351. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87079 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 6:36 am

Windweaver,

I don't believe that the exchange between Chomsky and Casey is evidence of a "damning indictment" of the way he operates.

Really? I do. I found that he was lying and accusing his opponent of being a racist among other things. These are not mistakes.

You remind me of a creationist who thinks if he can find a flaw in Richard Dawkins' research output the whole edifice of evolution comes crashing down.

Windweaver wins a coconut for being the first person today to start a sentence with, "You remind me of a creationist who..."! There's a coconut to be won every day!

Nothing I have read by Chomsky (how much have you actually read of his work Keith?) suggests anything other than the fact that he is a scrupulously moral man.

Well, if you can read an article like that and still find him a scrupulously moral man then you won't find anything against him, will you?

Another cheap shot but it's the price I'll obviously have to pay to play ball with you.

You're not one for self-pity, are you Windweaver?

It's still instructive that Chomsky cited three independent sources for his figures. How often do you see mainstream analysts backing up what they say with multiple references?

His sources were not independent. They were mainly Sudanese government figures. The three main aid agencies working in the area couldn't back up his figures so he didn't quote them.

But surely you must have noticed that this is not what he actually SAID. This is what he SAID about what he actually SAID. There's a difference and with Chomsky it's a meaningful difference. It's like the police asking me if I killed someone, me saying "No", and them saying, "Ah, that's alright then. You're free to go". This is neither evidence for, nor against what he has actually said, though you present it as clinching the matter.

I notice you didn't comment on your attempt to sneak in supposed evidence that never was. The comment that you made had nothing to do with this. So what was it, a mistake on your part or a subconscious wish to see this as evidence?

352. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87068 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 6:16 am

Rtambree,

Let's assume that you are correct and the left is all completely lunatic. Let's assume everything that comes from the left is wrong, a lie, crazy, harmful, misguided, whatever etc.

You must be confusing me with someone else or you've been taking Xeno at his word. I don't think any of this is true for a minute. I said in an earlier post that if I had to categorise myself I would call myself a socialist. However, I think that people like Chomsky and Livingston are perverting the idea of what left is. I don't want to weigh in on whether New Labour is really right or left. Suffice it to say that I'm not a fan of Blair wherever you decide to put him.

I agree with you that it's pointless to criticise the powerless and I can understand why Chomsky would concentrate on those who do have power. At the same time, I feel he should make this clearer to his readership lest they think that America really is the sole wrong-doer. I genuinely think that some of his readers (Xeno) is convinced that if America isn't the sole evil-doer in the world then they are at least the worst. I don't believe this for a moment. They could and should be much better than they are. However, there's no need to reach for superlatives (Xeno again) every time America is mentioned.

You're trying desperately to expose some error or inconsistency (among thousands of statements) of Chomsky

Actually I really don't have to try that desperately. The examples of his tendentiousness are not so hard to find. But it's not his inconsistencies that bother me. All these do is highlight and are evidence of a much worse trait. My objection is that all his thoughts are slanted in a certain direction, his whole way of looking at things is skewed. It has nothing to do with the fact that he might have made one or two mistakes. If it were the latter then I wouldn't mind at all. Everyone can make mistakes. It's the fact that he is just so determined to find the west in general and America in particular guilty, even when they're not.

He is very skeptical about the mainstream press (i.e the press that doesn't agree with him) but his skepticism only seems to extend to the west. When it comes to China and Cambodia and Sudan he is happy to make pronouncements on the situation and then excuse himself later by saying these were the best figures available at the time. So where's the skepticism now? He took the Sudanese government at their word about casualties when any fool would know that they weren't really an objective, independent source. They were bound to put an absolute maximum figure on what was likely to be believed in the hope of greater compensation and I don't blmae them at all for this. The problem is that Chomsky clearly isn't a fool. So why did he (apparently) believe the figures so willingly? When you can answer that, you'll know why I don't trust him.

Perhaps you think that a few false alarms, a few false accusations just keeps the US government on its toes because it knows someone is watching. However, I think what also happens is that confidence in the government among the general public is seriously undermined. This is fine if the government has genuinely behaved badly. However, if it gets savaged regardless of whether it acts morally or immorally then there is much less reason to be seen to be moral. I mean, why bother. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

By the way, I think you know that I thought it was daft of you to say that anyone who doesn't trust Chomsky must necessarily love America. This is just a way of not having to deal sensibly with anyone who criticises him. You'll have to take my word for it that I don't love America. I mean, just look at the reversed baseball caps.

353. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87038 by keith on November 11, 2007 at 4:29 am

Windweaver,

It's healthy for all intellectuals who make claims about the world to be subject to critical scrutiny.

Yes, it is isn't it? And?..Would you like to expand on that? After all, you just read an article critcical of Chomsky. What came to my mind was that if true, this was a rather damning indictment of the way he works. And what came to your mind? The observation that it is healthy for intellectuals to be subject to scrutiny. Have you ever thought of going into politics yourself?

I'd be interested to see new evidence about the al-Shaifa fatalities

What, like non-dead Sudanese people?

One thing I did pick up on in the Casey article was a misrepresentation(it happens so often to this man) of Chomsky's views on America.

Why is that, the poor man?

Here is what Chomsky has actually SAID about this anti-American charge:

Question:Some of your positions, on Kosovo for example, have led people even on the left to suggest that you think no matter what the U.S. does it's unacceptable simply because the U.S. is doing it.

Chomsky:If people believe that, that's because they insist on pure propaganda and refuse to look at the facts. You can easily see whether in fact I said that. I didn't. And I don't believe it. I can't help what intellectuals decide to believe. If they want to fabricate propaganda images and believe what they say or they hear in gossip, that's their metier.

But surely you must have noticed that this is not what he actually SAID. This is what he SAID about what he actually SAID. There's a difference and with Chomsky it's a meaningful difference. It's like the police asking me if I killed someone, me saying "No", and them saying, "Ah, that's alright then. You're free to go". This is neither evidence for, nor against what he has actually said, though you present it as clinching the matter.

354. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86996 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Windweaver,

You say you find Christopher Hitchens "refreshingly honest". How about some honesty on your part Keith? Isn't the reason you vilify and mock people (yes, and their ideas) like Chomsky, Xenocratic and Livingston because you're a rightwing ideologue who has a rooted aversion to leftist politics and its adherents?

You are exaggerating my political motivation and to call me a rightwing ideologue is to credit me with far too much political nonce. I barely know what the the right wing wants. I'm almost tempted to admit to the label, just to appear more knowing than I really am.

The truth is that I almost never think about politics or where I line up politically. I can tell from the way that you talk that you do. That's fine. However, whenever elections come round I feel a little bit like Kissinger did about the Iran - Iraq war: It's a pity that they can't both lose. I can almost hear you saying, "Keith, that's very telling that the person you chose to quote was a dispicable right-wing zealot". And I would agree with you...i.e. that he's a dispicable right-wing zealot, not that it's telling. I have to say that you read far too much into a lot of things. For example, my inclusion of the Frost poem. You're right, it was a cheapshot, but it was actually not meant nastily. I just found it funny. I love that poem. Sorry if it upset you.

