351. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11689 by Janus on December 6, 2006 at 2:34 pm

Whoa, my avatar is messing up the layout. Is this normal?

352. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11688 by Janus on December 6, 2006 at 2:33 pm

Good to see _Is God Shit?_ is beating _Is Richard Dawkins Shit?

353. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11199 by Janus on December 3, 2006 at 4:42 pm

That was way too condescending. All but the dumbest theist would get the point after the Mormon story.

354. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9275 by Janus on November 24, 2006 at 9:57 am

As I was reading this article, I kept waiting and waiting for the author to provide us with a good reason why belief without evidence deserves the same respect or tolerance as do other beliefs. It never came.

355. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #8640 by Janus on November 21, 2006 at 9:48 pm

Is there any writer, any journalist, any blogger, any _anything_ that is capable of criticizing Dawkins WITHOUT deforming what Dawkins has said and written beyond all recognition?

Actually, never mind the above question. I'm being unfair to the authors of the various other articles that have been posted on this website. _This_ article is filled with so many outright LIES that it makes the rest of them look like paragons of intellectual honesty.

356. Beyond belief: In place of God

Comment #8586 by Janus on November 21, 2006 at 6:54 pm

It's not just you. Journalist bias?

357. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6837 by Janus on November 15, 2006 at 7:21 pm

"1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist."

You're off to a pretty bad start when your summary of Dawkins' "bedrock" is a silly strawman.

358. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6520 by Janus on November 14, 2006 at 4:44 pm

I should clarify the above comment (6516):

The article is much more accurate than I thought it would be, _considering it's from AnswersInGenesis_.


- Janus

359. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6516 by Janus on November 14, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Hmmmm, that's actually much more accurate than I thought it would be.

Regarding what they call our arguments, #1 is the usual lie, #2 and #4 are exaggerations, #3 sounds about right.

And of course, the following paragraph,
"In America today, with a population of 300 million, there are only 2,500 members of "American Atheists." Richard Dawkins, on his current tour, hopes to boost that number by a significant margin."

... is nonsense, as American Atheists is only one minor atheist organization, one that, I think, most of us want nothing to do with. Prof. Dawkins certainly never said he wanted to increase _their_ ranks, but rather those of all atheists, with a small 'a'.

360. Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

Comment #5522 by Janus on November 9, 2006 at 8:26 pm

Godless is, unfortunately, completely and absolutely right.

By the way, I need to point out that Prof. Dawkins' lecture in Montreal wasn't about The God Delusion or atheism as such, it was about 'the strangeness of science'. I thought it was weird at the time, since all other lectures and Q&A sessions were about TGD, but I just shrugged and forgot about it. Now I wonder, was it entirely Dawkins' choice?

361. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5489 by Janus on November 9, 2006 at 5:08 pm

Ah, I've seen this argument before. The tactic is to convince the reader that ideologies (religions included) don't have any influence on the way people behave. Ideologies are morally neutral (or morally good), it's _people_ who twist them to further their evil ends.

That's obviously nonsense that not even McGrath himself truly believes. The whole POINT of ideologies is to alter the way people think. Is McGrath saying that had Nazi youths not been raised in the National Socialist ideology, they would have been just as evil? Puh-leez.

Of course, no one's saying that ideologies control EVERYTHING their followers think and do. That's precisely Dawkins' point in chapter 7 (or is it 8?), where he argues that even fundamentalists cherry-pick the 'nice' parts of their scripture. But does that mean that these fundamentalists would have been just as homophobic, and just as hateful if they hadn't been indoctrinated in Christianity or Islam? Obviously not.

One needs only look at Christianity's core beliefs to see that...
1) It elevates faith as a virtue, which strongly discourages intellectual freedom.
2) It states that the Christian God is THE only source of morality in the universe, which strongly discourages moral freedom.
3) It condemns all other religions as misguided (at best), which strongly discourages religious freedom.

An ideology may not represent the totality of its followers' beliefs, but it certainly is a significant part of it. It's a fact that faced with certain moral dilemnas, the average Christian will behave very differently than the average secular humanist.

