Comments by Liveliest Crib
51. Hitchens and Prager Debate
Comment #46187 by Liveliest Crib on May 30, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Hitchens is not a particularly good listener. (Or maybe he is, and he purposefully avoids questions.) I agree with him almost wholeheartedly on his positions towards religion, but when confronted with well-articulated challenges, his answers often fail to focus on the central point his challengers make. It almost seems like he would do poorly on standardized multiple choice tests for reading comprehension that always contain two answers that appear correct, but one of which is a red herring. (I don't actually believe that. I think Hitchens would probably pass such tests with flying colors, but the analogy seems appropriate per his ad libbed answers in interviews.)
As for Prager's supposedly-so-forceful-it's-rhetorical question about being in a strange (American) city late at night, followed by strangers who, you later learn, had just come from a Bible class.........
Prager thinks that this is a rhetorical question because he assumes at the outset that the Bible teacher will be teaching the "peace and love" aspect that many religious moderates glean from a flawed text that has been interpreted a thousand different ways. Many of its evil inspirations are textually and theologically defensible, and naturally, if the evil of the Bible were the focus of the class, the obvious answer is, "Hell no, I wouldn't feel safer!"
He's essentially asking, if you were to learn that the strangers following you had just come from a class that teaches to love and help strangers, would you feel safer? And that question is so stupid that the only answer is, "Duh!"
The question is only poignant if one also asks whether the Bible necessarily inspires the kind of morals that Prager assumes it does, and the answer to that is a most definite, "Hell no!"
And by the way, I am of Jewish descent, and at the tender age of 13 was uprooted from a largely Jewish community to a largely devout Protestant Christian community. It was in the mid 1980s, I faced constant bigotry and bullying, and I can say with all honesty that I have been in a situation much like the one in Prager's hypothetical scenario, and what actually ran through my mind was, "Oh, I so hope those kids from my school weren't just coming from their church groups!"
Comment #45551 by Liveliest Crib on May 28, 2007 at 5:43 am
Okay, okay, I'm reading, I'm reading...pleasant little article so far, and....WHAT? What's this? Uh-oh. Not so pleasant anymore.
The Rabbi--Rabbi Goldberg--got up and made an obsequious, fawning, assimilating fool of himself. He said Temple Judea was "tolerant of atheism." Silly me. I had this insane idea that the purpose of a synagogue was to advance the cause of Judaism, which is generally considered to be a religion.
First, I'd like to thank the author for stopping to add the rabbi's surname. That added so much to my understanding. As for the pejorative description, it would seem that the operative adjective is, alas, "assimilating." Notwithstanding the humorous logic behind the argument that a temple exists to "advance the cause" of Judaism, a congregation willing to listen to opposing viewpoints ought at least to be commended for its civility, not derided for straying from the intolerant certainty that typically accompanies faith and threatens to blow the planet to smithereens.
He quoted some French Jew who died in the nineteenth century. The gist of the quote was that Judaism was great because it didn't require adherents to shut off their brains and abandon reason. Rabbi Goldberg thought it was a good idea to bring in people hostile to God and Judaism and let them speak, because it "challenged" believers. Again, I guess I'm crazy. I thought the secular world challenged believers day in and day out, and the purpose of a synagogue was to provide a sanctuary and an authoritative response.
Even the Catholic Church was willing to listen to a "Devil's Advocate," in much the same spirit. That's where the term comes from. The church was willing to let the entity it believed to be the actual Devil have his day in court. (In fact, some of the arguments atheists currently advance were made by those assigned Devil's Advocate positions. Turns out they were (ahem) damned good arguments.) I dunno. Seems to me that simple willingness to listen to "the other side" is one of the hallmarks of a civil society.
I saw nothing new here. "Life is hard. Scripture doesn't seem to make sense. God was pretty harsh in the Old Testament. Therefore God is a myth."
Ok, I have not (yet) read Hitchens' book, but I've listened to him plenty of times, and I have never heard him make that argument. Hitchens' largely argues as his book is entitled: God is not great and religion poisons everything. It's not quite right to say that therefore god doesn't exist. (God could exist, and be rather rotten.) It seems more accurate to say that Hitchens picks up after the god hypothesis fails, and takes the next step. He begins by understanding that there is no god, and then says, "and belief in god ruins the world."
It was facile. It was a parade of clumsily constructed, transparent straw men. It was bigoted.
No, the following is a bigoted and clumsily constructed straw man:
That explained the disrespectful clothes, the oily eyeglasses, the cheesy beards, the slumped shoulders, and the lack of Spanish. The place was packed with garden-variety liberals.
Not that I'm invoking an ad hominem hypocrisy argument. I just found the hypocrisy funny. My previous comment could have ended with, "No."
It was deliberately offensive, either because Hitchens despises the church or because he just wants to sell books.There wasn't one second of warmth or humility or compassion or tolerance in it.
Wait, so atheists ought to be warm and tolerant? Silly me. I had this insane idea that the purpose of an anti-theist lecture was to advance the cause of anti-theism, which is generally considered to be anti-religion.
It was trite, predictable, and shopworn. And the boobs in the crowd ate it up because, like Hitchens, they had already decided they hated God before they showed up.
I'll grant that many probably showed up to be entertained rather than persuaded, but, as other posters have noted, it's rather difficult to hate something in which we don't believe.
It's a funny world we live in. Believing in a God you have never seen makes you close-minded and hateful, but being sure that God does not exist and exhibiting coarse, overt hostility to religion proves your mind is open and you love all humanity.
Um, it is a funny world we live in. People can so easily infer that which is never implied. Merely believing in a god one has never seen doesn't make one much of anything. Personally, I've never "seen" oxygen, but I'm pretty sure it exists. And believing in an unobservable, untestable, improbable being who both loves you and will rain down horrors upon you for the slightest transgression of idiotic rules only makes you irrational, not necessarily hateful. Unfortunately, it can lead to hatred, however. Finally, Hitchens himself admits he's rude and acerbic, and that he does not love all humanity.
I can only assume that at one point in his childhood, Hitchens was spanked too hard by a nun. Something happened that turned him against God, and whatever it was, he has decided to make the rest of us pay for it. Anger this strong cannot possibly be based in reason. You know how atheists are. Grammy or Grampy or Fluffy dies, or Sister Mary hits them one too many times with the steel ruler, and God gains a lifelong enemy.
One only need a brief excerpt from Hitchens' book to dismiss of this ridiculous statement. In fact, I think it's in his introduction! This comment is not based in reason, and the author assumes -- and likely believes on unwaivering faith -- that Hitchens and atheists like him must simply have been mistreated by believers in order to reach their conclusions.
The amazing thing is how much joy they get from getting together and sharing their hatred of God. How can it possibly be that much fun?
When you realize just how silly believers are, you'll discover the humor in bashing belief, not god.
The atheists enjoyed Hitchens the way men enjoy a good stripper.
??????????????
I wonder if this explains his liberal-vexing opposition to Islamofascism.
You wonder?
Tonight he said religious people all fell somewhere in a "continuum" between Shia Islam and snake-handling. Maybe the religious aspect of Islamofascism is what really drives his fury.
No, you idiot, he just spanned the gamut of all irrational nonsense; that wasn't confined to the Arab and Persian worlds. The assumption that it does ought to clue people in on who the true bigot is.
A middle-aged journalist basking in the reflected glow of his own sophomoric bigotry, glorying in his half-baked, pretentious theories.
I know he means Hitchens, but I'll believe on faith he means himself.
53. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars
Comment #45233 by Liveliest Crib on May 27, 2007 at 12:25 am
Heh, yeah, Dawkins is dogmatic, and people who think like him have formed a secular religion. You know, I think I'll write a parody of Alanis Morisette's Ironic called Dogmatic. It will feature all the silly things Dawkins' detractors say about his being dogmatic, and, like the tune it parodies, will highlight a clear misunderstanding of its title's definition.
54. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself
Comment #45156 by Liveliest Crib on May 26, 2007 at 3:56 pm
23. Comment #44813 by Spinoza on May 25, 2007 at 10:35 am:
I'm torn between force-educating these idiots and hording knowledge for only those that deserve it.
I admit that in moments when I'm blinded by my sadness and rage at such comments and articles, I entertain similar thoughts. I want to take away all of the advantages the scientific method offers to people who reject it, and keep it solely for those who accept it. No computers for the rejectors; no medicine; no airplanes; no electricity, etc. Let them live naked in caves and worship and fear their gods. And when those of us who accept it arrive at their caves in flying machines and immune to their diseases, they can worship and fear us.
Not really, of course. I just confess to becoming as depressed and enraged as Spinoza sometimes. This article made me weep.
55. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
Comment #44571 by Liveliest Crib on May 25, 2007 at 4:50 am
22. Comment #44567 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 4:43 am
It's not a joke. Click the link above and take a look at the comments section. And check out the article's author's other pieces.
56. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
Comment #44569 by Liveliest Crib on May 25, 2007 at 4:48 am
21. Comment #44561 by pewkatchoo on May 25, 2007 at 4:36 am
Indeed, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is running for the Republican Party's nomination for president. He was one of three who happily raised his hand to during a recent debate to indicate that he did not believe in evolution.
Here's a quote directly from his website:
Religion, once an integral part of our society, is today being eradicated from nearly every aspect of public life. The First Amendment protects the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice. That freedom is under attack by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union . . .