I find the way that people like Xenocrat and perhaps you simply dismiss someone because they are apparently 'rightwing' is ludicrous. Hitchens is a case in point. People here seem obsessed with whether he belongs to the Neo-cons or not. It's like belonging to gangs at school. He has said he is not a Conservative of any kind. However, even if he had said that yes, he is a Conservative, how would this have changed the rightness or wrongness of his views?

Rather than view Hitchens' shift from left to right as a kind of treachery, I see it as a gradual disillusionment with the current left which itself had shifted. The catalyst that pushed Hitchens into the camp of the Neo-cons was the sudden realisation on 9/11 that if anyone was going to stand up against Islamism it was not going to be the new, effete left but his old enemy, the right. A case of when needs must.

Perhaps in the circles you move in it really is an insult to be called right-wing. To a certain extent I don't move in any circles because I live in Japan most of the year and I don't know anyone who is vaguely interested in politics. I'm sure that none of my friends would know who I vote for though they might be able to hazard a guess. Actually, I always voted for the Green Party because I have belonged to Greenpeace for 20 years. More recently I started to vote Labour because my Green vote seemed a little wasted. Nothing would ever intice me to vote for David Cameron, even if the only other choice were Gordon Brown. However, if they draft in more people like Zac Goldsmith to the Conservatives I might be tempted to move my vote. If Alan Millibank becomes Labout Party leader I will vote Labour for certain.

When I was younger I read a lot of Orwell and I can't think of anyone better to have as a role model. My thoughts about race were formed in my teenage years by the two-colour music of ska groups. I called myself a socialist for many years without really thinking about it, without being interested in it or knowing anything about politics. To vote Labour was de rigour with circles I moved in and I just went along with it.

The truth is that I if pushed I would still describe myself as socialist though I wouldn't want to align myself with the present left, which is where Nick Cohen finds himself and even more extremely, Hitchens. I think both these men have a fair vision of society at heart but their way to achieve it isn't the same as that of the vile Ken Livingston or various others. Good people are being pushed right by just how rubbish the left has become. However, this is okay. As long as there are still good people around it doesn't really matter. It's possible that the right will soon be standing up for more of Orwell's values than the current left. Maybe it already is.

To say I find it sad what has happened to the left would be overstating the case since, as I mentioned before, I don't really consider myself a political animal. However, it does seem to me that there has been a gradual falling off since Orwell's day of what it means to be a socialist. I now see it to be more of a badge that some people like to wear, especially on this site. To me much more important is what people think and do. For you and others to reject whatever Theodore Dalrymple says because he's been labelled right-wing by others I find incredibly childish. Dalrymple may in fact be right-wing, I really don't know. However, I do know his views on many things and they seem really quite sensible to me. Should I never quote him because this would mean that I'm a right-wing ideologue? Xenocrat is left-wing but I have to say that I find Dalrymple talks more sense.

Incidentally, there is often a belief that if you admit to being right wing, you don't care about other people and fairness is unimportant. This is like being called immoral because you're an atheist. Many people who are classed as rightwing do care about such things. They just go about achieving it in a different way to the left. I actually think that the welfare system is a wonderful idea in theory but an inmitigated disaster in practice. Does this make me right wing when I criticise the welfare system? Some people here seem to think so.

By the way, you must surely know that the reason I "vilify and mock" people like Xenocratic and Livingston is because they are eminently mock-worthy in Xenocratic's case and simply vile in Livingston's. It has nothing to do with me being a right-wing ideologue. Incidentally, I now regret going after Xenocrat. It was only during his last posts that I realised that he is quite delicate and should be handled with care. I mean it.

To lump Chomsky in with Xenocrat and Livingston would probably please the latter two but not Chomsky very much and to do so is to do him a disservice. I find him highly intelligent, interesting and worth listening to. However, I also find his views tendentious and his self-image so grand that he will try to defend any previous remarks, even if this leads him to extreme comments such as labelling as racist people who simply refuse to agree with him.

To finish on a high note, I thought that Bonzai's partial support was heartening, not because he was vindicating anything I might have said, but simply because he had jumped the tracks of what had become a Chomsky-good versus Chomsky-bad slinging match, where all detail had been lost. Well done to him.

355. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86967 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Xeno,

Okay Xeno, enough's enough. Your last three posts haven't addressed any of the points I made, perhaps because you're a bit stumped for answers. Instead you have gone on a little repetitively, severely reprimanding me for what was often very little. At first I found it fun but I think I might have misjudged you and I'm now beginning to feel like I'm playing the mutinous officers of the Caine to your Captain Queeg, so out of kindness I'll stop now.

Good luck,

Keith

356. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86851 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 10:11 am

Alright Xeno, calm down, calm down. You're beginning to sound like The Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Anybody! ANYBODY! Can anybody please explain post 88 to Xeno?

357. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86842 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 9:38 am

Windweaver,

It's not relevant. I didn't intend it to be relevant. Many of my postings are just to provide interesting reading material for readers of the thread.

Acquainted with the Night
by: Robert Frost

I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain -- and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.

I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.

I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,

But not to call me back or say good-bye;
And further still at an unearthly height,
A luminary clock against the sky

Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.


Just a little light entertainment for the readers. Anyway...

You obviously see the US attack as a minor crime.

Minor as in less, yes. Minor as in unimportant, no. I see it as a different crime with different goals and intentions. I also believe that thinking so doesn't make me a racist.

The western world went into a state of shock. Would the same thing have happened if muslim terrorists had crashed planes into skyscrapers in Mumbai? I don't believe so.

I don't believe so either. However, I'm not sure you can put this down to racism (though it might be). I'm sure the people in Bombay were also less bothered about 9/11 than the people in the west. No doubt they would have been more bothered if it had happened in, say, Delhi. Is this racism?

Or are you talking about the reaction in places like England? Well, we have a lot of cultural ties with America, some family ties, and in many ways our fate is tied up with theirs: attacks on them might mean there will be attacks on us. We have good reason to be interested. There are many reasons other than race why we are more bothered about some people than others.

I don't always agree with everything he writes (just like I sometimes disagree with some of what RD says).

Careful, RD might be reading this. Like god, he always knows when you say bad things about him.

In his article, Chomsky provides three independent sources to support his figures. This is the sort of misrepresentation I'm talking about.

Yes, he did, and he chose sources that had done no research but could give him the kind of figures he was after. Other aid agencies either weren't asked or couldn't give him the numbers he wanted, I don't know which. You might say that, of course he's going to quote the sources that back up his argument. But you also have to ask yourself why he wants this to be the case.

