901. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80335 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 11:15 am

Riley

So Hitchens has not derided good answers? (We both agree on the feeble merits of the answers you quote? Re prayer- I introspect endlessly on my actions and my beliefs hoping to do better. Re forgiving enemies- I strive continually to do so and have been rewarded handsomely for it.)

902. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80327 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 10:57 am

artemisa

Free Will: the explanation that when I choose to act in one way rather than another I make the choice, and no set of external or internal causes cause me to choose the act I choose.

Which is precisely why a purist (spiritual) free will is nonsense. Information doesn't get magicked from nowhere.

The brain presents pre-imagined or pre-experienced choices. The emotional value (or other metric) of one prevails and you act. Your internal narrative is updated about your action, which is when the logic of that action is finally secured (or indeed even created for the first time!)

Interestingly the problem of complex brains is choosing between nearly matched alternatives. Precisely the randomness of Steve99's quantum level effects or even the effects of thermal noise may make all the difference in the outcome of that choice and in causing it to happen in the first place.

903. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80320 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 10:30 am

Riley,

1) Why would any theist admit to being "Holier than Thou"? Why would they put this issue on the table? Arguing that religion makes you nicer and more sociable is one thing but... This question is an accusation that can only come from an atheist.

2)Hitchens would deride a sensible answer?? Then he must leave in disgrace! Has he done this?

3)But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.

4)He mocks theists in general for not taking up the challenge.

If theists don't challenge him then why don't you? It can only reflect well on atheism to do so, whatever the outcome.

904. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80312 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 9:38 am

Granted this could be the first step toward completing an argument that I am unaware of, but even if that were the case, how would that justify publicly grandstanding and admonishing his targets for not responding to his challenge? His challenge is used as part of a theatre that makes it appear as though he is actually addressing a real theist position - he's not. Has no one else on this thread had the opportunity to listen to a cult-of-personality theist pull this same tactic with his own devoted followers? And have none of you ever felt sick watching those followers eat it up uncritically --- he's telling you what you want to hear.

So why has no Christian apologist responded as you have imagined? Because Hitchens is actually addressing a real theist MINDSET and no-one wants to unpick it. Its part of what makes theists feel good.

I have encountered this mindset many times. "Give no thought for yourself" is a proposition many, many theists believe is not accessible to an atheist mind. When they encounter an atheist being self-sacrificial they muse that she must have been very spiritual, or some such.

It is absolutely this mindset that underpins the rabid belief that an atheist could never become president of the United States. It is not that atheists might put less money in the tin. Its that atheists can NEVER do the Big Stuff, the self-sacrifice stuff. Its not doctrine, but since when did theists study the fine print of their rules?

I was always of the opinion that the practicalities of everyday morality were what it was all about. Leading an ethical life, caring for others etc. I was always happy to argue that voting to increase tax to pay for a better national health service, let us say, was more moral than giving to a religious charity for a local hospice (thereby relieving society of its proper obligations). That working as a teacher was more moral than working as a trader in futures. Giving a commitment to truth rather than parochial tradition. In short, how you live your life is of far greater moral significance than how you often you "give", and that statistics on charitable giving were of little consequence. This argument I was prepared for. Hitchens' question was not what I expected. It is cleverer. It is a scalpel driven between the espoused dogma and the actual mindset of theists. It is about the very essence of discrimination against atheists.

905. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80286 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 6:23 am

It is rather chaotic behaviour (epeeist's point) more than randomness that defeats determinism. Simply, the complexity of loosely coupled systems (society, most of the universe etc.)derives from the extreme sensitivity to the "start" conditions.

The universe itself is the most elegant computer that can be conceived for determining its own future. Sadly its clock speed cannot be increased so we can get a sneak preview..

The evolutionary drive underpinning the phenomenon of free will is I suspect entirely societal. We gain advantage from being able to wrong-foot our enemies and our competitors. Our future actions must, where necessary, be unpredictable to others yet not be a complete surprise to us. Imagining the future and rehearsing our possible actions is the core of free will (also that these details are not available to outsiders). Free will is not spontaneous random action, which has no value whatsoever. Free will results in directed, purposeful action (mostly)and must, therefore, be rooted in pre-existing brain states. (There is no other place for information to reside.)