He's part of the movement here that uses words like "religious liberty" in an Orwellian sense. When the ACLU takes the case of a student in a public school who is, say, an atheist, and whose school is displaying Christian symbols and holding prayer sessions, the courts typically strike down the school's actions as a violation of the First Amendment. Brownback and his ilk view such holdings as violations of the community's liberty to express their majority religion in their public schools.
57. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
Comment #44537 by Liveliest Crib on May 25, 2007 at 4:07 am
12. Comment #44528 by Awl on May 25, 2007 at 3:45 am
Awl, click the link to the original location of the article, and read the commentary. And look at some of Sisyphus' other posts here:
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/
14. Comment #44532 by Seti on May 25, 2007 at 3:58 am
Isn't there some "law" (similar to Murphy's Law) which states that when you try to spook a fundie claim, you risk being taken seriously. Owing to the fact that fundie claims are already so far out on the other side of rational that they appear to be spoofs themselves (Kirk Cameron and the banana...?)
I believe you're thinking of Poe's Law. If memory serves, the law does indeed state that it is impossible to create a parody of religious fundamentalists without someone inevitably mistaking it for genuine argument. I imagine there would have to be a corollary to the effect that it's impossible to produce a fundamentalist's genuine argument that without someone inevitably mistaking it for parody.
58. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine
Comment #44533 by Liveliest Crib on May 25, 2007 at 3:59 am
Wow.
Ok, I have a couple questions.
(1) I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, so I don't know what I'm talking about here, but wouldn't it technically be possible to arrange a mathematical model of the universe that kept the earth at a particular point in space, and measured the movements of all the other objects in relation to it? Why anyone would be inclined to use such a needlessly complicated and convoluted model is beyond me altogether, but couldn't that model be created, since pretty much every object in the universe is moving? Or am I completely off base on this?
(2) Perhaps I didn't read the babbling article carefully enough, but if the earth is actually stationary -- not moving at all -- that would mean it's not even rotating, right? How could even a conceptual mathematical model that keeps the earth at a fixed point in three dimensions get "sunrise" and "sunset" without having the earth rotate? What's the sun doing according to this article? Going around the earth daily?
Oh, and I especially like this:
[T]he Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That's called empiricism, the experience of the senses.
Heh, I guess the earth is flat, then, too. If it were round, it would look round, and we'd be able to tell when we were walking around on it. :)
59. God grief
Comment #42195 by Liveliest Crib on May 17, 2007 at 9:57 pm
This is a wonderfully written critique, a pleasure to read in its own right. Having not read Hitchens' book, I cannot legitimately comment on its accuracy, but it wouldn't surprise me if it indeed captures the essence of God Is Not Great.
And if it does -- good! Seriously. Even for all of Hitchens' style's potential drawbacks, I think it's just fantastic that we have so many different kinds of atheists receiving this much publicity! Yikes, we've got Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet, Sam Harris, Julia Sweeney, Christopher Hitchens and more! Different backgrounds, different political leanings, different perspectives, but all devoted to the long-overdue undermining of faith. In those names alone we've got a gentle, but brutally honest scientist, a diplomatic philosopher, a "spiritually"-inclined neuroscientist, a pathos-laden comedienne, and an eloquently caustic and rude intellectual. And they're all actually getting heard!
So Hitchens devotes his rapier wit to bluntly insulting fundamentalists, iconoclastic ranting about revered religious icons and encyclopedic documentation of little-known facts rather than deeply considering the psychological roots of religion or arguing at length about god's implausibility. If he were the only atheist receiving public attention, I'd worry. But I'm happy to have all these different voices making all these different points in all these different manners. The folks "on the fence" or "in the closet" are a diverse lot themselves. No one particular style will reach them all, and not every book needs to cover the same ground.
I have plenty of disagreements with Christopher Hitchens, but I'll bust out some pom-pons and lead cheers if I'm ever in a room when he's ranting about religion!
60. Antarctic 'treasure trove' found
Comment #42190 by Liveliest Crib on May 17, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Hmmm. I don't know about this. I mean, we all know that this area of the sea is too hostile to support life of any kind. It's a fact. Creatures can't live down there. Clearly this "discovery" is a hoax of the worst kind: these disgusting creatures were placed there by Satan to trick us into abandoning facts that we know because we observe something else. Only silly scientists could buy the idea that creatures that hideous thrive in such deadly waters.
Comment #40068 by Liveliest Crib on May 13, 2007 at 1:27 am
So, to paraphrase........
You know, when I went to interview Richard Dawkins, I was expecting a raging bull of a man, who would hurt my feelings and call me stupid, and assert that there just can't be any god, and that only stupid people believe in god. But he was actually gentle, and happy to answer my questions.
So I got to talking to him in depth, and it was engaging, and it turns out he's not 100% sure of himself on this, and is willing to admit we'll discover things in the future that might amaze the people of today. Couldn't that be god? Of course it could. So there has to be a god, and Dawkins seems like he has his own religion, but for some reason won't call it god. Still, though, there is indeed transcendence, right?
I don't know much about god, but I know I'm not god, and neither is Dawkins, but god is out there somehow, and we all agree, even these atheists, apparently. Sort of. But I'm glad people are listening to all of this, and maybe Dawkins even helps faith and has faith of a sort. And backdrop to the glockenspiel when the furry morphs g'nundenbratz.
62. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists
Comment #40065 by Liveliest Crib on May 13, 2007 at 12:51 am
[T]he God Squad had but three arguments on behalf of the big guy: All things have makers; the human conscience is evidence of a higher moral power; if you read the Gospel, then Christ will be revealed to you. For reasons too stupid to type, this was not an airtight case, and the atheists made quick work of it in tones of juvenile sarcasm.
Yep, that pretty much sums up the "debate." I agree with Logicel -- good review. Though I think the snark was appropriate. Comfort and Cameron made outlandish claims about proving god's existence, and then made outlandish fools of themselves. I imagine a hefty portion of even the theists in the audience were a little embarrassed by the poor performance of those representing them.
And I have to admit I was wrong about something. I had predicted that this format would be weighted heavily in favor of the theists, and that Kirk and Ray would be allowed to dish out their idiotic cross examinations, perhaps to the RRS folks or to people in the audience. I happily concede that the format was basically fair.
63. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?
Comment #39950 by Liveliest Crib on May 12, 2007 at 11:24 am
23. Comment #39824 by Logicel on May 12, 2007 at 3:49 am
You might be right about the host's physical features' affecting my emotional reaction to him. Part of why the experience was so odd for me was that he was civil, asked questions not entirely ridiculous (which is what I've come to expect watching American hosts), and yet, still creeped me out. I might be having an entirely prejudicial reaction.
But there were also moments I thought his "Devil's Advocate" questions were supposed to be check mates, and that the host smiled because he thought he'd caught Dawkins off guard. If Dawkins got flustered at all it was because of nonsense statements like, the host doesn't believe in fairies today, or, that the mere fact that billions of people believe in god means it has to be taken seriously for its truth value, and thus accorded respect.
Heh, and as to whether Dawkins was being disrespectful of religion, I figured he would simply have told the host, "Yes, I am. That's the point." I also think one of the points we must make repeatedly to the religious is that we disrespect their beliefs, but we do not disrespect them as equal human beings with equal human rights. Not only is that something moderates fear about the currently transpiring debate (that we'd take away their right to believe), but it immediately distinguishes us from theocrats who clearly do not respect the rights or equality of either atheists or moderates.
64. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?
Comment #39744 by Liveliest Crib on May 11, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Well that was an odd experience.
The host was civil enough, but he truly creeped me out. He was so smarmy, and dripped with condescension. Even his less silly questions made me queasy.
Then they went to their panel of religious people to discuss Dawkins. (Perhaps having one guest followed by a panel of three who discuss that guest is the typical format of this particular program. I don't know. But, it seems to be a common format for discussing disbelief. Some unbeliever is put on the spot on his own, while a panel of believers then get to talk about him, and why he was so wrong after he's gone.)
Anyway, the whole thing just got more bizarre. I actually found myself respecting the Imam. He had actually read Dawkins' book, and was making intelligent points. I didn't necessarily agree with them, but they were worthwhile. The Jesuit/spiritualist lady actually didn't drive me as crazy as I expected either. She was just typical in her beliefs, atypical in her willingness to listen to Dawkins and absorb his points -- which was actually pretty cool.
Then there was that psychologist, Peterson. I figured I would be most interested in his perspective. He proved to be the only fool on the panel. He either hadn't read or had completely misunderstood Dawkins' book, muttered a bunch of tired points (albeit eloquently), and had the gall to say repeatedly, "Dawkins never addresses . . . " such and such. If he had read the book, he was also a liar.
Weird experience the whole way through. Civil host whom I had trouble enduring; two religious people who give me a little (ahem) faith in religious people again; a psychologist who enraged me and demonstrated little understanding of Dawkins' actual arguments. Wow.
65. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark
Comment #39525 by Liveliest Crib on May 11, 2007 at 3:59 am
4. Comment #39377 by peahix on May 10, 2007 at 12:42 pm
That made perfect sense, peahix! In fact, you nailed it, and saved me the trouble of having to articulate it myself. :)
22. Comment #39508 by bluehillside on May 11, 2007 at 2:52 am
Sharpton vs the mormons...does anyone else find this akin to watching two bald men fighting over a comb?