Theodore Dalrymple is now persona non-grata on this website and for good reasons but he wrote an article asking why it is that some intellectuals seem to want to cover their countries in guilt. He was talking mainly about Keith Windschuttle's denials of the genocide of the aborigines. You would have imagined that if someone came up with the evidence that their country hadn't been involved in genocide, then everybody would be quite pleased. However, despite any evidence that Windschuttle put forward, he was vilified from the start by some intellectuals and it was almost as if they actually wanted him to be wrong. Why should that be? Perhaps you'll say that his evidence was simply too shaky to be believed. My own opinion is that some people love to be seen as the champions of the weak since it enhances their self-image, but if the weak turn out not to be as downtrodden as had previously been thought, rather than rejoicing, they reject the evidence since this will downgrade their own role. In my own personal view, this is what motivates both Scott Atran and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone and perhaps, dare I say it, Chomsky himself. However, this is just a bit of homespun psychology and I don't pretend to have anything whatsoever to back it up. It's just my personal opinion. I offer it just for your delectation.

I'd like to end this post with a couple of questions if I may. When Christopher Hitchens was confronted with the argument that the Iraq war was largely about oil he replied "Since when is oil not worth fighting over?"
Do you agree with Hitchens remark?
What do you think the reaction would be if Chomsky made such a remark?

I think that Hitchens was being only half serious. Clearly you can't invade another country simply to steal its oil and I don't think for a minute that Hitchens believes it. However, I think there is a certain hypocrisy that he might be exposing here, namely the one that you can never go to war to shore up your interests. Really? Not even if the only oil left on the planet was in Iraq and they refused to sell it to the west, the west still shouldn't invade 'just because of oil'? Not even if the whole economy of the western world or the lives of millions of people depended on it should you invade 'because of oil'? The truth is that many people would soon manage to get over their qualms about what is right and what isn't in those circumsstances. Of course, we aren't in those circumstances, not even nearly, so the remark was flippant. I suspect (though I really have no idea and your guess is as good as mine) that Hitchens was trying to highlight the naivety in the question, a naivety that seemed to force him into giving just one possible answer. So of course, being Hitchens, he had to chose another.

Perhaps, when lives are at stake, you see the remark as either too flippant if said not wholly seriously or if meant, incredibly cynical. If he meant it, I also find it cynical (though refreshingly honest).

"What do you think the reaction would be if Chomsky made such a remark?" Of course, Chomsky couldn't have said anything like that or he wouldn't be Chomsky. I'm sure no interest for self could ever pass his lips. However, if he had said anything like that, I would have been amazed at the honesty. If a political commentator actually dares to utter his real opinion, especially if he knows it's going to be unpopular and jumped on the next day, I always find this refreshing and I gain a real respect for that person, even if I hate his opinions.

You'll probably tell me that Chomsky is brave in his opinions and in a way I'd agree with you. However, he's brave in a Jesus Christ kind of way: so selfless and always thinking of others. Someone with this kind of self-image doesn't really need to be brave.

For precisely the same reasons that I dislike Scott Atran and Ken Livingston, I also dislike Chomsky. There's a self-satisfied, self-righteous smugness about all of them that makes me shudder.

Sorry, but you did ask me.

358. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86797 by keith on November 10, 2007 at 7:05 am

Xeno,

How you make me chuckle! You spend half a page telling me that it's not worth replying to my posts and in a quarter of that time you could have answered me.

Anyway, want to have a go at getting out of check? By the way, this wasn't a trap I set for you, honestly. You set it yourself. You simply talked about the 'right-wing faction' and I assumed you meant the Republicans. You then mocked me for my naivety and said you had meant both main parties because both are right-wing. Don't you know anything, Keith? But then, I asked myself, how can both parties be "the faction of dishonesty, hypocrisy and outright prejudice"? It made no sense. I'm sorry Xeno, but however much you want to put this down to my trickery, you tied the noose and put it over your own head. I simply pointed it out. Now you're adding comedy to the whole affair by claiming that I've somehow been unfair.

1948? Surely you must remember. I have now asked you five times to give me proof of your claim that 'every war between Israel and its neighbours has been started by Israel' and every time you send me endless information about 1967. Please, 1948.

Finally, (and I'm not trying to trick you, really), can you explain this for me?

There seems to be a deep double standard on many of these threads because some of the things that both Sam Harris and particularly Christopher Hitchens have written and said would have inspired harsh condemnation had they emanated from Chomsky. I wonder why this could be? Is it perhaps because when it comes to Muslims anything goes, even the most repulsive bigotry?

As far as I can see, this translates as:
1. Harris and Hitchens sometimes go in for Muslim-bashing.
2. If Chomsky did this we'd be up in arms.
3. Why the double-standards?
4. Because anything goes where Muslims are concerned.

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all. Even if it did make some kind of sense, it still wouldn't be true that we pick on Chomsky for anything other than his ideas. We don't know the man, we didn't start off with some personal grudge against him, he's never done anything to hurt us. Why should we have anything against him apart from his ideas? I have to say that in this case your persecution complex has gone even beyond yourself.

359. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86666 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Windweaver,

I'm well aware that Hitchens used to like Chomsky's writings and still finds his earlier writings wonderful. In what way is this relevant to the issue of whether or not there is an equivalence between the Sudan attack and 9/11? How about you? Do you find an equivalence here? Also, according to Chomsky, if you find no equivalence in the two actions, then you are necessarily expressing racist views. Would you go along with this? If you don't, then surely you can understand some of the objections to the way Chomsky looks at things.

It's always instructive to read what Chomsky ACTUALLY says in relation to an issue for which he has received criticism.

Actually, I was quoting Chomsky's words. I have read the whole exchange between Hitchens and Chomsky, and Chomsky's initial response to 9/11. To what extent haven't I ACTUALLY read what he says? Could it be that you assume that because I don't agree with him I can't possibly have read him properly?

360. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86629 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Rtambree,

Steve99 said:
I can't pin it down precisely, but Chomsky seems to me to share with others (such as Galloway and Pilger) a kind of distorting lens through which they view both current events and history. Everything they write and say seems reasonable in and of itself, until you compare them with historical facts, then it seems to me that the bias becomes apparent.

Rtambree responded:
It seems you're desperately trying to find a chink in the armour, a flaw in the logic, something to disagree with.
Keep digging. I'm sure that after 40 years, writing millions of words about hundreds of subjects, there must be inconsistencies. After all, who has ever been absolutely correct and consistent about everything in their lives?

I feel precisely the same as Steve but I think I actually can pin it down and, you'll be pleased to hear, with a concrete example.

Chomsky saw an equivalence between the missile attack by Clinton on the Pharmaceutics factory in Sudan and the attacks on 9/11. He found both equally bad because, he claimed, similar numbers of people had died as a consequence. The only reason we found 9/11 worse was because it was done to America, not to Africans.