This chaotic behaviour is both specifically unpredictable and generally predictable, the latter because of the pattern forming potential of chaotic systems. (Humans tend to do this...republicans tend to do that etc.)

Free will's elevated status is a cultural artifact. (Memetic) Simply, reifying it and discussing it, encourages us to use the processes it entails and become more adept at it.

Free will in no practical sense whatever is susceptible to determinism (Steve99's point).

Its fascinating to think that human brains have perhaps become the most concentrated nodes of chaotic behaviour in our neck of the universe.

906. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80266 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 3:37 am

Comment #80238 by keith

Exactly!

Further, the plea that the argument should be about QUANTITY of goodness, not the "degree" of goodness of any single act, is to get things out of order. Only by blocking off the possibility of a category of acts denied to atheists can you go on to argue any case regarding quantity or net contribution.

"Saintliness" is popularly regarded as just such a restricted category. Hitchens, the Devil's Advocate in the case for Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization, is exactly the person to nail this one.

907. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80207 by phil rimmer on October 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Riley

Here is a quote from another thread by one of the nicest, most informed, moderate, modern Christians you could wish to meet.

I don't know if you've seen a program called House. I can really recommend it. It shows, as I see it, what a rational approach to human behaviour would be without believing in God. House is an atheist, doesn't believe in the existence of objective morality, so he does whatever works out best for himself.

House is an atheist, doesn't believe in the existence of objective morality, THEREFORE he does whatever works out best for himself.

So we atheist, moral relativists are self centred and by implication less moral. Its not the latest, "official" doctrine, but its how most religious people think and act. When challenged on it (a la Hitchens) they suddenly remember the religiously PC thing to do and act humble....But secretly...

908. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80115 by phil rimmer on October 20, 2007 at 4:14 am

Hitchens, I don't believe, has EVER stated that Christians CLAIM to be motivated to moral acts that an atheist will never be inclined to do. He never phrases it in that way. He merely poses a question.

Any reply, including Riley's, would be equally welcome to him. I suspect he would happily acknowledge the modest and self-effacing claims of modern, moderate theism, but delight in demonstrating the wealth of implicit theistic material demonstrating moral elevation and theists tacit acceptance of this "blessing".

There is no hypocrisy in posing the question. It is a baited hook Christians wisely swim clear of. Its a rhetorical device that subverts the "So, where do you atheists get your morals from?" question.

Arguments about the QUANTITY of moral behaviour are quite another issue. Hitchens, here, wants to say not merely that humans can be good without God, but that humans can be "Saintly" without God.

909. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79975 by phil rimmer on October 19, 2007 at 10:58 am

Spooky, Dr B.

Spent an hour dithering over this only to discover you'd said it neater, sooner....

PaulEmecz

House is the sociopath mankind needs at moments of great crisis. His moral calculus is unarguable but not for the squeamish. His greatest-good-at-all-times test requires a sacrifice, not least from him. That he has the common human decency to be suffering, licenses his godly, indecent acts of salvation. But the moment his suffering ends, we'll nail him good for his presumption. Just remember he will have died for us.

910. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77987 by phil rimmer on October 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Chris

...I do KNOW the truth.

Yeah...me too :) But sometimes I just don't say it out loud.

I long ago learned that education is a slow process and what you teach someone is just as much as they can handle at any one time. And don't jump to the conclusion before you've done the groundwork. (I really do see our job as education!)

I'll check out the PZ cult column.

Cheers

Phil

911. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77971 by phil rimmer on October 11, 2007 at 11:12 am

Steve99

I am wondering if it might be useful to have on this site somewhere some standard rebuttals which can be referred to, rather than having to look through thousands of posts in a number of threads to refer to an argument that has been had before.

I have no idea how it work work, but I believe it would be so useful to have, for example, some of epeeist's logic, and Benway's points about naturalism and so on...

Seconded.... Josh?

912. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77968 by phil rimmer on October 11, 2007 at 10:59 am

Chris

The "evil of certainty" is no evil at all when true.

So, you KNOW too, huh. So we're stuffed. We get called fundamentalists and we get stood alongside other competing fundie religions.

"almost certainly fictional". Sorry, that is not good enough.

