When saint Gregory called angels rational animals (Hom. in Evang. I.x), he was using a trope: he used the word "animals" because they were alive. Furthermore, Boethius says that “an egg is an animal potentially” (In Porph. Isagog. iv). Some people assume that there are errors in this part, but there really is no reason to do so. Rationally we call this the matter of the body, since there is no soul in an egg."

770. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #121409 by Cartomancer on February 3, 2008 at 11:14 am

shad0w, comment #50 -

Well, classical Athenian paederastia is a largely misunderstood phenomenon, and definitely gets a bad rap these days (due, in no small measure, to centuries of religious intolerance). I'm actually rather filled with admiration for the institution myself - which in its most usual form generally consisted of a mutually supportive pair-bonding between a man in his twenties (before the usual age of marriage for citizen males at about 30) and a youth in his late teens (usually about 16-20, the age when the first beard begins to grow being the preferred time, so certainly post-pubescent). Furthermore, the relationship (at least in its ideal form, as Plato tells us) was entirely voluntary for both parties, in fact the youth is usually the one who has most to gain from securing himself a respected older partner as a mentor and facilitator for noble society.

A far cry indeed from the sordid, abusive fumblings of the catholic priesthood.

771. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118591 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 7:22 pm

I could be wrong...

772. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118577 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I don't know for sure if he is who I suspect he is. I just recognized that turn of phrase and it would explain why he addresses me most often. I could be wrong, and if I am right then I really don't know why he would be doing this.

Apologies in advance to everyone if this does have something to do with me.

773. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118570 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 7:06 pm

That last one just gave me the horrible feeling I might know this person... Becomethearrow - if you are who I suspect you are then please conduct your agenda with me privately rather than on here.

774. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118554 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I'm willing to give Becomethearrow the benefit of the doubt for now. I really can't fathom what he's up to in the slightest, but it might shape up into some sport given time...

775. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118552 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

err... I'm really not sure what to say to that one.

776. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118546 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:43 pm

No no, facetious quips like that are just a terrible weakness of mine. I am intrigued and deeply puzzled however...

777. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118538 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm

And there was me thinking it means I was sat in front of a window...

778. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118526 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Well, so far he has proved cute and cuddly enough to be amusing. Maybe we'll keep him - too early to say at present...

779. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118521 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:18 pm

At least you didn't unleash Left Hand on them D, at least you didn't go that far...

780. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118518 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:14 pm

My counsellor and psychiatrist say much the same thing...

781. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118512 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Well, to be brutally honest, not yet no. I've been to three of them already and he's spoken at length on the logical possibility of creation ex nihilo, the anthropic principle and the constants of the universe, laws of thermodynamics etc. We are promised something called "the argument from improvability" in later weeks, which I would guess is something like the idea that a perfect god would have made a better world than this one. To be honest it's all very tentative and abstract, very "god might exist" or "god could plausibly be compatible with a universe derived from a quantum singularity". Certainly no straw men or simplistic rehashing of the argument from first causes though - and Leftow is a phenomenal Aquinas scholar too.

782. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118501 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 5:53 pm

King Lear? Well, I certainly am a man more sinned against than sinning. Who is it that can tell me who I am?

783. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118451 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 5:09 pm

I simply know enough to know that I know nothing at all...

784. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118438 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 4:59 pm

So it is considered arrogant these days to deplore credulousness and presumptuousness in public figures is it? Well well, you live and learn - though it would be a sad indictment of our society were that actually to be the case.

And though we have reached some tentative conclusions as to the nature of your character from your posts, it would be impossible not to, the very fact we deign to address your claims, if and when you ever make any, indicates that we are admitting to a common courtesy and not, as some are wont to do, just running away with a trite "I won't argue with you, but I am right. You just think about that while I attend to my oh so busy little life".

And if you think this moron is well-read you clearly haven't encountered the truly formidable erudition of top class academics like the ones I mentioned earlier. Seriously, he's not just in a different league to these prodigies, he's playing a different game. Irrespective of which, his vile right-wing views seem to colour everything he says and mark him out as deeply biased and lacking in objectivity.

785. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118419 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 4:45 pm

*Bows deeply and is touched by the adulation of his peers*

Well LorienRyan, I am hoping that OUP will offer to publish my doctoral thesis about medieval English thought on the soul (c.1160-1220) if it turns out to be any good. And there is the horribly self-indulgent fantasy novel "Legend of the Wandering Star" which I wrote when I was 17. And the anthology of mournful gay love poetry in English and Latin I have been accumulating over the last six years...