Hitchens, who had openly criticised Clinton for the bombing and had done a lot of work on exposing what had happened in the attack on the factory, replied that although the attack on the factory had been bad, it was facile to claim an equivalence between it and the attacks on 9/11. In the Sudan attack, Clinton had made sure to attack the factory at night so as to minimize casualties. In the end just one person, the night-watchman, died as a direct result of the attack, though Chomsky was keen to factor in all the Sudanese people who would die as an indirect result of the destruction of the factory through lack of medicines. His estimated figure of deaths from lack of medicines ran into the thousands and therefore made the attack comparable to the 9/11 attacks in terms of pure numbers. However, not even the aid agencies working on the ground could verify these numbers.

Hitchens' point was that although bad, Clinton had been acting on what he thought was reliable information that the factory was making weapons, not pharmaceuticals, though he should have done his research better since this turned out not to be the case. Remember that the attack on the factory took place in retaliation to the bombing of the USS Cole, for which Sudan has since been adjudged responsible in court.

Unlike Clinton's decision to attack at night to minimize casualties, the 9/11 attacks had attempted to cause as many civilian deaths as possible. For Hitchens the intention behind the attacks and the number of direct deaths made a comparison of the two attacks tendentious.

Chomsky responded by saying that, 'He (Hitchens) must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime'.

Hitchens felt that he had been accused of racism and took offence to which Chomsky responded, 'Hitchens claims that I accused him of "propensity for racist contempt." I explicitly and unambiguously said the opposite'.

Now, although Chomsky didn't actually call Hitchens a racist, what he was saying was that any view which didn't see an equivalence between 9/11 and the missile attack on the Sudan pharmaceutical company must be racist. Hitchens, however, had already put forward his reasons for saying why he thought there was no equivalence.

Hitchens also said that if Chomsky was so keen to factor in the indirect deaths from lack of medicines to bring the number up to the 9/11 mark (as I understand it, practically all medicines came from foreign aid anyway and not from the factory) he would then surely wish to factor in all the children living in poor countries who would die as an indirect result of the drop in the economy after 9/11, which the world bank estimated at around 40,000, plus another "10 million people (who) will fall below the bank's extreme poverty line of $1 dollar a day or less as a result of slower economic growth".

It seems to me that Chomsky was determined to see these attacks in a certain light, the 'distorting lens' that Steve was talking about and which you tried to change to 'inconsistencies'. This is not about inconsistencies. I'm sure Chomsky's world view is completely consistent to him. It's just a bit skewed, in my view.

The truth is that if you wish to see an equivalence between the two attacks and label as racist those who don't (and then claim that you didn't call them racist, just their view), you can. For me personally, one act was worse than the other and I don't think I'm a racist.

Clearly, one of us is looking at things from a strange perspective. You would say it's Hitchens and me, I would say it's Chomsky and you.

361. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86617 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Steve99,

Either I've been constantly drunk these last few weeks or you've done something to your avatar. Either way your face has suddenly zapped into focus!

362. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86400 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 6:25 am

Why, when I read ADH's comments do I have the guilty temptation to phone my mates and tell them that, 'Hey, we've got a genuine mad bloke on the thread at the moment!'? I say guilty temptation because in the same way we have learned not to laugh at 'The Bearded Lady', 'The Elephant Man' and 'The Flying Midget', I feel we shouldn't really make fun of the religiously mad. Still, sometimes it's hard not to when you hear the funny things they say about what God's like and what heaven's like and what hell's like, as though they somehow knew. No, stop it. That's enough. Don't mock the afflicted.

363. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86390 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 6:09 am

ADH,

Why wouldn't there be any Christmas trees? Are you under the impression that Jews knew about Christmas trees, mistletoe and holly in Nazareth? These are all things from the original celebration that your lot stole from us centuries ago. And as for doing without turkey, does it say in the bible, 'Thou shalt celebrate the birth of our Lord with Turkey, a bird that will be found in fifteen centuries' time in a place that lies as yet undiscovered which shall be called America'? No, I don't think it does. Even if we ditch all the rubbish like the mawkish nonsense about 'Likkle baby Jesus', we can still graft on the good stuff like giving presents and putting on a bit of myhrr, something I like to do every year.

364. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86358 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 4:03 am

Keith, you seem to have some petty, cynical agenda against me

No Xeno, I have some petty, cynical agenda against your views. Please remember that I don't actually know you.

so there really is no point engaging in any discussion with you because you'll simply mock, ignore or distort whatever I have to write.

Mock yes, ignore and distort, no. With the things you write there really is no need for me to further distort them. They stand, gnarled, on their own.

I will address one point, however, namely your implied belief that Democratic presidents aren't right wing. As Gore Vidal and others have pointed out, the United States isn't a two party state, but rather a one party state, namely that of the Business Party, with two factions [my emphasis] – the Democrats and the Republicans. Indeed all US presidents since WWII have been war criminals, with no exceptions...The fact that you don't realise this about the Democratic Party, particularly those who have held power in its name, indicates to me how out of touch with reality you are. The United States is a corporatocracy, which should be obvious to anyone who is serious about examining who holds the real power in this society.

Yes yes, you have told me all this before. However, I think you're being a little bit dishonest here and what's more, I think I can prove it. So, when you mentioned 'the right-wing', you weren't simply referring to just the Republicans but to both main parties. You have just stated this, right? Please be careful how you answer because I think I'll have you in checkmate in one more move. If what you were referring to was in fact both parties, how do you make sense of the following:

In case you have missed most of recent history, let's limit it just to the last fifty years in the United States, the right wing has always been the faction of dishonesty, hypocrisy and outright prejudice. Always will be, always has been. I could list the amount of atrocities and distortions that the American right have been responsible for in the last decade alone...

Now, what 'faction' might you be referring to in this passage? Is it the Republican Party, in which case I understood you correctly the first time and you have been falsely accusing me of being a bit dense and also distorting your views? Or is it the 'faction' of both main political parties, which really can't be described as a faction at all by any normal person since they really constitute the whole? Checkmate, me thinks. Or am I twisting your meaning again? I know you're not above any kind of mendacity so perhaps you can find a third alternative up your sleeve that will save you from being impaled on the horns of this dilemma. In fact, I think I can see one hoving into view and it looks something like this:

Your last post is so patently ridiculous and completely erroneous with regards to what I have actually written, that I'm simply going to ignore it because you seem intent on purposefully falsifying and childishly belittling my contentions.

Look forward to your reply,

Keith

p.s. 1948?

365. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86306 by keith on November 9, 2007 at 12:58 am

Xenocratic,
Some additional comments on one of your posts to Steve99.

First he pointed you in the direction of some respected journalists. You said you wanted quotes from Chomsky himself. Steve quoted Chomsky looking a fool on his views about the Srebrenica massacre. You then asked for him to quote some respected journalists! When does this merry-go-round stop?

But, you specify, neither Francis Wheen, nor Nick Cohen, nor any writer for the New York Times will do. No, only journalists like John Pilger can be consulted on this. Can you really not see how odd this all is, only accepting as valid criticisms from writers who agree with Chomsky? Doesn't the circularity of it send you even a little but dizzy.