What would be good enough? How almost? 99.999%? 99.9 recurring? There is a crucial principle here.

If the truth hurts, too bad.

But it just doesn't seem to hurt them, does it? We're just another fundie outfit. They've long ago learned how to deal with other religites.

Even if that vicious, spiteful, petty, murderous, demented step-father-of-a-god existed AND He had a Plan for us, they would still be wrong in telling other people what to do and what to think. Which of all the vicious, spiteful gods is the right vicious, spiteful etc. etc.?

There is only one silver bullet against Faith...Doubt. Its the one thing that differentiates us from all the others. You can't use it if you throw it away.

913. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77917 by phil rimmer on October 11, 2007 at 5:37 am

CDGI

almost certainly fictional"?????!!!!! What is up with that? Almost?

We won't convert fundamentalists to atheism in any quantities that are useful.

The evil of certainty, however, is killed by reasonable doubt. If we want fundies to stop acting like they KNOW, we must lead them to practise what we both preach and practise.

914. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77914 by phil rimmer on October 11, 2007 at 5:19 am

Janus

It's like putting a sticker that says "Apple" on an apple.

Yeah, f*cking useless!

Personally I'm a Cox's Orange Pippin.

Edit. Seem to have pissed off Janus. I'm sorry to have done so. I agree with so much that he has to say. BUT. My point stands. A self evident label is fatuous when the core (no pun) of the issue lies elsewhere. To whit- the offensive behavior of religites IS the issue, not their beliefs. Labeling myself as opposed to their beliefs rather than their behavior is to make them think I give a damn about their non existent, god.

915. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77805 by phil rimmer on October 10, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Richard Morgan.

How sad that we need to feel angry, don't you think?

At least anger is a motor to get us doing something about it.

I think, perhaps its time someone brought out another book to move the argument along.

Dennett argued that it was OK to analyze and criticize theism.

Dawkins argued that theism was very unlikely to be true given its vanishing requirement as an explanation of anything that impinges on the nature of mankind's existence. Theistic dogma on how we should live our lives, therefore, has less authority than rational discourse.

Harris and Hitchens both argue on the dangers of religious dogma cloaked as political dogma. This lethal stuff is knockout-blow politics, both holier-than-thou in its moral superiority and Absolute in its Truth. Both authors, interestingly, don't care too much about targeting individual spirituality or some of the cultural artifacts of religion.

Where next? Not back to the non-existence of God. Its not worth the grief. No. Onwards to an analysis of the unwarranted influence of religion on the politics of Europe and the US in the last 250 years. A call for the removal of unelected religious leaders from positions of political influence. Professor Chris Heard (or similar) to create a popular account of the lack of scriptural authority for the Christian fundamentalist position, aimed at Christian fundamentalists. A book aimed at moderates, (written by a Bishop preferably), pointing out that their version of religion flowed from doubt and questioning, that their spiritual faith can thus endorse no dogma and that fundamentalism is their true enemy....There's a lot to do.

PZ can stay on Creationism Watch until the job is done. Hes good at it!

916. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77671 by phil rimmer on October 10, 2007 at 4:53 am

Dr B

Brains play tricks on people. You'd be surprised to learn how many people hear voices but otherwise appear normal.

I wouldn't be in the least surprised. "The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold" is a common one in my experience, visiting as it has, a close friend and a colleague. Their experiences have been tormenting, but ultimately, they claim, personally valuable. To not find value from such experiences would be sad indeed.

Whilst a 99.99% atheist, I am 100% anti-religious. People and religions may break my bones but gods will never hurt me.

Atheism doesn't begin to explain who and what I am angry about.

917. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77527 by phil rimmer on October 9, 2007 at 2:16 pm

PZ and Sam are both right some of the time. The self-identifiers you use for yourself should depend on context and audience.

With fundies I never usually identify myself as an atheist. As Dr Benway suggested for himself a while ago, I would be happy to call myself a Deist just to skip unproductive discussions . The key issues to be debated with them are whence comes knowledge, and the hatefulness of dogma, leading to the injunction to keep all that shit to themselves. A fundie would expect an atheist to be mainly concerned with the "Big" question of the existence of god, but a fundie would be the last person able to say anything useful on that particular subject. That a belief in god is not on the table allows one to pose the question, who's dogma wins in the social arena, and then move on to the value of rational debate based on evidence and experience.