Hee hee! Or, perhaps, two naked men arguing over who has the better wardrobe?
66. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great
Comment #39515 by Liveliest Crib on May 11, 2007 at 3:37 am
Interesting. So many people seem to think either Sharpton or Hitchens truly carried the day in this debate. I dunno. I enjoyed listening to it. There was a lot of good-natured, and very witty, ribbing, and there were moments I even laughed out loud. (There were also moments that nauseated me.) But I didn't really hear a lot of debate. I certainly didn't hear Hitchens answer the challenge Sharpton repeatedly posed about the matter of god's existence or non-existence being entirely separate from the moral rectitude or desirable attributes of one specific religion or another. Which saddened me, since I figured he could so easily have answered it concisely, and moved on.
Mostly, I have this cartoon in my head: Hitchens is at his podium talking, and Sharpton at his. Above Hitchens' head is a thought bubble containing the words, "I sure wish I were debating Jerry Falwell, so I could have the conversation I really want to have." Above Sharpton's head is a thought bubble containing the words, "I sure wish I were debating Richard Dawkins so I could have the conversation I really want to have."
67. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM
Comment #38362 by Liveliest Crib on May 7, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Comment #38356 by EndlessForms on May 7, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I'm tired of interviews by people who clearly haven't read the book!
Agreed! If you're going to do an interview in which you debate the author or challenge the author, you should actually know what his friggen thesis is. The one host in the U.S. who consistently actually reads the books of his guests is Jon Stewart -- the comedian on whom intelligent people have to rely for their news.
Larry King (of whom I'm no fan) has a different philosophy. He purposely refuses to read the books of his guests in order to let them do nothing but explain them however they want. He purports only to ask questions like, "So, tell me what this book is about. What's your argument?" He then follows up only on what the guest said, asking for clarification or to expand on something.
I dunno. I prefer the host who's read the book, and can carry on an intelligent discussion about it, but if you're not going to bother to read it, don't pretend that you have.
68. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it
Comment #38263 by Liveliest Crib on May 7, 2007 at 10:52 am
Great comments so far!
Personally, I find it fascinating that when any overlooked and marginalized contingency finally speaks up, someone will immediately chastise them for speaking too loudly. Oh, you poor dears, you have a point, and you should be heard, but not this way, not this way. And with paternalistic condescension, that someone will try to lull the minority back into marginalization.
Bunting overestimates her own profundity. "Too provocative for our own good" and "undiplomatic" are critiques we've already offered ourselves in determining our ultimate posture. But without the initial provocation, no one would notice us in the first place. Our posture would be somewhere between on our backs and rolling over.
Surely not since Victorian times has there been such a passionate, sustained debate about religious belief. [ ] And it's a very ill-tempered debate. The books live up to their provocative titles: their purpose is to pour scorn on religious belief[.]
Ill-tempered? Perhaps with the addition of Hitchens' sometimes caustic style, it might become so, but anyone who has actually read or heard Dawkins, Harris or Dennett would be hard pressed to identify a moment where they lose their tempers. Heaping scorn upon something is not per se ill-tempered. Argument is not ill-tempered. If anything is frenzied or hysterical, it's the immediate response to their arguments. Once that calms down, the Buntings of the world come out of the woodworks to offer their more genteel, condescending criticism.
In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier, less prone to mental illness and so the list goes on. If religion declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups? [ ] This isn't the kind of debate that the New Atheists are interested in (with the possible exception of Dennett, who in an interview last year was far more open to discussion than his book would indicate); theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding.
This statement suggests that she has merely skimmed the works she criticizes. The very suggestion that Richard Dawkins isn't interested in debate about the evolutionary advantages or misfirings of religion is almost enough to discredit Bunting entirely.
Anyone who has experienced such a conversion, please email me (with proof).
Heh, pretty much everyone caught this one. Perhaps it was an ironic joke. Or an afterthought upon realizing that just her inbox might be flooded with mere testaments of conversion.
Whether intended or not, the irony is manifestly apparent. Just what sort of "proof" would suffice? A written letter of excommunication? Perhaps video footage of my rabbi tearing up whatever certificates I received at my bat mitzvah? If the e-mail itself wouldn't do it, what would? What could? Or was that the irony intended? That to prove our beliefs is impossible?
Anyway, thanks for the critique, Ms. Bunting. We've heard it all before. It was generated in our own heads before the likes of you chastised us with kid gloves. If all of your critiques are like this, and you're hoping to redirect or stop certain movements, I suspect you're headed for spectacular failure.
69. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest
Comment #37535 by Liveliest Crib on May 4, 2007 at 6:50 pm
40. Comment #37524 by Perran on May 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm
...having stoned to death the last lawyer with every volume in the Libray of Congress.
Hey, now. We're not all bad. :)
Besides. I think there are still more books in the Library of Congress than there are lawyers. And I'm not entirely sure any are made of stone. ;)
70. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens
Comment #37430 by Liveliest Crib on May 4, 2007 at 12:30 pm
CruciFiction,
Yikes. Maybe something just got lost in an e-mail shuffle. I imagine they're bombarded with submissions by the minute, many of them duplicate or triplicate of others.
71. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens
Comment #37427 by Liveliest Crib on May 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm
8. Comment #37412 by tomjlawson on May 4, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Dobbs loves the founding fathers and every document they wrote. He has taken a bit of flack for being so adamantly opposed to illegal aliens that are in the States - about 12 million foreigners live there illegally, mostly Mexicans. He is NOT anti-immigration, he is for LEGAL immigration. This misconception leads people to think he's racist and closed-minded when in actuality he just wants people to respect the laws that the founding fathers laid down for his country.
True enough, but a couple things: (1) I'm not sure it's right to say that the immigration laws we have now are the laws the founders established (though that's an insignificant quibble; and (2) Dobbs is also on record saying that once immigrants do arrive here legally, they should not celebrate the culture of their origin. We as Americans, he contends, should only be celebrating our unity as Americans, and not pay any public homage to our diversity.
Of course, while I disagree with him on this point, it doesn't detract from others of his opinions which are quite sensible. Indeed, that he would conduct a good interview with Hitchens is not really a surprise (to continue the answer to non-Americans unfamiliar with him).
What is a delightful surprise is how quickly the American media has picked up on the atheist authors, and given them less-than-entirely-hostile publicity. I always agreed with Dawkins that the number of us non-believers in the U.S. was greater than most people think. Perhaps it's even greater than I thought. :)
72. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'
Comment #37164 by Liveliest Crib on May 3, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I'll echo the concerns that this debate will not be productive. It will be closer to something on Hannity & Colmes or professional wrestling than it will, say, the polite discussion between Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford. I could be wrong, but the forum does not bode well.
Moreover, if you can get passed their obvious ridiculousness, if you watch Cameron and the aptly named "Comfort" on their insane website, you'll discover their tactics. Yes, there's the silly banana episode, but there's also their "man on the street"-style cross examinations of people. It usually runs something like this:
Comfort: Do you consider yourself a good person?
Unfortunate Interviewee: Sure.
C: Oh yeah? Have you ever told a lie?
UI: Ever? Of course.
C: So, what does that make you?
UI: [Nervous laughter] Heh, I guess you want me to say "liar," but ---
C: Right, you're a liar. Have you ever stolen something?
UI: Well, nothing of consequence. I mean---
C: But ever. Have you ever stolen something? Anything?
UI: Well, sure, if you want to go back to Jr. High School or someth---
C: So what does that make you?
UI: Yeah, yeah, I get it.
C: That's right, you're thief and a liar. And you have to get right with God.
UI: Well, I don't share your beliefs.
C: So, it's ok to lie and steal?
UI: No, that's not what I'm saying. Just that I don't believe in god.
C: Well, be honest, though. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God?
UI: Beyond any doubt? Of course, not. You can't prove anything bey---
C: Right, because that would take infinite knowledge and omniscience that only a god could have.
UI:? Ok, fine.
C: So, are you really an atheist?
UI: Well---
C: No, you're technically an agnostic, because you're not sure.
[Cut back to Kirk and Ray on chairs with their bananas.]
Kirk: So, you see, there really is no such thing as an atheist. The "atheists" admit it. And they admit they're sinners. They admit they're not sure, and they admit that sinning isn't something you should do. Why is sinning bad? Only one reason. And we all know what that is.
73. The Damned
Comment #36873 by Liveliest Crib on May 2, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I agree with the above comments that this video will do nothing to sway fundamentalists or true believers. They would just watch the list of names of people destined for eternal torture, and think, "Well, yeah. That's right. That's what it says. What's your point?" Of course, the audience for such a video goes far beyond the "died-in-the-wool faith heads, as we all know.
It is fascinating, though -- this concept of hell for failing to believe the right stories. An American atheist and humorist routinely asks the people who send him hate mail how there could possibly be a heaven for someone who knows that people he personally loved were sentenced to eternal hellfire with no chance of parole. How can one even imagine being eternally blissful in heaven knowing that, say, a friend, family member or even one's own child, were being roasted on a spit down below?
Practically every hate mailer to whom the question is posed avoids it. They usually respond that the people in hell deserve to be there, even if we can't understand why -- which, of course, has nothing to do with the question even if it weren't utterly ridiculous in its own right.