As for the rest of the article, as people have pointed out, it's just one huge strawman of Dawkins' stance. Professor Dawkins needs to stop being so damn respectful of those he calls 'sophisticated theologians'. Their beliefs may not be as crude as those of fundamentalists, and they may not hold beliefs that are as morally repugnant, but they're just as intellectually dishonest. Actually, scratch that, in my experience theologians are usually much MORE dishonest than the average fundy. McGrath and his ilk are a disgrace to the intellectual community.

362. Controversial Religious Summer Camp Closed

Comment #5306 by Janus on November 8, 2006 at 7:44 pm

One down... how many to go?

363. Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors

Comment #4899 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 8:25 pm

*chuckle*

364. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4869 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 4:33 pm

Manfred's right, but there is also positive evidence that the mind is exclusively a physical process. The simple fact that it's possible to _completely_ alter a person's personality, to utterly change the very essence of who a person is by removing or damaging part of the brain is evidence strong enough to convince even the most ignorant layman, but there's much more if you care to read a book on neurobiology.

Of course, you can claim that the mind and soul are completely different things, but this (at the very least) makes the soul completely superfluous. You might as well believe in invisible, immaterial imps whose job is to pull all objects and people towards more massive objects to simulate the force we know as 'gravity'.

Sure, it's _possible_, but immaterial gravity-imps are not only unsupported by evidence, they're also a _superfluous_ explanation since Einstein's discoveries.

365. The New Unbelievers

Comment #4854 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Agreed, N.A. That's certainly been my experience.

366. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4838 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Err, the above is a reply to message #22 by Truth Seeker.

367. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4836 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 1:18 pm

So? Reality is what it is, and wishing it were otherwise won't make it so. You're not much of a truthseeker if you believe something because you _want it_ to be true.

368. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4727 by Janus on November 5, 2006 at 3:44 pm

A resounding victory for Dawkins. Any scientifically literate person should easily spot the weaknesses in Collins' arguments.

Of course, most people aren't scientifically literate, and will prefer Collins' arguments only because they sound more 'moderate'.

369. Atheist Evangelist

Comment #4597 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 5:19 pm

Anonymous (post #13), you're absolutely right.
It makes perfect sense of practically every single negative review of The God Delusion that's been posted here. You should expound on that, put it in the form of a short article, and send it to the website administrator for all to read.

I'm serious, do it!

370. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #4592 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 4:47 pm

Riley, Christmas and Halloween are now completely secular holidays, really. But even if they weren't, there is nothing in them that inherently promotes or supports the religious indoctrination of children. You can't say the same about baptism.

I don't think any of us believes that sprinkling water on a baby's head and muttering a few prayers actually harms anyone, but it's usually a prelude to indoctrination. If we're going to begin raising consciousness about the labelling of children as Catholic, Muslism, etc, refusing to attend a baptism (and explaining why, of course) is a good starting point.

What I wouldn't advocate is something like a manifestation against baptism. Just like manifs against Christmas, it would look pedantic and, as you said, asinine.

Btw guys, I really enjoyed the discussion, well done.

371. Atheist Evangelist

Comment #4547 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 12:36 pm

These articles on Dawkins and Harris are getting strangely repetitive. It's as if they're all written by the same person.

372. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4491 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 6:59 am

Faith is a fragile thing. Why do you think fundamentalist parents are so obsessed with keeping their children away from anyone or anything that might show them that other viewpoints exist?

373. BBC Profile - Richard Dawkins

Comment #4476 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 4:33 am

The reporter's an idiot. You'd think he could keep his misunderstandings and fuzzy-headed religious zeal out of a profile of Richard Dawkins. I'm refering to the last 5 minutes of the 3rd part, mainly.

374. Dawkins' delusion is that science can determine the existence of God

Comment #4349 by Janus on November 3, 2006 at 1:45 pm

There are many problems with this review. The first is th*SNORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE*

375. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #3817 by Janus on October 31, 2006 at 9:02 pm

Well, that was boring.

376. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3243 by Janus on October 26, 2006 at 6:41 pm

Vega:
"Love how Richard adapts his style to the type of interview: "What really pisses me off..." haha"

Hah, you're right, that took me by surprise.

377. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3234 by Janus on October 26, 2006 at 5:45 pm

That was great, most of the questions were new, original, and very interesting (even if not always relevant to The God Delusion).

Yet another excellent performance by Prof. Dawkins. And btw, I beg to differ, you are _extremely_ eloquent.

378. Lynchburg, VA Photos : Batch 2

Comment #3133 by Janus on October 25, 2006 at 9:07 pm

Shame you're married, eh Dick?

:D

379. Beyond Belief

Comment #3100 by Janus on October 25, 2006 at 2:07 pm

David,

the argument from improbability isn't a scientific argument, it's a logical one.

Intelligence is organized complexity by definition, and organized complexity is too improbable to simply _exist_, it can only arise from simpler things via a complexity-generating process of some kind. Saying that a complex entity is eternal, or outside of our universe, or uncaused, or transdimensional, doesn't affect this argument at all. Timelessness may explain existence itself, but it doesn't explain complexity.

380. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2547 by Janus on October 21, 2006 at 7:38 pm

This might be my memory playing tricks with me, but I feel like I've already read this review. Like, a week ago or more.

381. Atheists' delusions about God

Comment #2530 by Janus on October 21, 2006 at 5:26 pm

"The root of the problem is that too many modern atheists adopt a position that is a photographic negative of a sort of Christianity believed only by the most conservative. God is X, says the modern atheist, giving a short definition that allegedly captures what all believers believe. This means that the God they reject doesn’t look anything like the God that most of us meet in our prayers."

The reverend is apparently under the delusion, common amongst 'sophisticated' believers living in their ivory towers, that their nebulous, undefinable deity is a popular one. It is not.
The god believed in by the vast, vast majority of Abrahamic religionists can indeed be defined in a single sentence, "the supernatural, personal, sentient creator of the universe". Actually, I'm sure I could add a dozen more adjectives and still have a definition general enough to encapsulate the beliefs of more than 80% of believers worldwide. I don't need to, because this definition is more than sufficient to serve as basis for a critique of Abrahamic religion such as The God Delusion.

"Yet the one thing that we learn from the Hebrew scriptures is that there is no X that can articulate the infinite mystery of the divine. Again and again, the Bible puts us off trying to achieve definitions. What else is "I am what I am" but a very Hebraic way of refusing to allow God to be put in a box?"

Indeed, obscurantism is the religionist's greatest weapon. Without it the number of books and articles written by theologians would no doubt be so small as to fit in two or three bookshelves. It's already easy enough to wax poetic about something no one knows anything about, not even if it exists, but that's nothing compared to the vastness of the field that opens itself to you if you refuse to even define that which you want to speculate about.

"What they share is a worry at the dogmatism creeping into so many areas of public life. Unfortunately, public discussion no longer involves enough people who are prepared to say: "I don’t know.""

Welcome the ranks of negative atheists, reverend!
Oh. Ohhh. I see. You don't know, but you believe anyway.
Perhaps you should have looked up the meaning of 'delusion' in a dictionary before writing this article.

"This is not a problem just because it lacks modesty. What is wrong is the attempt to force the unknown into declaring itself in the terms of our own limited imaginations."

You're quite right. But then why do you insist on believing and defending something you know nothing about? Why do you insist on believing the written words of primitive, superstitious tribesmen about the unknown? Why do you assume the unknown will forever remain unknown? Will call the unknown God? Why worship the unknown? Why let the unknown affect your life and the lives of others?

It is precisely because you and your ilk presume to do all these things that we rationalists can attack your unsupported beliefs. If you truly believed your own words, you would never pray again.

382. Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists

Comment #2441 by Janus on October 21, 2006 at 9:18 am

Hurray for double-standards! When believers do good, they do good _because_ of religion. But when believers commit evil, religion is being 'used'.