With moderates I am an Atheist. The key issue to be discussed with them is the error of the "Virtue of Faith" and the need for moderates to proclaim that Faith can only be a personal attribute (never a social one) and may very well be devoid of any meaning to others. Being an Atheist puts the moderate in the opposing camp, along with the fundies. It says you're religious just like them, which annoys the hell out of them. (" All religions aren't the same! Only their religion is crap, not mine! Mine is gentle and full of Love and Niceness.") But, in that camp they must stay until they denounce publicly (for all the fundies to hear) the "Virtue of Faith".

918. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75396 by phil rimmer on October 2, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Karen Armstrong propounds the theory of the "Axial Age" first mooted by philosopher Karl Jaspers. This holds that there was a global shift in human thinking in the period 800BCE to 200BCE. This shift (in brief) was the "discovery" of the Golden Rule. This happened independently across the Globe and involved the likes of Socrates, Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama and sundry figures from the Torah. It was later co-opted by Christianity and Islam.

Karen Armstrong is fervent in her belief of the importance of this thinking, and is persuaded that this may have been a means by which (at least spokesmen for) the common people might seek to mitigate the harms wrought by tyrant rulers.

Perhaps her undoing is her belief that a return to these roots will re-nourish society. (It certainly makes her personal journey less of a waste..) Strangely, however, when faced with fact that only a few years after the "gentle" Muhammad's life Arab armies subsume much of the eastern and southern Mediterranean, she responds that this is because Islam has fallen into the hands of politicians....

Exactly! She completely fails to see the built in dangers when philosophy is interlarded with dogmatic detail, to make it a juicier story. So in love is she with this "First Enlightenment" that she prefers to see a dagger aimed at its heart rather than its internal flaw.

919. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75367 by phil rimmer on October 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm

As ever you've nailed it, Dr. B. (Comment #33)

First step is to get moderates to accept there is such a thing as "Religious Power". And there is no "Atheist Power", just an insistence on the question, "Why?"

920. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75362 by phil rimmer on October 2, 2007 at 11:57 am

I was greatly interested in what Karen Armstrong had to say on the radio and was quite shocked at her stupid throw-away comment at the end of her section of the program.

I for one would like her here to debate what she intended by her remark. I can only imagine she hasn't grasped what Dawkins is about, to whit, "No social imperatives from un-evidenced beliefs," and "moderates to publicly endorse same."

With her book she has done sterling work with the latter (or so it seems from the program).

I wonder if there is any formal way we could invite her here? Maybe have a place on the site to vote for people to be given a formal invite from Josh in Richard's name or some such?

She shouldn't feel out of place in the company of CHeard, Paul Emecz and the like, and we must get to grips with this curious problem of moderates.

921. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70668 by phil rimmer on September 16, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Prufrock

they believe because they can't be bothered not to

Fantastic. I shall use it often.(...if thats OK?)

922. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70141 by phil rimmer on September 14, 2007 at 7:49 am

Dianelos,

I am astonished that you think you have refuted Dawkins' claim related to the difference between science and the fundamentalism in the Times article you link to.

That scientists may fail to change their minds in the face of valid opposing evidence and the fundamentalist may lose his faith through the power of reason, says nothing about science and fundamentalism per se. It signals only that people may be foolish or wise.

But are the foolish and the wise equally served by fundamentalism and science? On the side of the fundamentalism tin it reads, "Only have faith." On the other "Doubt everything".

Its what it says on the tin that is the issue.

(Dawkins, incidentally, spoke only of the "True scientist". He knows too well that folly abounds.)

923. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69864 by phil rimmer on September 13, 2007 at 3:09 am

but who respects Greer's thoughts? I don't.

Downunder.

But people did. At the time she was the foremost commentator on the socially disenfranchised with her seminal book "The Female Eunuch." Denmarks's legislators were so persuaded by such arguments that they choose to impose no restrictions whatsoever on the distribution of pornography.

Then, the "dirty old man" was a near harmless figure of fun. (Rowan and Martin's Laughin. etc.) We had no-idea of the level of harm that could be caused.