Their avoidance is peculiar, though, since the one obvious answer to the riddle is that god just wipes out all memory of such people and any knowledge of hell once you're in heaven. (I suppose, though, that this doesn't jive with the complete communion with god you're supposed to have in heaven, and complete understanding of the universe you get upon going into the light.) So far, I think only one of the devout has offered that answer, and then avoided follow up questions about whether that scheme really made sense, and whether that was really what he believed.
Scary. People not only believe that basically, or even sublimely, good people they don't know will burn in hell, but they envision themselves in heaven happily gazing down at their own kids burning in hell. They would have to. Because there is no sorrow in heaven for them.
74. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'
Comment #36646 by Liveliest Crib on May 1, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Some years ago I tried to read The Selfish Gene [ ] and failed.
Heh, something tells me you didn't quite get through The God Delusion either:
[Dawkins] slides gently into blaming God.
No, you awkwardly impute belief onto Dawkins. Dear Reverend, when Dawkins and others like him say we actually do not believe in this being called god, we mean it. Breathe that in. We don't dislike god. We actually, truly and sincerely do not believe in him.
On the other hand, his belief that atheism causes no such evils passes silently over the anti-religious persecutions of the French and Russian revolutions, the enormous sufferings of Christians and Jews in Soviet prison camps, and of the Chinese people in the Cultural Revolution.
How far did you get before you gave up, Reverend? Perhaps you can try the audio book. It's delightful. And he addresses your subjects there too. And if you do get the audio book . . . could you let us watch you listen to it? Because I really want to be there when the chapters about Stalin, Hitler and other so called evil atheists are transmitted, and you still don't hear them. I want to watch what happens.
Clearly, as a biological scientist (he is an ecologist), explanation means a great deal to him[.]
Clearly.
We gladly concede the power and the duty of science to offer explanations of the universe that can answer questions like, 'Where have we come from?' and 'How does this or that natural process work?'. It has taken Christians several hundred years to learn this. Painfully, we have learnt that the premises of Christian Faith and the premises of science are different, but complementary.
Let me help you, Reverend. Here are some simple edits that would make this snippet accurate:
We painfully concede the power and the duty of science to offer explanations of the universe that can answer questions like, 'Where have we come from?' and 'How does this or that natural process work?'. It has taken Christians several hundred years to learn this. Gladly, however we can pretend that the premises of Christian Faith and the premises of science are different, but complementary.
You're welcome.
The premises of science are that human beings can investigate and find out all sorts of things about the world which we can organise into a reliable body of knowledge.
You only listed one premise, here, Reverend.
[T]here is much debate about the kind of knowledge we can gain through the study of the Arts[, b]ut it is knowledge. And there is another kind of knowledge again, which looks like scientific knowledge but doesn't depend on experiment: that is mathematics.
Um, none of this is tremendously mysterious or dazzling if you take half a class on how to distinguish among empirical, analytic, metaphysical, normative, etc. truth claims.
Being a Christian for me is much more like being a character in The Complete Works of Shakespeare than a scientist in a laboratory. . . . There is truth in Shakespeare but it is not scientific truth. . . . The explanations in religious belief are much more like this than scientific explanations - and we need such explanations better to understand all sorts of truths about being human.
Level with us, Reverend, you didn't read passed the introduction, did you? Another apologist desperately clings to his holy texts as literature. Fine. And we do derive lessons from Shakespeare's works. But here's the kicker, Reverend: Nobody who indulges in Shakespeare will also tell you that the witches and ghosts and stories therein are a matter of historical record, and that those who disagree will be tortured by one of the characters upon shuffling off our mortal coils. ;) [Liveliest Crib pats herself on the back for the phrasing.]
Wait...I'm right, right? There aren't any Shakespearists out there, are there?
Jump to:
Sermon 2
Sermon 3
Sermon 4
No thanks.
Comment #36423 by Liveliest Crib on May 1, 2007 at 4:59 am
The audience might be an anomaly, Dr. Dawkins, but if I had to hazard a guess, Hitchens' lukewarm reception might have something to do with the reputation that precedes him. At the moment, in the U.S., he is widely known for his support of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, which, rightly or wrongly, confuses America's skeptics and nontheists. Moreover, his demeanor can be unsettling and insulting (he recently made an obscene gesture to Bill Maher's audience when it voiced disagreement with him). American nontheists, particularly politically left-of-center American nontheists approach Hitchens with a certain hesitation, and are less likely to engage or applaud him than they are someone as charming and gentle as yourself.
Thanks for the wonderful website, by the way.
76. Interview with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #36407 by Liveliest Crib on May 1, 2007 at 3:56 am
4. Comment #36380 by kirkmc on May 1, 2007 at 2:46 am
He is interesting, but should learn to start drinking after his interviews. He'll be giving the moralizers fodder, saying that all atheists are alcoholics.
They'll say it anyway. :) And somehow, I get the feeling that asking Hitchens not to drink before appearances is like asking the moralizers to renounce their faith.
Comment #36383 by Liveliest Crib on May 1, 2007 at 2:54 am
Um, uh...who is this Jonathon Kirsch guy? I've heard many speakers that have enraged me, various that have satisfied me, plenty that have bored me and a cherished few that have inspired me. Seldom, however, has a speaker genuinely bewildered me. A marvelous amalgamation of triteness and dissonance, Kirsch, who appears about three steps behind in the current debate on religion, somehow won the honor of arguing with Hitchens, whose rapier wit is on the cutting edge.
He begins his stream of unconsciousness:
Every word I have written about the scriptures of Judaism or Christianity is based on the idea that we read these texts too selectively. Not critically enough and not discerningly enough.
Cool. I'm with ya so far, Mr. Kirsh.
And that's the reason why we often think things are in the Bible that are not, and are surprised when we find them.
Er...huh? Ok, ok, slip of the tongue, I can let that go.
Revelation, which is the favorite text of a great many believing Christians today is an outlier in Christian scripture, and is plainly contradictory to the message that Jesus teaches in the Gospels. All of my books, including my current book are meant as a corrective to these -- what I would argue are misreadings, misunderstandings.
Wait...what? What's a misunderstanding? That Revelation is an outlier? Which part are you correcting? Are you correcting Revelation itself? What's happening?
To get into it a little bit with Christopher, I think I have to have say that these texts are capable of inspiring elevated moral aspirations and conduct in human beings, demonstrably so, and to throw out religion altogether and to hold it in contempt and not in respect is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
To get into it a little bit with Christopher? Demonstrably so? You mean, not just true in your head? Dude, orphanages probably taught a lot of children hard truths early on in life that helped fortify their survival skills, but some babies can be thrown out with the bathwater. And is this really the point you want to make to Hitchens? That religious stories can inspire some people to do good things? Like he's never heard that one before?
Having said that, there's just no question that the book of Revelation is the favorite text of religious violence -- at least in the Christian context -- and has moved men and women to do some terrible things, David Koresh being an ardent reader of Revelation, but only the most recent example of that phenomenon.
Really? David Koresh is the most recent example of a terrible thing being done based on a reading of the book of Revelation?
The bottom line is that these are potentially inspiring texts, and also potentially dangerous texts, and we have to be able to discern between those two uses of the same text.
Oh, I guess that is the point you really want to make to Hitchens. A six-year-old could figure that out. Any text is that way. Any thing is that way. Comet detergent is dandy as a toilet bowl cleaner; not so much as a salad dressing. Star Wars can be profoundly inspiring as long as you understand it didn't actually happen in a galaxy far, far away. Should I respect someone who earnestly tries to "use the force" to make him a better person?
And those are just his introductory remarks!
Christopher, having made a book about Revelation, I feel I have to pick up this gauntlet. A couple weeks ago, I was invited to speak at a Unitarian church here in Southern California, and on my way over, I passed a business establishment called the Alpha Omega Car Repair Shop. And I used that in my talk, and I'm going to use it today to make the point that although Revelation certainly paints a horrific view of the urgent, imminent end of the world, what Christianity was forced to come to terms with was the failure of that prophesy.
Ooooooooooo-kay. There's a car repair shop that is going to relate to the fact that this nutty book in the Bible was pretty much immediately proven WRONG!! I can't wait to here this!
There have been many disordered minds even unto our own days who have continued to believe that Revelation tells us the things [ ] which must soon come to pass, but the great majority of Christians have settled down and tried to do the work of what in Jewish tradition is called Tikkun Olam -- the repair of the Earth. And I think that to argue that religion in its major effect has just encouraged people to wait for the end ignores the fact that again and again we have examples of how it has moved to make the world a better place. The example that I use in my own book and that I'd like to mention is that although Revelation is used frequently by Evangelicals who predict the imminent end of the world, it is also used by Catholic Liberation theologians to recommend the improvement of the world.
How can this man take himself seriously? This is an argument for religion? For the Christian religion? The book was bonkers. It failed. It failed completely, and it failed immediately. (Phew!) So, the answer is to say, so let's read it as a command to repair the planet? How about just that our moral sense tells us to keep the earth hospitable for those of us living on it? Why desperately cling to and reinterpret a text loaded with nightmarish hysteria?
I don't want to ignore the events of the last thousand years of progress towards enlightenment, even within the handling of these texts. People of faith today in all of the organized religions are capable of entertaining the idea that these are, of course, books of human authorship. We can quibble about whether they are divinely inspired or not, but they are put into human context and put to human uses[.]
What? If you want to read the book as, um, well, a book, why the hell bother quibbling about divine inspiration? Is he listening to himself?