Apart from this, surely bells must start ringing in your head when you can find so few writers who will support his views. I know Chomsky would say that this is because most journalists are conservative lackeys, albeit unbeknownst to themselves. They are part of the self-protecting machinery of capitalism. Only certain people have seen outside this hermetically sealed capitalist Matrix-like world to the Truth. And who are these people? Chomsky and Pilger! Chomsky is our Neo!

But what about the writers that criticise American policy but don't agree with Chomsky? Mere diversionary tactics to give a semblance of criticism to quiet the conscience and lead us all to believe that what we hear is the truth.

And how did Chomsky and Pilger manage to escape the all-pervasive influence of capitalism and see through things? That remains a mystery, but it's as true as the Emperor's new clothes. Can't you see it you fools!

366. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86278 by keith on November 8, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Xenocratic,

If I remember the last time we had an exchange you managed to be more civil, so something has perhaps happened in the interim to turn you so sour

Yes, life in general and the nastiness of your post in particular.

By referring to Chomsky as a "famed linguist" I was merely stating an objective fact.

Like 'The Venerable Bead' and 'The Sage of Boston'?

Yes, I admire the man, but Hitler is also famous, as is George W Bush, so by your logic by referring to them as such I would be indicating how much I "idolize" them.

This, I'm sure you know, is just silly. If you were to write a eulogy of Hitler and refer to him as 'The Saviour from Linz', this would be much closer to what you actually wrote and is a world away from merely referring to him. I have to say that the way you twist these things around really is remeniscent of your hero.

If I also recall from the last exchange we had some months ago, you were deeply deluded about a number of aspects about the real world, and I can well understand why, considering you take the strategy of "picking paragraphs at random" and assuming that my "whole post was just more of the same". It's pretty much a truism that you'll never learn anything about the world unless you confront certain uncomfortable facts, so until you're able to do so, and actually read what people (not just me or Chomsky) have written then be prepared for people who do actually make the effort to read widely to dismiss you as a dweller in a fog of befuddled ignorance.

Actually, 'deeply deluded' might be overstating the case. Occasionally a bit pissed-off would be closer to the truth. Also you were over-generalising. When I said I had chosen one of your paragraphs at random and wouldn't (and haven't) read the rest, this only referred to your post. I usually read things in their entirety. Please don't imagine that I'm 'deluded about a number of aspects about [sic] the real world' because I didn't read yhe whole of your post. That would be an odd conclusion to draw.

Just to spell it out to you, Keith, denying that genocide was committed against the Aboriginals is akin to denying the Holocaust.

Thanks for spelling it out but I beg to differ. My understanding is that Windschuttle is more right than wrong in his assessment of the possibility of genocide. Apparently he has been more rigorous in his research than many historians. The truth is that I, and - and this is really my point - I suspect you too, don't know enough about the facts to make a definitive judgement. Whereas this doesn't seem to worry you, it does me. For you it's enough that you can label him right-wing and that's that, he must be wrong per se.

You're claim that denying the genocide of the Australian and Tasmanian aborigines is akin to Holocaust denial just shows me what a sloppy thinker you are. In the latter case, a mass of evidence points to the conclusion that the Holocaust happened. In the former case it doesn't, or it is at least inconclusive. Can you see a distinction here?

Are you aware, Keith, that there were 'whites only' bars in Australia up until the 1960s, and it is rumoured there might still be some in various small towns in the Outback?

Sorry but this is racism, not genocide.

You also probably don't know that throughout the 19th century and up until the 1960s the federal government of the 'Lucky country' used to hand out licenses to allow people to hunt Aborigines?

No, the truth is that I didn't know, but if true, it still isn't genocide.

The fact that he is right wing and writes for "right wing journals" should further have alerted most people to the dubious nature of his character.

Why?

In case you have missed most of recent history, let's limit it just to the last fifty years in the United States, the right wing has always been the faction of dishonesty, hypocrisy and outright prejudice. Always will be, always has been. I could list the amount of atrocities and distortions that the American right have been responsible for in the last decade alone...[bla bla bla]

Windschuttle is Australian. What's America got to do with this? Also, in your previous posts you have stated that all post-WWII American presidents should be put on trial for war crimes. Have there been no Democrat presidents in that time? If so, then the problem isn't being right-wing but being American.

That last line you quoted from my post was actually intended to be somewhat humorous.

For anybody who didn't catch it this was the line:

I told you once before, Fanusi, not to mess with me on Chomsky, and once again you haven't heeded my warning.

Xenocratic continues with his explanation of how it was all in good fun:

You see in an earlier thread Fanusi and I had a bit of a standoff, though typical of him he didn't respond to any of the numerous quotations I included in my posts as he dismissed them all as lies (typical of the religious mindset), and I put him right about Chomsky as well as warning him not to "mess with me on Chomsky". I thought it would be quite apposite to use the same words again.

So, all a bit of friendly rough-housing. Here, incidentally, is how the friendly banter continued in his original post:

How many times do you want me to kick your backside on this? How many more times do you want me to expose you for the fraud and fool that you are? Not only are you a truly pathetic scholar who doesn't even bother reading the people he criticises, you're a sadomasochist to boot!

Aren't you even a little embarrassed at trying to pass this off as 'humour'? You should be ashamed.

By the way, you constantly state that Fanusi doesn't answer your points. Do you remember in our previous exchange that you claimed that Israel had started every war it had been involved in in the middle-east? I then asked you to give me some evidence that they had started the original 1948 war, which set the tone for future relations. You wrote back telling me about the Six Day War in 1967. I asked you again about 1948 and you again told me all about 1967. I asked you one more time and once again you didn't mention 1948 (at least this time you didn't tell me about 1967 again).

Look forward to your reply,

Keith

367. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86108 by keith on November 8, 2007 at 6:54 am

Every species is gobsmackingly beautiful, each in its own way.

Sloth?

368. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86095 by keith on November 8, 2007 at 6:02 am

Rtambree,

Your list of atrocities could easily have been three times as long, but that won't make any difference to the brainwashed, just like all the evidence of evolution makes little impact on the fundamentalists.

The thinking goes something like this:

I love the USA
Chomsky criticises the USA
I don't like that
Therefore Chomsky is wrong

A bit like:

I love God
Dawkins criticises God
I don't like that
Therefore Dawkins is wrong

That was a brilliant psychological insight into how people who disagree with Chomsky think. You're right, all of Chomsky's critics do indeed love America. And how true about the brainwashing! Even the analogy to the Fundamentalist mode of thought was particularly astute and to the point.

Until that post I hadn't really noticed your comments but I've now made a mental note to watch out for them.

Cheers.

369. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #86094 by keith on November 8, 2007 at 5:48 am

Xenocratic,

You're back again! Great, I've been dying for a bit of lightwweight humour, which is always guaranteed, though unintended, from your posts.