And here's the point. Perhaps by simply initiating a debate on the subject Greer et al. unwittingly led to us to understand the Harm.

This is exactly why I am happy with our process of moral synthesis.

Dianelos,

What if the cancer patient became aware of the situation and volunteered?

What a fantastic way to go! Would you deny him the chance of such an exalted exit?

If he were in serious pain, would you? (I could go on stacking this up like this...)

924. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69776 by phil rimmer on September 12, 2007 at 5:47 pm

I have always said, you can claim that morals are just subjective

So, no value judgments there then. No acknowledgment for one of the most brilliant and sustained acts of cultural synthesis in the last 10,000 years then. Like justice, love, civil society.....

Our extraordinary adventure together has brought us from truly brutish beginnings to a condition where, the biggest proportion of us ever play the moral philosopher on a daily basis. 500 years ago we knew what was moral because we were told. Now, wonderfully, more and more of us have our own views and have them listened to.

Moral dogma is wicked, because we can never be sure of the totality of the harm or the totality of the good that may arise from trying to exercise any specific part of it. Ideas must be tried. The verdicts of those affected by it and of history, must be weighed and weighed again. A tweek is made and society becomes a little better.

Child abuse is a case in point. Kids were generally not treated as fully human many hundreds of years ago. They were quite likely to die young and they were treated pretty much as slaves, whilst they were small enough to be so put upon. In the eighteenth century, however, they started to be treated as more fully human. Money was spent on them. They were increasingly given education, just for its own sake. Children's books appeared. They were allowed to play. Suddenly they appear in paintings and literature. They are portrayed with
feelings and hopes and wishes. We noticed them and felt their pain.

Its been a long road in the slow improvement in the recognition of a child's humanity. Unsteady, too. It was only in the early 1970's that paedophilia was deemed not such a big deal (by respected thinkers like Germaine Greer) and some Scandiwegian countries tolerated its portrayal for a few years. This horrible aberration came about from a complete misunderstanding of what "childhood sexuality" actually was and on the low rates of reporting abuse in earlier times. (Because such things were not discussed, actually)

Yet again the Roman Catholic church was behind the curve on this one. The moral calculus they employed over-played their own importance as an unsullied beacon for others, and missed the catastrophe of ruined young lives.

Oughts any more detailed than "Be Good" will ultimately fail and become dangerous. A continuous, no, a daily task exists for all of us to check and tweek our Oughts where necessary.

Anyway, this is the view of someone who is a glass-half-full sort of chap. (In pre-history 30% of the population were killed by the other 70%. Now we're down to 3%, and despite the fractal nature of the curve, its still going down nicely) Our act of synthesis is working spectacularly well.

Paul, you have said things that lead me to suspect you of being a glass-half-empty sort of chap. Is this possibly what this discussion is all about?

(The concept of Love the result of an act of synthesis??? Yep, but it'll take a couple of pints and a chaser to nail that one.)

925. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69284 by phil rimmer on September 10, 2007 at 10:00 am

Dr B

And you've begged and begged.

Steve99

Fair enough. I just wondered if a relaxation of the manufacturing tolerances in the design spec. could loosen things up a bit. You know, accumulating complexity will yield smart enough life one day. Picking the values of the various constants might get a little easier, particularly after you've had a couple of "ranging shots".

You know, I've always worried about the possibility of us being one of those "ranging shots".

926. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69256 by phil rimmer on September 10, 2007 at 7:47 am

Dr.B

Evil for questioning whether God's purposes ought to be my own?

No. Evil, if knowing God's purpose, you choose another.

Should a perfect lover set you perfectly free?

927. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69218 by phil rimmer on September 10, 2007 at 3:25 am

Corylus, Veronique, Pewkachoo

Don't distract him now! We need to know if Dr.B is Truly Evil and if not then....

Steve99

I accept your arguments re. designing us from a big bang, but let me give give Paul a get-out for the mo. so he can answer Dr.B's Question.

So...(Metaphorically) God planted some Complexity seeds. The particular forms that would result were unknown and broadly irrelevant, but some broad characteristics (the critical ones) could be inferred from reading the side of the packet. If Paul accepts this can we move on?

928. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69201 by phil rimmer on September 10, 2007 at 2:02 am

Apologies for my clunking entry earlier, I hadn't realized the argument had reached such an exquisite tipping point.

Dr B's question, I see, is THE question. Paul must answer. And not with the "designed for a purpose" response. There are things you must then go on to say about Dr B's refusal to accept his role, about God's possible response or non response, what this makes Dr.B and what this says about God. No leaving gaps now!

(Chaps, I hope I haven't just clunked.)

929. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69025 by phil rimmer on September 9, 2007 at 2:22 pm

PaulE

…when we discover moral laws by reason, and follow what reason dictates, we are acting as God intended. Clearly you can act that way without believing in God, but if you don't believe in God, how do you answer the question "Why should you act that way?"

Because we "…follow what reason dictates"

Steve99 said

The idea that God determines morality is dangerous.

For me the idea that there is any sort of absolute-never-to-be-broken OUGHT is dangerous. Whatever hideous, insane act can be countenanced, a potentially worse one can be conceived that will result unless the first is performed. All OUGHTS need interpreting in the real world, even when they're God given. Probabilities of outcomes still need to be weighed. Unless God provides us with 10e10 commandments and a damn good search engine, we are still all on our own on this.

In the recently published psychological thought experiment, where pushing someone off a bridge to save five others, results in all but the sociopaths not doing the "right thing" and sacrificing the one to save the five, we can discern the kind of real world computation that goes on in most of our minds. "If I push him off, he's dead for sure. How do I know the five will be saved? How do I know they are really in danger? What if I'm wrong and I kill him for no reason?" The immediate visceral, disgust at killing an innocent person "saves" us from the OUGHT of preserving the maximum number of lives. Maybe, it's a statistical thing? Maybe after 10 such events the sociopaths kill 10 and the non-sociopaths kill 5, because of a 1 in 5 chance of the five others actually dying? Maybe we need a society where only people like Greg House M.D. or Winston Churchill (in 1939) are sociopaths.

Its true, I live my life as if-

Money has value
I have free will
There ARE oughts

I know, however, I may need to revise these views occasionally.

Why do atheists have any (even provisional) oughts at all? Why should we even do what reason dictates? Well we don't, unless we have some investment in society and its future, i.e. a future beyond our own death. I care that my children's children are happy and live in the least fear from society. My nephews and nieces ditto. Godchildren (!) Younger work colleagues. That nice woman in the corner shop. Maybe its my genes that apply to the front end of the list, but I guess its memes only for the back end.

Those who feel they don't have an investment in the future of society, we have failed and we lock up. And so we OUGHT!

930. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67865 by phil rimmer on September 5, 2007 at 3:27 am

Yet never in our history has that influence been so weak, its doctrines so torn by doubt, its preaching so uncertain.

Nope. The tide turned. In the USA religion met the free-market, cable TV, a huge, culturally isolated group of otherwise harmless folk, and a race for the bottom ensued. Maximum return on investment was to be achieved through offering maximum redemption for oneself, maximum punishment for the hated out-groups with the least personal mental effort.

Pernicious as that was, it was nothing compared to the sickening sight of the politicians spotting the opportunity of using this lame-brained stuff as a means of shortcutting (tiresome)political debate to faster get their way. Of course such a useful tool is not banned but co-opted by other politicians in another spiral to the bottom.

No-one here wants to pull down churches or stop people going to them. But we do want religious people to face up to their responsibilities of keeping their spiritual lives to out of state affairs. More, we want enlightened religious people to publicly condemn other religites if they fail to do so.

Private faith. Public cynicism.

931. In God we doubt

Comment #67460 by phil rimmer on September 3, 2007 at 1:55 pm

NorthernBright

if people reject atheism because they're SCARED of it, rather than because they're not convinced by its arguments, how DO we get the message across?

I think the problem is not so much atheism as atheists. Like you I have been pondering on the lack of support from people who, by rights, should have more sympathy for our position. I believe the problem is that we atheists are seen as the vanguard of the Thought Police. "Stop thinking wrong things!"

We need, somehow, to shift the focus from atheism to secularism.

This doesn't let moderate religites off the hook either. No religion in state affairs means exactly that. Then we can honestly challenge other states to match this behaviour. Its a huge challenge.