. . . and I think it's a specious argument to say that you either have to take it or leave it on the basis of medieval theology. Clearly, these texts can be used and understood in a modern context, and by most readers of these texts, they are understood in precisely that sense.
On the basis of medieval theology? Hitchens is attacking the concept of faith itself. He's invoking the Bible because as an example of something far too many people just accept on faith, knowing full well that it makes no sense and is morally repugnant. And he's using its own unambiguous terms. But somehow this is unacceptable to Kirsch, and he delights in cognitive dissonance. To wit....
The fundamentalists are a convenient straw man in a sense because they are so extreme in their beliefs [Hitchens interrupts: Because they believe it's true, yeah!] Yeah, but they are not the only readers or users of these texts. The reality is there's a whole literature of which my own book is a very tiny part that allows us to understand the human face, the human names, the human impulses of the human authors of these texts.
Look, if it's just literature, say so, and we can measure it against other literature. Imagine this guy saying all of this about Aesop's Fables: Sure, sure, there are some crazy people who think that a literal, intelligent fox, literally decided that some grapes were sour, because the great Aesop tells us so, but now most people understand the moral involved, and that Aesop was a human being telling morals. But those fundamentalist Aesopians are a red herring. It doesn't mean we shouldn't exalt these stories as sacred, and argue about whether Aesop was really a god telling literal truths, that might have sort of happened, if it's inspiring that way.
Ok, I'm tired. I have to go to sleep. This was just bewildering.
78. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show
Comment #36020 by Liveliest Crib on April 29, 2007 at 11:33 pm
With all due respect to the eloquent artist victimized by his audience that sad day, I have to question the following quote:
[The protest's] naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.
Seriously? The godhead of the Old Testament is almost entirely about "naked righteousness and contempt," and he rears his ugly godhead in the sequel as well. And that godhead has far worse forms of protest than pouring water on an infidel's writings.
Why throw them such a diplomatic bone? After all, their faith is largely based on fearing that godhead. And indeed, the most revealing section of the artist's essay involves the "security issue," and the main culprit's terror of, well, just about everything in the world outside his house.
Having worked in professional politics on the Democratic Party's side of the American game, I have heard strategists lament the insanity of the "Christian Right" demographic, who seem continually to vote against their economic interests. How, it is asked, can people who should embrace notions of minimum wages or universal health care be persuaded to vote for politicians who have none of their interests at heart but for some shared religious prejudices. The most sensible answer that arises in these discussions (whether one buys the Democratic Party Platform or not -- this is not intended as a partisan diatribe) is that they're just plain afraid of everything. They have what they have, what little it might be, take comfort in their faith, and fear losing what they have at the hands of immoral, godless politicians who merely purport to have their interests at heart. One swear word, one support of "pornographic" art, one mention of teaching evolution in schools, etc., out of a Democrat's mouth is indeed enough to terrify them.
Somehow, we seem to have a frightening amount of people in the U.S. so isolated, so uneducated that even mere words scare them. Their whole faith is based on fear. (They'll say it's love, but they'll also call themselves "god fearing" before they will "god loving.") Our media is drenched with nothing but warnings of the next terrorist coming to kill us or the next drug or child molester entering our homes.
We need to puncture this culture of fear. I hope the artist's response to them at least demonstrates that he refused to cower in fear of them.
79. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock
Comment #35790 by Liveliest Crib on April 28, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Karl Rove and Richard Dawkins are "symmetrical devils?" I do hope the author meant that they are comparable in the reaction they engender rather than the reaction they deserve.
(Yes, I profoundly dislike Rove's politics, but I despise his political tactics even more. I would despise them even if he were on my side.)
Comment #35304 by Liveliest Crib on April 26, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Oh, I am so sick of people deeming post hoc that history's great figures must have been Christians. Usually it's the Founding Fathers in America -- the most famous and influential of whom (Jefferson, Madison, Paine, for instance) rejected Christianity. Let it be known as well: Abraham Lincoln was NOT a Christian, and he said so!
See the following link:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm
And by the way, Mr. Scarborough, Christianity was largely responsible for PERPETUATING slavery. It was as typical in the 19th Century to respond to abolitionists that slavery is sanctioned in the Bible as it is today to respond to civil rights activists that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I have to go bang my head against a wall.
81. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston
Comment #34724 by Liveliest Crib on April 25, 2007 at 2:08 am
Hi. I'm Lord Winston. I'm a scientist and a religious man. You know what Richard Dawkins called me and all other religious people? He said we're all "deluded!" I respect Dawkins' work in science, but he's just a big meany! I mean, how dare he call my beliefs the God Delusion?
And you know what else? When Dawkins insults me, it makes Dawkins look bad! And it makes science look bad! He really ought to think about that. I mean, he's the professor for the public understanding of science, and as a big meany, he's not really doing his job of making people understand science.
Well, I'll show that Dawkins! He calls his book the God Delusion? I'll call my lecture The Science Delusion! Ha! What do you think of that, meany? You know why I'm calling it the Science Delusion? Because there are some scientists who are certain. Yeah! They deal with uncertainty by being certain! They're just as arrogant as religious fundamentalists! Did you ever think of that? Didn't think so!
Arrogant scientists don't know how to deal with uncertainty. I'm not sure they've ever even considered that they don't know everything, or thought that spirituality might even be useful. So who's deluded, you big meany, Mr. Dawkins!
We can't be certain of anything! So we need religious belief! We can't even be certain of gravity.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be hurling myself off my roof, singing an a capella version of R. Kelly's I Believe I Can Fly with a distinct emphasis on the word "Believe."
82. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals
Comment #33656 by Liveliest Crib on April 20, 2007 at 11:27 pm
58. Comment #33628 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 20, 2007 at 7:13 pm
"Seems like Love and Fundieism are mutually exclusive."
It also seems that you, along with the majority of your brethren on this forum, are committing the logical fallacy of overgeneralization...
And you, what? Did a randomized statistical sample of the brethren on this forum to determine that the majority of people on it believe as you think they believe? Yes, I'm answering one fallacy with another (ad hominem hypocrisy), but that only adds to the irony, no?
I think you'll find that most of this forum's supporters are quite familiar with the diversity among those who profess to be Christian, even diversity among fundamentalist Christians. Odd, though, to find such diversity among people all following the perfect and inerrant word of an omniscient and omnipotent deity, though. I mean, if that actually is the kind of work and author involved. Oh....wait....
As for Phelps, indeed, he's not representative of most American Christians, thank goodness. And most American Christians are splendid people. On this forum, however, you'll likely find a lot of people wondering how such Christians square their version of morality with the Bible's, when Phelps' rigid literalism might be more textually defensible (even if the gruesome funeral picketing is not itself commanded).
83. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals
Comment #33516 by Liveliest Crib on April 20, 2007 at 1:05 pm
20. Comment #33444 by savroD on April 20, 2007 at 5:48 am:
Is this free speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater?
Unfortunately for those holding funerals, I believe it's the former.
It would depend. It could be somewhere in between, depending on precisely what the "protesters" do, and how they say what they say.
If all they do is stand in public places with signs, it would be free speech. If they speak hateful words to people emotionally distraught, knowing the effects they could cause, they begin to get into shadier territory. The more they border on disrupting proceedings, harassment, etc., the less their "speech" would be protected. If they go so far as to intentionally incite a riot, they'd be yelling fire in a crowded theater.
84. Flea Circus!
Comment #33026 by Liveliest Crib on April 19, 2007 at 3:16 am
26. Comment #33006 by weefree on April 19, 2007 at 2:05 am
[I]f you want numerous atheist myths then read my book. I'll give you three to start with - a) atheists are de facto more intelligent than theists (the empirical proof of this is this site and the posts that will follow this one!) and b) science and religion are necessarily opposed and c) atheists are more tolerant (this will be clearly demonstrated when I am banned once again).
David Robertson
a) I don't understand your use of the term "de facto" in this context. I think the Latin term you seek is "per se." In any case, in my experience, we atheists do not necessarily consider ourselves more intelligent than theists, just more rational. Plenty of theists are brilliant. Plenty of non-theists are less than brilliant. It would be a myth to say that we do not recognize that.
b) Dawkins rather extensively argues with his fellow scientists and atheists about whether science and religion are diametrically opposed and conflicting means of thinking or simply non-overlapping, and compatible magisteria. Dawkins clearly believes the former, and explains why. Some atheists advance other conceptual frameworks. Again, I hardly think that such a statement qualifies as an "atheist myth."
c) I imagine you're being a bit facetious in arguing that your (repeated?) banishment from this site alone disproves the "myth" that atheists are more "tolerant" (than their theist counterparts?). Nevertheless, atheism itself denotes a lack of belief in one particular thing. The term implies nothing else about particular atheists' normative or moral codes. We're a diverse lot -- some good, some bad, some tolerant, some not. We just happen not to believe in god(s). Sam Harris actually argues for less tolerance (of religious beliefs) and would hardly claim that atheists by their very nature and definition are more tolerant than theists. To the extent that many atheists regard themselves as tolerant, perhaps it has something to do with experiencing societal marginalization first-hand, and refusing to treat others likewise.
I know nothing about your book -- its cover or its contents -- and I do not presume to judge it without reading it. If, however, you are in fact the author of one of the above works, I do hope it is written better than your post to this thread. Your vocabulary is strained, and your tone is that of someone lashing out after feeling personally slighted by atheists, not someone clearly responding to their arguments.
85. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation
Comment #31484 by Liveliest Crib on April 12, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Comment #31264 by denoir on April 11, 2007 at 7:46 pm:
That thumping sound you are hearing are the world's biologists in despair banging their heads against the nearest wall or desk.
How difficult is it to understand?
mutation = random (bounded), creates variation
natural selection = not random, optimization
Comment #31321 by bruno_burned on April 12, 2007 at 2:47 am:
I cannot stand the 'random chance' misunderstanding anymore!
I'm going to start calling Darwinism: "Evolution by ITS NOT FRIGGIN CHANCE selection".
As we all know full well here, denoir and bruno are correct, and very reasonably frustrated. If I may be so bold, I'm going to toss out a hypothesis about why laypeople continue to say that evolution is random.
I surmise that the average person doesn't really know the definition of random. To a layperson, not educated in science or statistics, the word "random" actually means "absent intelligent design or thought." When they hear that evolution is not random, they immediately think, then an intelligence must be guiding it.
I often hear people say, "Oh, I just picked this out at random," by which they mean that they made some sort of selection by turning their brain off to all criterion by which a discriminating decision could be made, and stopped caring about the choice they were making. They associate "non-random" with "conscious purpose." People have a hard time understanding that a process can be non-sentient and yet non-random.
I think the problem is compounded somewhat by the way we personify evolution or symbolically bestow purpose upon evolution in our discourse. When I was a child, I had teachers tell me things like, "The giraffe's neck became long in order to reach the leaves on the trees." Even experts in evolution take such poetic license when explaining the process. But it is just that -- poetry and metaphor. I'm not sure laypeople understand that. They hear such statements and have trouble disassociating them from the conscious purpose that appears to be implied. Not everyone fully understands that the "proto-giraffes" (forgive me, I'm not an expert in evolution myself) whose necks were not long did not survive, and thus did not reproduce, leaving the long-necked "proto-giraffes" to pass on the long-neck genes alone.
Without fully grasping that evolution operates without a preconceived end-product, and that random changes that are "less fit" die off over the course of millions of years, many laypeople hear that creatures evolved certain features "in order to" gain an advantage, or "in order to adapt to their environment," and become confused. To the extent that laypeople do understand the that the process operates without a preconceived end-product, many think that such is the essence of randomness. No preconception must equal random.
People who understand evolution have trouble talking to people who don't because both camps use the same words, but operate from different definitions. When imbecile extraordinaire Ted Haggard told Richard Dawkins that human beings could not have evolved "by accident," Dawkins promptly responded that no scientist says that they did. Haggard couldn't grasp the concept of "non-accidents" in evolution because to him, the opposite of accident was conscious purpose.
Ultimately, I think we have a problem of semantics. Indeed, it can be very frustrating, but perhaps we should keep it in mind when chatting with people about evolution -- especially those who are not brainwashed by their religions, but who are on the fence because they are susceptible to arguments from design. Our language is often inadequate, and some of our discussions might involve people ostensibly using the same words, but who are talking right passed one another, like a conversation among different brick walls.
86. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity
Comment #30679 by Liveliest Crib on April 9, 2007 at 9:56 am
Oh, you gotta love it! Thank you ever so much, Mr. Anderson, for your impassioned plea. You are the epitome of the intellectual painted into a corner by his own mind. "Please, oh please," you cry, "I know I have no arguments to fortify my beliefs as true, so please just stop talking and let me keep them anyway."
Professor Richard Dawkins and his noisy acolytes.
Yes, it would be so much easier on you if we just stopped talking, wouldn't it? Noisy, sir, is a compliment.
In one respect, atheists have an easier task than theists. In order to deny the existence of God, it is only necessary to accept one proposition. Believers have to try to understand what they believe. After two Christian millennia and many libraries of theology, that task seems harder than ever.
You know, when someone seriously tells me that I have it "easier" because I am not duty bound to make sense of nonsense, I must exercise on of the solemn prerogatives of philosophers -- that of laughter. I suppose African-Americans have it so much easier because they need only recognize that slavery was an abomination whose ill-effects they suffer even today, whereas their wealthy, southern white counterparts must wrestle with the guilt of having inherited riches, privilege and freedom unjustly.
Even if [atheists] reject faith, it might be better if not too many others followed their example. In the West, we have a vast cultural and intellectual heritage. But our ethical heritage is sadly depleted. . . . There are those who would try to brush his point aside by denying that the Christian ethic has any value, and the past 2,000 years provides them with plenty of prima facie evidence. . . . but the Christians can adduce some arguments in their favour.
You know something, Mr. Anderson? It is entirely possible to address Christianity's moral failings without brushing aside its "ethical heritage" and without addressing all of that prima facie evidence two millenia have provided, like witch burning and the Crusades.
The following is from the website of American atheist and humorist Normal Bob Smith (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/), in an answer to a particular piece of hate mail (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail319.html):
Reason #1 that Christianity is harmful- It teaches faith over logic. The Christianity you believe and teach to children promotes believing in things using faith over the use of one's own common sense, and sometimes even over science itself. I feel that this is harmful because it discourages the search for real answers, and instead allows the Christian to "fill in the gaps" with answers based solely on faith.
Reason #2 that Christianity is harmful- The Christianity you [hate mail author, June] practice tells of Christ's glorious return to earth and all of His followers being swept up into heaven after Armageddon. Correct? And June, did you know that a majority of Christians think that this event will take place within their own lifetime? This belief does not encourage any sort of preparations for our long term future, but could instead encourage any kooky Christian in power to do their best to usher in an Armageddon by whatever means necessary. This is very VERY bad.
Reason #3 that Christianity is harmful- Your religion puts many things as priority over other human beings. Number one thing more important than human beings is God, of course. This includes more important than your family, friends, and anyone else you may think is really important. Jesus is also more important than every other human being. The Word of God and Jesus are more important than human beings. If God commands it you do it, NO MATTER WHAT! This is very VERY dangerous too, June!
Reason #4 that Christianity is harmful- Christianity paints a picture that this life is nothing compared to the one you get after you die. As an atheist I cringe thinking of how many people put that other "eternal life" as the one worth waiting for– The life that makes this one look like a freakin' speck of dust.
Reason #5 that Christianity is harmful- Your belief damns certain people to hell, forever. These are human beings who suffer forever and ever, sometimes for just believing something other than Christian beliefs. How is it that a person can enjoy any sort of paradise in heaven if, for instance, their parent or child dies a non believer? How is a person supposed to compute the information of a paradise with loved ones in hell? Perhaps family members don't matter once you're in heaven? Perhaps your fellow human beings don't affect your emotions once you're in heaven. Maybe once you're in heaven your mind is wiped of the people you cared about on earth, and those human lives lost in hell are trivial, and don't deserve one tear once you're in heaven. Perhaps this means life is trivial? What else could it mean if I can have a paradise while others burn forever?
But I suppose you could brush aside all of those concerns with such statements as:
Theirs is a religion of love in which charity is a duty. If that cannot persuade man to behave well, original sin is the best short account of the human condition.
And it's the atheists who "revel in unholy simplicity?" Mr. Anderson, I have an idea: Get out there and preach love and charity as a duty without all the metaphysical accompaniments of virgins impregnated by ghosts, resurrections of souls and triune monotheism. And come up with a more sophisticated normative argument for the good of love and charity than eternal paradise for those who practice it and eternal suffering for those who don't. And get back to us on how simple the unholy life really is.
There are two further practical arguments in favour of Christianity. First, its decline has not meant the end of religion. It has merely diverted the search for religion to new and sometimes dangerous outlets. This is inevitable, for the fear of death is at the heart of religion . . . . The terror of death will always drive our species to search for an alternative. . . . For all their faults, the modern established churches are the safest means of ensuring [that we channel this fear into something productive and beautiful].
Are you serious? Religion has caused great evil, but its absence has not necessarily rid the world of such evil, so we ought to harness religion's good aspects because we're scared of death? Poppycock does not become you, Mr. Anderson. If you were diagnosed with cancer like your unfortunate friend, who would you rather have by your side -- the Christian who tells you not to worry because you're about to head off to a glorious wonderland in the clouds or the atheist scientist/doctor who has a reliable and proven method for finding cures to diseases? While you believers comfort yourselves with fairy tales (some to the point of valuing the next life far more than the here and now), I'll stick with coming to terms with reality, valuing this life, and using science to make life on earth a better place while we're here.
The second practical argument for Christianity relates to Islam, a religion which is not in decline. Westerners have a problem in dealing with Muslims; too many of us are infested with vulgar Marxism. So when believers who are angry with us talk about their faith, we assume that this is a mere metaphor for political and economic grievances. We are too ready to discount the possibility that our opponents are saying what they believe and that their grievances are largely religious in origin.
So, instead of accepting reality, we ought to just learn to think a little bit more like them? Mr. Anderson, you've become a parody of yourself.
Mr. Anderson, give it up. Please don't misunderstand me, for my words are not a flippant dismissal of yours. "Give it up" is a thoughtful response to them. Your faith, your arguments -- give them up. You seem capable of doing so, and you are teetering on the brink. Give into temptation, and join the light side. Reality. You'll like it here.
Comment #30347 by Liveliest Crib on April 7, 2007 at 6:48 pm
These are the times that try atheists' souls. (Metaphorically, of course. See? We're not absent a sense of poetry, and I paraphrase a prominent Deist who was himself quite anti-Christian.)