But seeing as how you can just get rich spouting ill-conceived right-wing bollocks online these days I'll probably start my own militant feminist neo-nazi evangelical wahabi muslim hate blog instead.

786. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118399 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Is someone running a special shuttle bus service from Mordor today?

This is one of the things I grow to despise about the internet - the platform it gives for the egos of the credulous and the presumptuous. Now, don't get me wrong, it might, perhaps, possibly, maybe, just about be the case that Mr. Beale has something worthwhile to say. I don't want to exclude the possibility entirely. It has been known on rare occasions in the past for talented amateurs to see the flaws in a well-established and universally acknowledged argument, though usually they are men possessing the towering genius of an Albert Einstein or an Isaac Newton. Mr. Beale has not, so far, demonstrated very much by way of credibility in the rationality stakes - and sending his pet trolls to play with us confirms this somewhat, but there is a chance, albeit a vanishingly small one, that I might be convinced.

Nevertheless, he has the preposterous temerity to assume, before his book is actually available and it has had any reception in the real world at all, that a failed computer games designer and internet blogger such as himself has managed to do what none of the world's greatest scientists, theologians and philosophers have managed to do - refute the case for atheism.

Now, I know a thing or two about academic theologians. I am currently attending the lectures of world renowned Oxford theologian Brian Leftow on the subject of the existence of god. Academics like Leftow are actually paid for thinking about these sorts of issues. They are, by and large (Alastair McGrath notwithstanding), very clever people who have devoted thirty, forty, fifty or more years of their lives to examining the case for theism. They work in the most prestigious universities in the world, with access to the best libraries, archives and resources for research mankind has ever gathered together. They are surrounded by world-class historians, philosophers, literary scholars and scientists with whom they can discuss their ideas and debate their theories. People like Brian Leftow, Marilyn McCord-Adams and Richard Swinburne are at the very pinnacle of religious studies and despite their theistic leanings their work is of a profoundly scholarly character and deserves to be taken seriously.

And yet none of these people make a big fuss about it. None of them sit down and write flea books for a popular audience to cash in on the Dawkins phenomenon. None of them run their own vicious ultra-right-wing blogs promoting vile homophobic, misogynistic, pseudomedieval claptrap. At most they will argue that gods have not been disproved and it is logically possible for some sort of deity to be at work behind the scenes of the world as our science describes it. Most of their efforts are directed at precisely this sort of reconciliation. All of them admit, as Aquinas did, that faith is required for belief in god and reason alone, given the premises of modern understanding, cannot take you there. Even Alastair McGrath will admit that.

And yet, some jumped-up software hack with a hankering for the adulation of his deficient fascistic peers thinks that he can do what none of these respectable, intelligent and very learned people have managed to do. Were there no internet for him to spew his amoral patriarchal bile over then we would be spared such nonsense. He would probably just waste his life savings running off a few hundred copies at a vanity press and nobody would be inconvenienced. Thanks to the blogosphere, which admittedly does have some perks thank you PZ, the loathsome little bigot can grow fat and indolent from his delusions of grandeur, and the rest of us have to suffer the intrusion of his trollish acolytes.

Free speech can be a tiresome business at times.

787. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118285 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 2:55 pm

If we're talking brain cell death then I think the theists win hands down on that one. Just think of all the poor little synapses brutally slaughtered by their writings!

788. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118280 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Aww, thanks gr8hands - I'm just pleased somebody actually understood it!

789. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118236 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Anyway, what's wrong with being neurotic, combative and antisocial? I like my neuroses, belligerence and sociophobia thank you very much, and I'd take them any day over being drippy, semi-comatose and needlessly, shallowly gregarious all the time.

How you like that false dichotomy eh?

790. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118224 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Well well, the ugly old bag has finally said something approaching the sensible (is that neurotic, combative and antisocial enough for you? I do apologise for my uncharacteristic lapse into courtesy).

I too would agree that most overtly theistic societies are, on average, Rawlesian veil of ignorance taken into account etc, more pleasant to live in than the places where rabidly anticlerical, totalitarian regimes are in power. I repeat at this juncture, for it is the crux of the matter, that anticlericalism has no logical connection at all with atheism. But your false dichotomy of Medieval Christendom versus Stalin's Russia is so narrowly appositional in its horizons that it is not a valid comparison at all.