[EDIT] Maybe then John H and Salley V can be co-opted to the cause.

932. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67448 by phil rimmer on September 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm

No need for an iPod, Quork. Your PC will play the files perfectly well.

Thanks for volunteering :)

933. The New Atheists

Comment #67443 by phil rimmer on September 3, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Those that call for a dialog between moderate deists and atheists forget that it is moderate faith that is the incubus of extremism.

My good friend is a staunch Catholic. He is appalled at the thought that faith, of any sort, should find its way into matters of state. Or that it should be used to justify a moral position. ("What! You mean you haven't thought it out for yourself? What have we got free will for then?)

If all religites behaved that way..No Problem. We could all pack up and go home. We're not the Thought Police.

Private faith. Public cynicism.

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

Comment #67214 by phil rimmer on September 2, 2007 at 5:03 pm

For Salley (with an e)

Salley fears the Thought Police
a-knocking at her door,
Fears old Ray's Firemen piling
all her books up by the score.
Like Chicken Little wailing,
"My Heaven's falling in."
She blocks her ears,
And screams her fears,
"My Dreams are not a sin!"

Nor are they, gentle Willow,
a-weeping o'er Life's stream.
Would that more were visited
and had such strength to dream.
But, sadly, some such dreamers
believe their dreams are true.
They know they're right
And so they'll fight
Until you know that too!

935. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #67071 by phil rimmer on September 1, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Ted Haggard it seems tried "to reach out to the gay community" but his efforts didn't go down well with his own flock (sic). I think there may have been the glimmer of something decent in him then, but, he learned to toe the line and condemn homosexuality. (Some leaders lead by running just in front of the mob, whilst looking over their shoulders to see which way it'll turn next.)

Now I can see his rictus of a smile as one of self-loathing, that of a man trapped in a hypocritical hell of his own making. Its sad. Its a bit like Mother Theresa, trapped by Dogma.

So, I missed out my first effort, a limerick, as too filthy and settled for this....

Revealed as bi-curious,
His flock, somewhat furious,
Disowned him and sent him away.
He begged for their kindness,
For money, not blindness.
They jeered, "No way, f*gg*t, your gay.

What can you be thinking?
We know its not drinking.
The Meth must have addled your mind.
Get up off your knees. You
Appealing to Jesu,
Like that will condemn all your kind."

Such condemnation isn't new. Swinburne wrote on the death of Oscar Wilde....

"...It was for sinners such as this,
Hell was created bottomless."


(Christian hypocrite that he was, Swinburne liked to turn the other cheek when a little strict discipline was on offer. My mistake. That merely puts him on a par with Opus Dei members.)

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

Comment #66974 by phil rimmer on September 1, 2007 at 6:34 am

..so lets leave her alone and let her go back to playing with her dolls...

No. Lets not. She represents the views of a substantial number of people in western Europe, that is, live-and-let-live, metaphysically inclined, postmodern, Jungian etc. etc.........

Forget that her account of TGD is garbage. She, for whatever reason, has taken fright at what she sees (wrongly) as an attack on the right of people to have personal, metaphorical narratives by which they can live their lives.

We must disabuse her of this idea, whilst seeking to give people better materials for their narratives. (RD has done done more than most.)

937. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65300 by phil rimmer on August 23, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Dr B.

I think the Hitch is right. The only slogan to have is

"...Build up that wall."

938. Rational Atheism

Comment #65045 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Dr.B.

When I first starting coming to this site, I said more frequently that I view myself as a secularist more than an atheist. Secularism is really a higher goal, as it supports a diversity of first person data, so long as all personal data bend the knee to our collective need for corroborative evidence.

And in a sense Secularism is do-able in a way that Atheism isn't. It is a political aspiration that we otherwise unherdable, atheistic cats can gather round and actually.....act on. Right then. New proposition. We, the Peoples Front of Judea......


(Pace on the cat reference. Perhaps Turing is less fearful of them?)

939. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65028 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Maybe I just spoiled my ballot paper, I don't know.

I got this view of them churning through our responses saying, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Atheist. Atheist. Anabaptist. Christadelphian..."