The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn.
At worst, this is but the easiest ad hominem tu quoque fallacy to invoke. You're dogmatic too, so we're on equal footing, and can disregard your arguments.
I admit, though, that at best, we can discern a PR problem. To some extent, of course, it's inevitable. The "deity issue" is so laden with emotion that atheists must endure such knee-jerk criticism for a certain amount of time. However, even Sam Harris himself recognizes that he is not a diplomat, and that his language is often intentionally provocative. I'll take the word "seem" in Dionne's sentence as something to think about when I tailor my own rhetoric in conversations with theist friends.
They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes.
Oh, please! I'm afraid, Mr. Dionne, that your article reaches terminal silliness at this line. As though we "new atheists" argue against nothing but fundamentalism, and then have no idea what to say to the teeming millions of non-fundamentalists who basically blow our minds. Indeed, Sam Harris' arguments about religious moderation are controversial, and I even have some problems with them myself. But at least have the decency to absorb what he's saying before railing against it.
Dionne quotes Harris' condemnation of religious tolerance and moderation, but he fails to grasp precisely what Harris is saying. In part, Harris recognizes a lethal paradox: Tolerating all religious beliefs as equal necessarily requires tolerating the beliefs of those who disagree that all religious beliefs are equal. In fact, it requires tolerance and apologies for those who would kill in the name of their religion, or even blow up the entire world in the name of their religion.
It's worth recognizing. As for myself, I probably would not have phrased everything the way Harris has. Indeed, he has had to backpedal on (or at least clarify) his use of "intolerance," as the term inspires legal concerns about repealing the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or jailing people for their beliefs. I would rather use the term "disrespect." In my mind, tolerance is not the problem. The problem is the persistent notion that we must respect those we tolerate.
I am very careful to explain to people that I respect their right to believe whatever they want, but that I do not necessarily respect their beliefs themselves. Moreover, in a free country, where all are tolerated, I do not have to shut up about the fact that I do not respect someone's faith. I certainly am shown little respect for my lack of faith in the United States, but the notion that we must respect faith of any kind, even extol it, no matter how preposterous or deadly, causes Mr. Harris grave concern. It is a concern I most certainly share.
Another aspect of Harris' writings Dionne has sorely misunderstood involves his frustration with the cognitive dissonance that necessarily accompanies religious "moderation." Harris offers a grudging respect to outright whack jobs like Fred Phelps -- at least they've actually read the book they claim is the inerrant word of a perfect deity. They are under no illusions about the moral lessons the book inspires if its text is taken seriously, and seek not to maintain Orwellian double-think, such as:
While some Christians harbor doubts about Christ's actual physical resurrection, hundreds of millions believe devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin.
Seriously, Mr. Dionne, what are we to do with such a statement -- one that smacks not of reasoned moderation as much as contradiction? At least a fundamentalist can overcome his desire to have his religious cake and eat it too.
In " The Last Week," their book about Christ's final days on Earth, Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, distinguished liberal scriptural scholars, write: "He attracted a following and took his movement to Jerusalem at the season of Passover. There he challenged the authorities with public acts and public debates. All this was his passion, what he was passionate about: God and the Kingdom of God, God and God's passion for justice. Jesus' passion got him killed." [ ] That's why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can't join the neo-atheists.
To quote Julia Sweeney, "Jesus' story makes me want to campaign for free speech, not go to a church and worship him." If indeed, Mr. Dionne, your Easter celebrations are those of an impassioned activist murdered for speaking his mind, and not of a literal rebirth of a deity's son who was actually him, I have no quarrel with that. But say so. Admit that it is supernatural fiction. Say you don't believe in it, but that you can derive moral lessons from it through your modern moral sense, just as you can with any piece of fiction. And admit that much of the lessons of this supposed death and resurrection are appalling, and that your individual judgment tells you so.
Don't say that we have to respect the story as true, but only sort of -- for I suspect that it is such dissonance that truly prevents you from joining the new atheists.
88. The God Debate
Comment #29415 by Liveliest Crib on April 2, 2007 at 9:35 pm
GBile,
Wow! You're right. Somehow I missed that line, but he actually admitted that he would not "waste another minute" being altruistic if death is the end to life. It's enough to make and atheist like me exclaim, "Oh, my god!" He actually admitted it.
89. The God Debate
Comment #29176 by Liveliest Crib on April 2, 2007 at 1:53 am
RICK WARREN: I see the fingerprints of God everywhere.
Right, nitwit, that's the problem. Everything is evidence of god's existence to you, Mr. Warren. The fact that the wish contained in a prayer came true is evidence of god's existence, as is the fact that the wish contained in a prayer did not come true. The latter just means that god has his reasons for not answering the prayer.
RICK WARREN: Trying to understand where God came from is like an ant trying to understand the Internet.
But somehow, knowing god's name and understanding how to win paradise in the afterlife is simple?
HARRIS: Is the Bible inerrant?
WARREN: I believe it's inerrant in what it claims to be.
Well, that clears it all up.
HOST: [W]hat are the secular sources of an acceptable moral code?
Our brains. Indeed, our moral sense is sentimental. Moral claims are normative claims, not empirical, and to confuse empirical and normative claims marks the height of cognitive dissonance. Our brains provide us with moral premises. The trick is to deconstruct and articluate those premises in human language, so that the answers to more particular and local moral conundrums can be deduced therefrom.
The so-called great monotheistic religions would have us divorce ourselves from our brains' moral sense, stop the process of deconstruction and articulation, and surrender to a supposedly objective moral source without evidence that that objective source even exists.
WARREN: Sam makes the statement in his book that religion is bad for the world, but far more people have been killed through atheists than through all the religious wars put together. Thousands died in the Inquisition; millions died under Mao, and under Stalin and Pol Pot.
The absurdity of this argument is so grand, it's difficult to know where to begin. It would be interesting to know, however, precisely how many people have been killed "through all the religious wars put together." I mean, as long as "all the religious wars put together" is more than the Inquisition, which I'm pretty sure it is.
WARREN: There is a home for atheists in the world today—it's called North Korea.
Right. All those atheists in North Korea who express skepticism about Kim Jong Il's being the reincarnation of his father, who was himself divine, feel right at home.
WARREN: I just happen to believe that Christianity saved reason.
I believe it was Bigfoot who saved reason. Prove me wrong.
WARREN: We would not have the Bill of Rights without Christianity.
From the Treaty of Tripoli -- between the newly-formed United States and an Islamic country, 1792: [T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[.]
WARREN: We both stand in a relationship of faith. You [Sam] have faith that there is no God.
Well, no, but Warren has faith that Sam has faith that there is no god, and that's what counts.
WARREN: Buddha made this famous statement at the end of his life: "I'm still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Veda says, "Truth is elusive, it's like a butterfly, you've got to search for it." Then Jesus Christ comes along and says, "I am the truth." All of a sudden, that forces a decision.
HARRIS: Many, many other prophets and gurus have said that.
WARREN: Here's the difference. Jesus says, "I am the only way to God. I am the way to the Father." He is either lying or he's not.
Well, either he's correct or he is not. He's not lying if he believes it. He could be wrong, deluded, schizophrenic, etc. I didn't realize it was so easy to be the master of the universe. Those other folks said that had a path to truth, but Jesus said he is the truth, period. Hmmmm... Mr. Warren? I, Liveliest Crib, am the only truth. I am the master of the universe and the objective moral law giver. Obey me or perish. Now what?
WARREN: All of the great questions of the 21st century will be religious questions. Will Islam modernize peacefully? What's going to happen to the influx of Muslims into secular Europe, which has lost its faith in Christianity and has nothing to counteract this loss in religious terms? What will replace Marxism in China? In all likelihood it's going to be Christianity. Will America return to its historic roots—will there be a Third Great Awakening, or will America go the way of Europe?
When will there be sufficiently widespread apostasy to ensure the survival of our species, cure diseases and prevent the rationalization of war and murder?
WARREN: Why isn't atheism more appealing if it's supposedly the most intellectually honest?
I had no idea intellectual honesty was directly proportionate to popularity. Most people are not intellectually honest, and have never been taught critical thinking skills.
WARREN: I believe that history split into A.D. and B.C. because of the Resurrection.
Well, that's odd. A.D. stands for Anno Domini, the year of our lord. B.C. stands for Before Christ. Didn't history split into A.D. and B.C. because of Jesus' birth? I mean, 1 A.D. is the first year he was alive, not the first year after he was reborn. Whatever.
WARREN: I believe in both faith and reason.
You just don't practice the latter.
We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble.
Rubbish! Forget the obvious (and very old) responses to Pascal's idiotic wager. You lose something very precious by surrendering your life to a deity in the manner your religion teaches, Mr. Warren. You lose the ability to cherish the life you know you have right now, here on earth, in the fullest. You surrender your ability to love your family and your fellow human beings to the greatest extent possible while they're here, and the ability to grieve properly when they're gone. You surrender your own moral sense to a god who tells you your family is dirt compared to him, and you cannot love your fellow human beings the way a non-believer can. You lose your ability to learn and grow, as anything that contradicts your faith-based premises is rejected without thought. You surrender your right to live without fear of constant surveillance and experience the freedom to choose to do good merely because it is good.