Nonsense. Religion, like all ideologies, is part of a believer's _identity_ if he or she truly believes in it. There's no such thing as 'using' one's religion to do anything, unless you're not a believer in the first place.
True, some ideologies are better than others. Secular humanism, for instance, is vastly superior to any Abrahamic religion.

The rest of this article is mostly nonsense as well.

- If the rabbi had read The God Delusion, he would know that Dawkins doesn't come anywhere close to claiming that getting rid of religion would get rid of all evil (or even the majority of it!).

- No ten commandments? And how is that a bad thing? The commandments are either so completely obvious they're not needed at all, or they're plainly outdated morality by modern standards.

- Using Nietzsche to construct a strawman of atheists as a whole. Puh-leez.

-The supreme virtue of Christianity and Judaism is humility? Only if you look superficially. At the basis of the Abrahamic religions is the belief that the creator of the universe himself actually _cares_ about humans, to the degree that the entire universe is merely a tool to give rise to humanity (at best), or an amusement park (at worst). Judaism is probably the worst offender, as it claims that God went as far as to pick one tiny tribe of desertmen as his Chosen People! The belief is excusable if you lived 4000 years ago, but that any modern adult could not instantly see the sheer arrogance, the incredible simple-mindedness of such a belief is truly staggering (and very depressing).

383. Rachel Maddow Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2223 by Janus on October 19, 2006 at 8:56 pm

That was interesting, different from the interviews we've heard lately.

384. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2207 by Janus on October 19, 2006 at 4:53 pm

If I didn't spend so much time at christianforums.com, I probably would have been horrified by the callers' ignorance. Dawkins did well to keep his cool, it showed how much more rational he is than the Christian nutcases.

It's really quite amazing that these people expect Professor Dawkins to explain things like the evolution of sexuality in 30 seconds. It's not only ignorance about evolution itself, it's ignorance about the _scope_ of science as a whole.


Prof. Dawkins, if I may make a suggestion, the next time a religious believer claims that God doesn't need a beginning because he's eternal, or outside of time, or transdimensional, or whatever, why not reply with the following:

"It is blatantly illogical to explain the complexity of the universe by saying it was caused by something even _more_ complex, which God must have been to design the universe. To assert that God is eternal/timeless/etc may explain away His existence _itself_, but not His complexity. The only way to explain complexity is by a gradual process of small steps starting from something fundamentally simple."

Well, or something to that effect, you're much more eloquent than I am. The point I'm trying to make is that practically all Abrahamic religionists don't realize that 'explaining' the _existence_ of God isn't enough, they also have to explain His high degree of organized complexity. They think that explaining the former means explaining the latter. The few who do realize it claim that _God_ is fundamentally simple, which is obviously nonsense if you realize that intelligence, by its very nature, cannot be simple.

While this doesn't disprove that an intelligent designer created _our_ universe, it does disprove the existence of an intelligent super-being who created _everything_. In other words, the best religionists can hope for is a God who is only an intermediate cause, as opposed to the First Cause (much like we humans are the intermediate cause of televisions, for intsance, not their ultimate cause).

- Simon

385. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2049 by Janus on October 18, 2006 at 11:03 am

Phenomenal job, Richard! As many have said, you did as well as anyone (and better than most) who's been on the Colbert Report.

As I've said on a few forums, I was a bit worried that this interview would go very badly, since it's obviously impossible to make well-supported, clearly-explained arguments in such a setting. I also expected you to be so stunned by the sheer inanity of Colbert's questions that it would look as though you were stumped for a few seconds.

But it turns out I needn't have worried in the slightest! _Colbert_ (or rather, his nutty persona) was the one who looked stumped. You had a quick, condensed answer to his every question, and that's the best you or anyone can possibly do under those circumstances.
You've also managed to make a few very important points, such as the fact that natural selection is anything BUT random. That alone must have shocked quite a few Christians.

Most importantly, (and I think you understood this) the Colbert interview was about improving your image in America. As you no doubt know, many if not most Americans who know your name think of you as 'that arrogant, bitter fundamentalist atheist'. I think it's safe to say that almost anyone who's watched the Colbert Show has had that preconception shaken to its core. Very well done.