So I wrote-

"Private Faith. Public cynicism. I am measured by my deeds not my beliefs. Public discourse, the workings of society, can proceed only on the common substrate of rational, cynical debate. Only this way are all included on an equal footing.

The details of my Faith should not be a matter for anyone but me. People (especially the media) lazily use a person's faith as a litmus test of their moral character. This is crass in the extreme. Keep out of it."

940. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65014 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I bought Collin's book in an airport recently, to entertain me on the trip. It failed. But it entertained my fellow travelers as I threw it down in disgust every few pages.

Woefully, intellectually underpowered. The good bits were all C.S.Lewis quoted verbatim. His one chance of doing good by this hero of his was to explain how the latest science hadn't screwed up a lot of Lewis's ideas. He flunked out, badly. A man of very little breadth I fear...

941. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65007 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 4:01 pm

"Do not use when pissed!"

LOL, Corylus. And one of the kinder posts here.

I've just put up my own copy.

942. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65004 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 3:45 pm

How does he keep such a straight face!?

I can only imagine the makeup person dashes in before the take to whack a shot of novocaine into each cheek.....

943. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64956 by phil rimmer on August 22, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Am I right here in assessing Paul's concern essentially as being that a society, morally sustained by empathy and the Golden Rule (and not by a divine moral framework),would be unstable, and prone to exploitation and ultimate destruction by the selfish and the sociopaths?

Anybody? Paul?

944. The Politics of God

Comment #64735 by phil rimmer on August 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Astonishingly good. Depressing. Galvanizing. I learned more useful stuff in the last twenty minutes than...well..any other.

"All we have is our own lucidity, which we must train on a world where faith still inflames the minds of men."

945. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64726 by phil rimmer on August 21, 2007 at 1:21 pm

[edit]

Please, now can we put this thread down and walk away slowly, before someone gets hurt?

946. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64723 by phil rimmer on August 21, 2007 at 1:17 pm

What!!!!

947. God's Still Dead

Comment #64720 by phil rimmer on August 21, 2007 at 12:53 pm

This article is rich stuff indeed. Its sent me off to read more of Lilla and thence to Isaiah Berlin. Professor Lilla, though thankfully not a post-modernist, (he seems to have trashed Derrida for deconstructing both baby and bathwater when tackling the issue of justice) is nevertheless infected by some of the same thinking.

What is it about people trained in the twentieth century in the social sciences and the Humanities? They all believe "we are what we are what we are" and we'd better not meddle with it.

We evolved to be racists, but we're dealing with it.

948. God's Still Dead

Comment #64712 by phil rimmer on August 21, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Riley,

For Hitch I'd like to see him use the term- Sacred Dogma

For RD I'd prefer- Supernatural Religion.

the terms dogma and religion being a little too general on their own.

949. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64538 by phil rimmer on August 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Stop Feeding!....Stop it!

Can anyone point to a single good idea or discussion that occurred within this thread?....Anyone? Anything?....No really, ANYTHING?

Haven't you just lost a big chunk of your life? And no, you won't get it back, not even as an ant.

950. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64521 by phil rimmer on August 20, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Paul comment 1878.

Honestly, if they lost their faith tomorrow, do you think things would change?

No. No they wouldn't. Those hypothetical (but otherwise very real) redneck Christians would still be calling for vengeful justice., and feeling that any little "mistakes" that may be occasionally made would be the least of possible evils. They would not change their ways.

But, here's the point…nor would you. If you lost your faith you would make exactly the same, highly moral decisions. After mourning the loss of a lover (albeit the lover of all lovers), you would pick up the pieces and carry on as before, being an identically good person. And even, I venture to suggest, a little more cautious in passing judgement. A little more… "maybe I'd better think this through again.)

No more might you risk feeling that the good intentions behind your moral judgements are what counts. (My Dad would console me, "There, there, you did your best..") Now it is ONLY the quality of your judgements that count.

For me, one of the greatest pieces of Christian wisdom, accumulated over its brief life, is Oliver Cromwell's famous plea, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

In believing there is an OUGHT, you open the door to the possibility of thinking you may have found it, and worse, know how to use it.

That could be a terrible, dark day.

On the other hand, the Perfect Lover may well have been inclined to set you Perfectly Free.