Oh, yes, we're both betting. You're betting so strongly that the afterlife is so much more splendid than the here and now that you'll sacrifice profound experiences, both emotional and tangible, for a contractual promise that by definition cannot come to fruition until you die. I'm betting on the evidence and the scientific method that has yielded more predictive leverage than any of your prophesies to enable me to learn and mature into a fully developed human being, and perhaps make a difference for my fellow human beings in the process.
I, sir, am not willing to gamble that away!
90. Understanding Genetics - Daniel Dennett Interview
Comment #25252 by Liveliest Crib on March 11, 2007 at 10:10 am
chauvinj on March 11, 2007 at 9:29 am
The 'sifters' term was taken out of context. Dennett clearly is not endorsing this term as a substitute for 'atheism'. He refers to natural selection as a sifting process.
You're correct. I don't think anyone was saying that Dennet himself was suggesting the term. Solera was just picking up on a term he used in a different context. Dennet very much likes the term "Bright."
Duff on March 10, 2007 at 6:12 pm
You guys go ahead and "sift". I've sifted all my life and found all religions intellectually irrelevant. Now, I'm more inclined to be a decimator. A pox on all your religions.
What the? Most of the people on this blog (I presume) are atheists who have "sifted" all our lives. We're just looking for a meme to describe ourselves since "Bright" appears to be controversial. It's not like we've suddenly decided to subscribe to a religion.
Spinoza on March 10, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I'm a "Proof Reader" of religions, not a sifter. :)
Hee hee. ;)
91. Understanding Genetics - Daniel Dennett Interview
Comment #25166 by Liveliest Crib on March 10, 2007 at 3:35 pm
solera on March 10, 2007 at 2:56 pm,
Interesting. I hadn't thought of it myself when Dennet used the term. In fact, I didn't even catch it. I had to go back and watch part 2 after reading your post.
I do like the term, since it captures the ability to evaluate information as it comes in. So much of the problem about empirical claims, when they become as sophisticated as science has enabled them to become, is that people have no idea how to evaluate them for their truth. In our culture, at least, people seem to like the idea of "thinking for themselves," but they don't know how to think in the first place. They know how to do rote memorization, but thinking for themselves has become Stephen Colbert's Truthiness -- if it feels right in your gut, that's what you go with; that's what's true.
Whereas "Bright" has never caught on -- for many reasons, I suppose -- and "atheist," and even "skeptic" begin from a negative standpoint. That is, they start by telling you what they are NOT -- what they DO NOT believe.
It's be interesting to see if "Sifting" or "Siftism" catches on. Learning not just about the idea of sifting through information on one's own to come to reasoned conclusions, but how to do so successfully, and avoid the pitfalls of nonsense. It need not be negative nor hostile. It can be an entirely positive word without being antagonistic.
I like it. Perhaps we should start a website of "Siftism." :)
92. Why there are almost no genuine atheists
Comment #24625 by Liveliest Crib on March 7, 2007 at 4:47 pm
iamb_spartacus,
I am going to take one of your quotes, and pick up on my earlier concession that there is no objective morality, but that it doesn't matter. It provides a good launching pad.
I don't quarrel with your [Drachasor's] ethics. But you [Drachasor] still haven't answered the question of where they came from. Why is it "better" to structure a society around the idea that its members are equally deserving of happiness? Why not divide the society up into castes, and treat them inequally? Why not separate but equal? Why not a slave class? Why not every man/woman for him/herself? Why have a society at all? At bottom all ethics imply that something is valued over another thing. Progress, human dignity, sustainability--we can rattle off innumerable ideas of value. On what basis do we choose aomng them?
On what basis do we choose? Our moral sentiments and our ability to reason about them. That's it. At some point, yes, we have to agree that we are beginning from a moral premise and deducing from there. From where does the moral premise come in the first place? The premise will be sentimental. We'll not be able to find any objective or universal answer in any ultimate form.
But so what?
I keep asking that because I think most people's unarticulated answer would be something along the lines of like what Stephen J. invoked -- that "all is permitted." But isn't that statement itself a normative claim? How can it logically follow?
Suppose someone tells me he is going to murder my brother. I respond that murder is wrong, and that I am going to intervene to stop him. The potential murderer then asks me on what grounds or authority do I rationally rest my claim that murder is wrong. I concede that there are no grounds but my moral sense. It's a premise I hold. If I concede that there is no objective morality, the potential murderer cannot invoke a moral claim to stop me from intervening. For instance, he can't logically say, "Since there is no morality, you have no right to stop me from murdering your brother." I think that's what people are afraid of, but it just doesn't follow. There is no logical way to invoke "no right to stop me" if there's no morality at all. He would have to concede that I'm going to try to stop him and violence will determine which of us prevails.
In other words, my point is that the notion that there is no objective morality cannot itself justify committing acts we commonly consider immoral. I think that is the argument people fear, but it simply does not follow. People fear that if there is no morality, then it is "justified" or "ok" to commit acts we falsely believe are immoral. That doesn't make any sense. There is no place for a word like "justified" or "ok," under such a framework, and to invoke one at that point gets us right back to where we started.
So abandon the search for an objective morality. Let's concede that all we have are our sentimental moral premises, master the arts of discerning and deconstructing what those actually are (under the presumption that humans do indeed share some basic ones....which might prove empirically incorrect), and deduce the answers to moral conundrums from there. That's all we have. That's all we can do. Perhaps that bothers you, but there's no escaping it. But on its own, it can't undermine moral argument or discourse, so don't let it bother you.
:)
93. Why there are almost no genuine atheists
Comment #24620 by Liveliest Crib on March 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Steven J,
You quote me as saying:
The objective moral code says to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath, but our brain recognizes such a rule as unduly cruel and frankly insane
And you responded with:
My point is 1) there can be no such thing as an objective moral code, even one stemming from a deity (as Plato noted in the Euthyphro), and 2) that just because the brain of a certain primate believes something to be wrong does not mean that it is actually wrong.
I actually agreed with you that there is no such thing as an objective moral code. And I agree with you that merely because someone believes something to be morally wrong doesn't make it actually wrong. I essentially conceded that there is no such thing as actually or objectively wrong. You quoted me out of context, and because you did, I cannot be sure you actually acknowledged what I was saying. My question to you was, so what? So what that there is no objective morality? I think you tried to answer that question, but I'm not sure.
As I noted, the fundamental assumption shared by most, if not all, moral systems is that causing pain is generally bad and causing pleasure is generally good, all things being equal. Obviously this assumption is most obvious in basic utilitarianism, but similiar arguments apply to other systems.
I recommended that because there really is no objective morality, and because all we have is conversation, that we should master the arts of deconstructing our basic, human, moral sentiments and articulating them. I'm not completely sure that this is the basic moral assumption, but I suppose one could start with it.
The question, then, is if this assumption can be justified on rational grounds. If it cannot be, then we should abandon the idea that morality is irrational.
I think that you mean we should abandon that morality is rational. Fine by me.
OK, so what is wrong with saying that morality springs from our intutions or emotions? The problem with this view is that while it is no doubt true that the illusion of morality arises from these intutions, these emotions are natural products of evolution. To say that they are valid moral judgments is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
I disagree. Largely because I don't think we should bother with a conceptual framework that distinguishes bona fide morality from our hardwired moral sense. Once again, I feel you are conflating empirical claims and normative claims. Under this framework, I would concede that there is no morality, and that we only have our moral senses and sentiments. There is no empirical morality. There is no objective morality. So what?
I'll reiterate my first explanation of this question: Asking, "So what?" to the notion that there is no objective morality and only our moral sense is not a flippant dismissal of your words. You argued that atheists often overlook that there is no rational, objective morality, and I largely agreed. But I need you to answer, "So what?" If your answer is that morality is an "illusion," you haven't clarified anything. I already agreed that morality as an objective "thing," for lack of a better word, does not exist, but asked, "So what?" Do you think you could take a stab at answering the question?
Indeed, in some ways to make this claim would be like saying that because there is (let us suppose) a human intuition to believe in spirits or deities, such deities must actually exist.
Only in the way that conflates empirical claims and normative claims. I distinguish the two. The term illusion only applies to empirical claims in this context -- claims like, deities exist -- because we require better evidence than mere human intuition or emotion before believing an empirical claim. But a claim that murder is wrong is not the same thing. It is a sentimental claim. It cannot be deemed objectively true or false. We can only ask whether it logically comports with our normative premises, which I acknowledge are sentimental. I am just not bothered by the fact that they are sentimental. I do not operate from a paradigm that distinguishes morality from moral sense, and to the extent that you do, and feel the former cannot be empirically, rationally or logically proven, I don't see the problem with that.
The realization that morality is an illusion would not make people rape and kill their neighbors, since the strength of moral intuitions remains intact even after any sort of rational justification has crumbled away.
Exactly. So what difference does it make?
94. Why there are almost no genuine atheists
Comment #24480 by Liveliest Crib on March 6, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Stephen J. on March 6, 2007 at 7:46 pm,
. . . in an objective, purely rational sense, there is no morality.
I do think you are driving at what many people of faith think, but are unable to articulate clearly. (I don't think that this notion marks the thrust of Campos' piece, but that's beside the point.) And I think there is some merit to the claim that atheists often overlook it.
To some extent, people are searching for an "objective" source of morality. The problem, of course, is that normative claims are based neither on analytic tautologies nor empirical data. We cannot say tha