Modern Britain, most of Western Europe, Japan and to some extent the US are secular, pluralistic societies with hardly any theistic content to their governments at all. They also happen to be the places where levels of happiness, prosperity and well-being are at their highest. Look to the theistic nightmares of Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia for the true comparison.

Similarly, at risk of blowing my own homosexual agenda trumpet once more, I might point out that while the majority of people might do moderately well out of strongly theistic regimes, the oppressed minorities generally do far, far worse. Maybe the Rawlesian analysis falls down here too...

791. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118210 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Could you find me a reference to the works of any of these three thinkers where this is stated in the pathetic reductionistic manner you have stated it?

Professor Dawkins simply says that there are logical paths from believing certain things about the universe, which many theists do believe, to beleiving that genocide is justified. He nowhere says that all theists are genocidal, indeed he is always careful to qualify his statements on fundamentalists by saying that they refer only to the lunatic fringe. He also gives credit to political, social and technological factors as contributors toward genocidal actions.

Hitchens argues similarly, though he is more concerned to expose examples where theistic beleif actually does lead to disaster. I have not read Harris yet, but seeing as how Dawkins agrees with most things he says I would be very surprised to find such bald, gcse-level thinking as you espouse on his part.

Try again...

792. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118206 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:26 pm

If we are unable to to trust anything we see, hear or otherwise perceive then we have absolutely no premises on which to base our arguments. None at all. If the fact that absolute certainty is impossible in any matter whatsoever is a good reason to abandon empirical reasoning, it is just as good a reason to abandon all other kinds of reasoning. How do you know your own private hermetically-sealed thoughts on the matter are true? How do you know that your supposedly disembodied logic works?

In fact, empirical reasoning and looking to the outside world is the only way we can impose any sort of consistency on our internal world and check the provisional veracity of our reasoning. Without evidence and observation we can get nowhere.

793. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118200 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Anticlericalism, not Atheism. They're completely different things. Quite aside from the fact that reducing the complexities of historical causation to trite, ill-conceived equations is either a staggeringly inane act of wilful mendacity or the result of a childishly simplistic mind.

794. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118196 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Oh, and do leave off on the absolute epistemological uncertainty line - it is most unbecoming and scuppers your arguments just as well as it does ours.

795. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118191 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:07 pm

The generation of fractal patterns from mathematical formulas is not an act of conscious design - it is the deterministic application of algebraic processes. Similarly, if the patterns can be reduced to a simple formula, they aren't actually very complex at all.

Try again...

796. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118174 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Nurse! Nurse! Puerile Existentialist Bullshit outbreak in the Vox Dei thread! Repeat we have a PEB in here, Dr. Zara to Vox Dei Ward stat - your patient is in critical condition!

797. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118124 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 11:21 am

Bravo PZ, Bravo!

Though I would add that this applies not just to scientists as commonly defined, but to all people who engage in evidence-based rational thinking.

798. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #118103 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 10:49 am

Ugh! Christian bully-boy tactics like this are disgraceful. Apathy on the part of the company who runs MySpace is similarly reprehensible. I am glad I never got into that one.

Facebook is the way forward I think. I currently define my religious beliefs as "Utter disdain for all such ridiculous nonsense", though I have yet to add the OUT application or join the "Richard Dawkins is cooler than Jesus" group. Though he is, no question about it.

799. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117919 by Cartomancer on January 30, 2008 at 1:42 am

I guess that, as a consummate poet with a profound understanding of medieval Latin, our dearly beloved Mr. Beale will be able fully to appreciate this little tribute to his overweening narcissistic arrogance that I came up with:



Pulex pravus librum scripsit,

In quo nichil novum dixit,

Donat nobis, iners vates,

Sophismas, non veritates.

Credit sese redarguisse,

Argumenta ei missa,

Sed agitur actus reus,

In fatuitate eius:

Eius liber est in finem,

Nugatoris ad hominem,

Odit nimis Dawkins nostri,

Immemor rationis claustri.

Cur sic cogitet non scio,

Nisi fertur delusio -

Virus virulens in mente,

Eum faciens repente,

Arrogantiam sumere,

Dum caput impletur aere.



Vale, pulex, vir inanis,

Liber tuus valde vanis!

800. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117896 by Cartomancer on January 29, 2008 at 11:49 pm

I generally ignore the short ones myself, but then again I always was an obtuse sort...