_Justin Shannon says:_
_Richard says "well where did God come from?" And like most people, Colbert was stumped, and thus took the "easy way" out. However, look at the other side of the debate with the same argument. Well where did that original matter come from to create our universe? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, correct?_

Prof. Dawkins' argument was about complexity, not matter. Some kind of fundamental building blocks of some kind _had_ to pop into existence (or else they've 'always' existed), or else not only the universe but even a hypothetical deity couldn't exist. What needs explaining is organized complexity, such as bacteria, trees, and intelligent forms of life such as us, and this hypothetical deity. Saying that the first human just popped into existence wouldn't satisfy anyone, since the human body's organized complexity is simply too improbably to assemble itself in one single, giant step, and the exact same goes for God. If there IS a God, it must have been 'formed' by a gradual, step-by-step process such as evolution. But then, most people wouldn't call such an entity God. 'Extra-universal alien' might be a better word.

386. D.J. Grothe Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1911 by Janus on October 17, 2006 at 9:34 pm

Agreed, Sri, this is without a doubt the best interview yet. I made some minor criticisms in a comment to another interview recently, but I must say that this one was perfect.

Well, almost perfect. I was surprised to hear Prof. Dawkins say that he didn't know where our so-called 'universal' morals (those morals that influence even religious believers) come from. Dawkins of course knows better than almost anybody else that natural selection has 'gifted' us with empathy and altruism. Society also has its role, as even Christian fundamentalists are influenced by the rest of their society no matter how isolated they are. I haven't read the God Delusion yet (it's on the way!), but I think Dawkins has written about society's moral progress. So, as I said, this was a bit surprising.

Nevertheless, an excellent interview. Keep it up, Professor.

387. Steve Kraske interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1785 by Janus on October 16, 2006 at 6:38 pm

A very good performance by prof. Dawkins.

His only flaw, as far as I can tell, is that he tends to spend too much time building the foundation for whatever point he wishes to make, and when the time comes to actually _make_ the point, to draw that final conclusion from the premises, it's usually done in only one or two sentences! I get the impression that it's a habit prof. Dawkins has gotten from communicating so much via writing.

In a book, or even a written interview, these kinds of highly detailed premises are fine, because it's easy, both for the author and the reader, to go back to them to remind themselves where the argument was going, but in a spoken interview, the speaker tends to lose track of the finer points of the argument, and it leads to confusion among those listeners who don't know in advance what point the speaker is trying to make.

Of course, pretty much everyone who frequents this website, and many others who've read prof. Dawkins' books and articles, can often quickly see where an argument is going even if they haven't come across it before, because we have a sense of how prof. Dawkins thinks. But for the sake of the much vaster audience comprised of people who've never head of Dawkins, it might be a good idea to cut down on the lengthy premises, and allocate more time to explaining and expounding on the conclusion(s).

- Janus

388. Misplacing science, displacing God: the fallacies of Dawkinism

Comment #1571 by Janus on October 13, 2006 at 7:51 pm

So many strawmen, mistakes, unsupported assertions, and outright lies that it would likely take more time and words to refute this article in its entirety than it took the author to write it in the first place.

Two sentences in the last paragrah struck me as particularly naive. In it the author apparently seeks to explain his earlier assertion that Dawkins and other atheists don't understand the concept of Christian (or religious?) faith:

"But the act of faith itself - responding to God as loving Creator - is a leap over reason's edge. This does not make it irrational, any more than falling in love is irrational."

I wonder, how many people does the author know who have fallen in love with someone they do not believe exists? The answer is obviously, not a single one. To love someone, you must believe this person exists. To respond to God as a loving creator, you must first believe God exists.
Christians may well think of their faith as a form of love, but this 'faith' is necessarily based on an unsupported belief in God's _existence_. And that is exactly the way Dawkins and other atheists define faith.

To use the author's image, faith isn't a leap over reason's edge. It's a clumsy stumble that leaves the believer exactly where he started.