Well, yours was certainly the longest post of the day! One important question: Where did you get the idea to refer to him as 'Mr. Chomsky'? Will you soon be calling the other guy Mr. Pot? Have you no ear for the ludicrous? Did you acquire your pompous style from 'Letters to the Times'?

Re your analysis of Keith Windshuttle, it seemed to rest mainly on the fact that he writes for a right-wing journal and that he had disputed the genocide of the Australian/Tasmanian aborigines. Whether he is actually right or wrong seems to bother you less. This is rather typical of a mindset that finds the victims are always in the right.

You write:

Pay Windschuttle no mind, as he is a petty little conservative lapdog who doesn't have the competence or intellect to even have a meaningful conversation with Chomsky, let alone the ability to deal with any of the famed linguist's political views.

Not only have you rather shot yourself in the foot with your obvious bias (in case you had forgotten, you were trying to show us that Chomsky had been maligned, not how much you idolize him), but you have illustrated to perfection precisely what Chomsky is often criticised for, i.e. not being even-handed in his dealings with his opponents.

Apart from the fact that the phrase 'petty little conservative lapdog' is obviously lifted directly from Marx - nothing wrong with that but couldn't you find your own language? - the hero-worshipping in the rather comical phrase, 'the famed linguist', incites laughter rather than a respectful nod. In truth, this is really nothing more than a childish 'my man's better than your man, na na na na na' dressed up in adult writing.

Incidentally, I only picked this paragraph at random. I couldn't bring myself to read any more than that since I assumed the whole post was just more of the same. Let's try just one more...

I told you once before, Fanusi, not to mess with me on Chomsky, and once again you haven't heeded my warning.

Xenocratic, you really are a bragging schoolboyish twit, aren't you?

370. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86016 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 8:48 pm

I have a suggestion, namely that we make Christians tick certain boxes before starting a discussion with them on this site. This would save a lot of time and misunderstandings. We would find out just how much of the bible that person subscribes to. Are they literalists or sophisticated non-literalists that don't believe in the old man with the long beard but do believe in 'some kind of force'? Somebody ought to create a form with all the possible categories, from honest, clear-as-day believers in resurrections and god and Jesus being one and the same person, to the ones who believe in an enigma wrapped in a mist, inside a cloud, enveloped in a haze and then smeared with baby oil to make the whole thing slippier still.
It might even help the faithful to focus a little better on precisely what they themselves really believe. Anyone up for the task?

371. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85993 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 6:15 pm

ADH,

Yes Keith, when I used inverted commas for the phrase "fell into my hands" I guess I was hinting at Providence guiding my search. I can't speak for the experience of other searchers.

ADH, you must have misunderstood me. I don't want you to speak for others. I want you to tell me why you think your life is being guided.

I am aware of the paradox contained in the concept of prayer.

At what point does 'simply not working' become 'a paradox' in your book? If paradoxes are allowed, then surely there is no need for either of us to argue coherently.

I guess my prayers are aimed at my need to be guided in how I broach the question of faith when I am talking to them.

That's a very indirect prayer. So vague in fact, that it might even come true. Why not pray for something you really want e.g your children's salvation?

I have been told to pray for wisdom

Really? By who, the butcher? Your vicar? How does he know what god wants? Or did god himself tell you? If so, why is he asking you to pray for something you don't really want while ignoring the thing you want? How did he tell you to pray for wisdom? By email?

372. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85944 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Nighttripper,

I have to say that you're absolutely right about the fact that I should have noticed the sarcasm in that comment. The truth is that my mind had been bludgeoned into a kind of hypnotic trance by the rest of your comments and I just read it as more of the same. To tell you the truth, it's still a mystery to me why you wrote it. Was it funny? Perhaps in the same way that saying, "That was a great movie - NOT!" is funny?

Posing the man with questions to which you already give some sarcastic answers in the same sentence. I believe all in letting people have their own say.

I also believe in letting people have their say. Strangely enough, me including my own sarcastic answers doesn't preclude ADH from responding or adding his. Were you under the impression that the number of answers allowed per question was limited to one and I had used them all up?

Another example would be Comment #85652 by walk

Really? This is overly disrespectful for you? Nighttripper, you really are quite a delicate flower, aren't you?

Or Steve99 practicly assuming that ADH automaticly makes anythin Martin Luther says, his own opinion.

You're making me go back over the entire thread by not quoting but I remember this one quite well and I think you've misunderstood it completely.

I didn't quite catch your drift on the "this is an atheist website" comment. What do you mean by that

I meant that if I were to post my ludicrous atheist views on a Christian website where the people care enough about Christianity to actually spend their free time posting comments, I would expect to encounter some firm views rebutting my own 'invading' opinions. In fact, I would be a little disappointed if I didn't.

Nighttripper, this is a grown man we're talking about here. Do you think he's made of candy floss? What are you trying to protect him from? Our nasty views expressed in a forceful way? Please, have a little confidence in him. He won't suffer any lasting damage from this exchange, I promise.

373. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85795 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 6:06 am

Nighttripper,

I think you need to go back and read your own post. Does all of it belong in sarcasm tags or only part of it? Where does your genuine opinion stop and the sarcasm start? Please remember that many atheists, apart from not believing in god, don't believe in mind-reading either.

374. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85791 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 5:55 am

Nighttripper,

And here I was thinking that all Atheists were well-thinking, repectful people!

Now what would have made you think that? It's like saying, "And here I was thinking that all people from Manchester were well-thinking, respectful people!" Atheists are real people with human emotions and come in all stripes. Just look at Hitchens. What brought you to the conclusion, after watching him, that atheists were somehow politer than others? I agree with you that a degree of civility should be maintained. Perhaps we just disagree on that degree. Who, precisely, do you think has been inappropriately uncivil, bearing in mind that this is a debate and this is an atheist website? I like to think that we don't resort to stupid name-calling but I also hope that we don't don the rather creepy mask of Jesus-like perfection as often as our Christian brothers.

Or maybe its just me..

Yep, maybe it is.

375. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85782 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 5:16 am

ADH,

Me again.

the way the Bible has long been dealt in Sunday schools and RE lessons has actually given wings to this "decontextualising"

What, precisely, is the 'context' that would, at a blow, make complete sense of the virgin births, carpenter re-births and all the rest of the things that the faithful believe in?

You say this is not the place for biblical exigesis and I'm relieved to hear it. And surely it's not necessary. If what you believe can be grasped by a child there shouldn't really be any need to resort to complicated interpretations. Imagine that I'm a child and just tell me in the simplest possible terms what it is you think I've missed.

But then a book by CS Lewis "fell into my hands"

Why the quotation marks? Would it make sense to you if I said, 'But then a book by CS Lewis "didn't fall into my hands"'? Would you see in this some kind of divine guidance, that the Lord didn't want me to read CS Lewis? Are you one of these people who see the hand of fate in the fact that you met your wife? Would it mean anything to you if someone who had been watching you the day you met her told you that there was an equally attractive woman standing on the road you didn't take. And had you actually taken that road, would you today still be talking about having been guided by divine hands. Is the brute fact that things happen more than enough evidence for you that He exists?

Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

Yes, if I were you I wouldn't whisper this in your wife's ear in a moment of intimacy. In fact, probably best to keep that one to yourself.

I believe that all of us, including the posters on this thread, are still on a journey, and there may be surprises in store even for the most vociferous and belligerent atheists among you. Stranger things have happened.

I wouldn't disagree with this. Antony Flew is a case in point. I'm sure that if I ever reach 80 I'll have lost a lot of my marbles and a lot of my bravado in the face of death and all it will need is a couple of clean-shaven, clean-livin' boys in suits and Invasion-of-the-Bodysnatchers-smiles to have a nice pleasant chat with me and I'll be won over to your side in no time at all. And will this prove anything to you? Will it signify to you that I have suddenly come to my senses?

376. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85770 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 4:08 am

ADH,

First let me say: brave man for putting forward your views on this site and well done for being interested enough to enter a debate on religion...

...But now gloves off.

I am hoping and praying that they come to faith.

Phew! For a while I was a little worried there. I genuinely thought that you had been doing nothing about the possibility that your children could die unconverted and go to hell. Why didn't you say earlier that you had prayed for them? Relax everybody, it's all sorted. Alarm over. Dad's got things in hand.

Just one or two small questions though:

Is it better to pray more than once? If so, why? Is God hard of hearing? Is he forgetful and needs reminding of a previous petition? Is there ever a danger that he might respond, "Yes, yes, alright! I heard you the first time for christ's sake!" How can you know when you've prayed enough but not so much that you start to get on his nerves?

My second question is about the efficacy of prayer. What do you think?

1. Prayer is always effective, and all prayers are answered every time, everywhere, to all petitioners.

2. Prayer never ever, not a single measly time brings about the required results. Strangely, this is almost as interesting as number 1. If every time a prayer is offered the desired results never come about this would be so odd that scientists would be falling over each other to try to explain it.

3. Prayer sometimes brings good results, probably about the same number as you would expect to happen were you not to pray at all i.e. through chance. This one is, of course, not very interesting at all. We already know that good things sometimes happen, and sometimes don't. Probability Theory, and more prosaically common sense, can easily deal with this one.

Which number, do you think, best describes the efficacy of prayer? If you choose 1 then you can stop worrying right now. God's got things in hand and is on the case as we speak.
If you choose 2 then it's actually against your interests to pray since this will guarantee non-compliance of your wishes, so you really ought to stop immediately.
If you choose 3 and the chances of achieving the required results are the same as blind chance you might equally well stop praying since it brings no tangible results.
In a nutshell my question is: Why pray?

377. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85670 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Arcturus,

Your English is wonderful. I used to have a Romanian friend and she too learned to speak English to almost native-speaker level with no accent. What is it about Romanians?

Even the word 'consistent' doesn't really work. It has the meaning of doing the same thing and logical coherence, but there's still something missing that I can't put my finger on.

Okay, back to work.

378. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85557 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 6:57 am

Atticus,

Yes, I remember old fatty West too. The way he used to scale those walls with such ease used to amaze me as a kid - until my older brother told me to watch the TV lying on my side and then all became clear.

379. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85548 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 6:18 am

Wow, there's an awful lot of wringing of hands here. And of course, when someone like Anton refuses to join in he is jumped on.

Yes, it is sad, but is it really any sadder than a hundred other stupid deaths, injuries, rapes and accidents, all preventable, that happen every day and we read about in the papers? All these things genuinely upset me, but it would be silly for me to spend my day telling people just how upsetting it all is for me.

It seems to me that the only thing different about this case is that religion is involved. This, of course, is reason enough for us to take an interest in it and rightly so. And of course I understand that we all want to show that although we might not possess a soul like the rest of humanity we can grieve as well as the next man. However, maybe the crying, the blaming by some of the medical staff, the labels of 'tragedy' attached to this death and the outpourings of sadness are starting to border dangerously on levels last seen when Diana Spencer left us.

380. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85535 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 5:22 am

Ukantic,

I agree with all of your points except the one about the pot calling the kettle black. That would be the case if Dalrymple were a theist but he isn't. He's an atheist.

381. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85532 by keith on November 6, 2007 at 5:11 am

Arcturus,

If we were consecvent in discarding wrong and outdated ideas and practices, religion is where humanity has failed miserably.

Im fascinated by your use and spelling of the word 'consequent'. You used it in the same way a German-speaker would and also misspelt it (though not in a German way and the rest of your English was faultless). I'm convinced that English is lacking precisely this word, the German word 'Konsequent', as I don't think that the English 'consequent' has the same meaning or that any other word we have does. Please put me out of my misery and tell me it was just a simple misspelling and nothing more.

382. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85430 by keith on November 5, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Atticus_of_Amber,

Wowza!

You know a couple of weeks ago, when I said Sam was incapable of rhetorical rough-housing? I take it back.

Holy Sh*t that was a zinger.

Atticus, did you use to write Batman comics?


BicycleRepairMan

Killing people for their thoughts alone is not a recipe for anything except bloody disaster.

Again with the out-of-context'ing , Sam is ver clear in TEOF on this, talking about specific what-if scenarios, where unreasonable-ness is completely out of control. Take the man who slaughtered Theo Van Gogh in broad daylight in Amsterdam, then stabbed a knife through his ribcase passing a note on the way saying "Ayaan Hirsi Ali"

Imagine if he and a group of likeminded individuals where to come across a nuclear weapon.

Thoughtcrime my ass. That requires thinking. And the last time I read "1984" ,compulsory Doublethink is not thinking, its the opposite.

Pardon?

383. The truth in religion

Comment #84922 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 8:04 am

epeeist,

Aha.

384. The truth in religion

Comment #84908 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 6:50 am

epeeist,
What's bellicose (or even pseudo-bellicose) about thinking that 'Zen and the Art of Archery' is thought-provoking? Are there some people on this site who don't like (or pseudo-don't like) Zen?

Both "Narziss and Goldmund" is Christianity with an Apollonic/Dionysian viewpoint.

Does this mean that both characters in the novel is Christianity or that both books, "Narziss" and "Goldmund" is?

385. The truth in religion

Comment #84888 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 3:48 am

Steve99

Then I stand corrected. I must be thinking of some other geezer. Mohammed, perhaps?

386. The truth in religion

Comment #84884 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 3:00 am

Steve99,

I'm not well up on this but didn't Jesus pre-date Buddha by about 600 years? If that is the case, then of course, he really must be the Messiah. QED!

387. Jesus Rides the Number 7 Train

Comment #84878 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 2:28 am

Kurtdenke,

No, I don't think you're dim. I can't make out why the writer used the word 'penultimate' either and suspect he doesn't understand it.

388. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #84867 by keith on November 4, 2007 at 1:18 am

I am re-posting a question I posted earlier on this thread because I've been thinking some more about it:

If I got so sick and tired of the stupidity spewed forth in the TV program Songs of Praise one Sunday that I went out to the nearest church and punched the vicar squarely in the face, would this not be a crime caused by my atheist views?

Now, since no one answered my question I started imagining for myself what an answer might look like. Perhaps something along the following lines:

'No, there's nothing intrinsic to the atheist viewpoint that would inevitably lead to Stalin killing millions of his fellow countrymen, nor to you punching a vicar in the face. In the latter case, this would just be caused by simple exasperation at the vicar having a different point of view to you and you thinking, "Why can't the old fool see that he's wrong and I'm right?". It could have been a disagreement about anything; football or literature, or flower arranging, but there's nothing intrinsically in any of these subjects that inevitably leads to violence. You were just intolerant, nothing more complicated than that. Basta'.

This sounded reasonable enough to me, after all, it was me who dreamt it up. Then I wondered if believers could use the argument in the same way. Could they claim that there's nothing intrinsic to the religious outlook that would inevitably lead one to do violence to another person? The more I thought about it, the more I felt they could use this argument. After all, most religious people manage not to be violent to others so there can't be anything intrinsically in their religion that inevitably leads them to violence.

One objection to this could be that there are passages in the Koran and the Bible that seem to sanction violence. If we atheists had a sacred book, there would certainly be no passages resembling anything like these. However, I'm not convinced that it is these passages that cause some religious people to commit acts of violence. After all, I suspect that even Muslim suicide bombers are convinced that theirs is a 'religion of peace' and might try to downplay these passages (here I may be very very wrong). Much more of a cause for religious violence, it seems to me, is simply that we refuse to see things their way and this annoys them to a murderous degree! This emotion is far closer to my punching the vicar (really really hard in the face...twice) and has little to do with how the Koran or bible should be interpreted. Whether or not a believer reads his holy book literally becomes just a side issue though there could well be some overlap between religious fervour and literal readings of sacred texts.

It seemed to me that whether or not you did violence to another person depended much less on the actual content of your beliefs than on the degree to which convincing them of your being right and them wrong mattered to you. I wondered if the causes of religious violence lay less in certain justifying passages in religious texts that were being taken literally by some, than the extent to which it mattered to these same people that convincing others of their 'truth' was of such importance that it became a matter of life and death. Is it possible that almost any set of beliefs, if held strongly enough, could lead to violence? Think of pro-life activists killing abortion clinic doctors. And would some fervent 'pro-Iraq' peace marcher have killed George Bush back in 2003 if he had had the chance?

The only reason this could be relevant to this thread is that it occurred to me that concentrating exclusely on the actual beliefs of atheists rather than the fervour with which these beliefs are held might be a bit of a red herring. As soon as it really matters to you that others conform to your beliefs (maybe the Chinese' oppression of religious groups is a case in point), then perhaps any strongly held belief, atheism included, can lead to violence. Even so, although it can be a reason for violence, I don't believe that atheism meant very much to either Stalin or Pol Pot or any of the other usual suspects, or that it represented even a small motivation for their crimes. If their power had depended on it I'm sure they would have converted at the drop of a hat to any religion you might care to name and then forced the rest of their countrymen to follow suit.

I can't work out if this whole comment was quite profound or just too banal to have been worth mentioning...or somewhere between the two.

However, if it really is rubbish (and I'm really afraid that it might be), could someone answer my question about how my punching the poor old vicar is not an atheist crime? And if atheism is not a belief system but simply a lack of beliefs, once again, why did I punch him?

389. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84845 by keith on November 3, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Will Young,

Going by what you said about "petty, seemingly pointless lives" he would have no grasp on "the rest of humanity". From the article he sounded like a snooty elitist and your statement confirmed this for me.

Thinking religion offers a useful door to something larger and more meaningful in some people's lives is a sure way of keeping those people ignorant. From personal experience, from within my own family, that is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination. Only someone without an understanding of this could believe otherwise.

It's possible that you really did understand me (and Dalrymple) correctly but because I'm not 100% sure I just want to expand a little.

Dalrymple's view is that all lives seem petty and pointless if you only concentrate on yourself. This goes for both atheist and believer alike.

A Christmas Carol by Dickens is an illustration of this. As long as Scrooge only has his own interests at heart he is basically unhappy and fearful of death. As soon as his interests encompass something larger than himself, in this case a particular concern for Bob Cratchett's family and then, by extension, an interest in the community in general, he becomes happier and less fearful.

Now, all of us connect to a larger world than ourselves, often through an interest in our families and friends. Intellectual types can connect to an even larger world through intellectual pursuits, which often give them some internalised view of the sweep of history (and pre-history) and the real size of our world and it's place in the universe. Less intellectual types find this all rather dull but can connect to the larger world in other ways. Dalrymple feels that one of these ways is through religion. Although it might be a delusional kind of short cut for the lazy-minded to gain some kind of perpective on their lives, a way out of a mean Scrooge-like existence, a relief from selfish thoughts and the pointlessness of it all, he would claim that it's still better than the feeling of pointlessness it replaces.

Now, like you I find a belief in gods stupid and it would be much better if these people would just grow up. Mostly I just find religion annoying. After all, I have to share the world with these people and I'd much rather have kindred spirits as my neighbours. However, I feel that some forms of religion are actually dangerous, so of course, I want to see these disappear from the Earth as soon as possible. Even so, I don't believe that the mildly religious really threaten me in any way, and if they do, only in such an indirect way that is almost impossible to quantify and is therefore not at the top of my hitlist for eradication. I find the selfishness and purposelessness of some people today much more of a threat to society and this, for me, really is worth fighting. I think this is how Dalrymple feels too.

Of course, it would be great if all of us felt there was already enough meaning in the world without trying to manufacture some more from dubious sources. However, you can't order someone to feel 'meaning'. I think that for some people, religion can offer a fairly benign ersatz relief from a feeling of solitude in the world.

You suggest that Dalrymple is cynically elitist for encouraging the hoi polloi to cling to their ridiculous beliefs, thus keeping them forever ignorant. Ignorant of what, exactly? Please don't tell me that people, even people in your family, aren't aware of atheist' views. That they have chosen to believe in god is lamentable, but did they do so because they weren't aware of any other viewpoint?

Although Dalrymple may very well be elitist, I don't think this is what generates his belief that we should leave the religiously-minded in peace. In his work as a psychiatrist, working in both a hospital and a prison in a poor district of Birmingham, what he saw as the most depressingly common trait among the criminals in prison and patients suffering from depression in the hospital was a lack of interest in anything other than themselves, no sense of there being anything beyond the gratification of momentary whims. Often their depression was not of the type that is often referred to as 'clinical depression'. Dalrymple feels that this is an overused term. Most of his patients' depression was more a feeling of pointlessness that could have been overcome with a change of attitude and lifestyle. As it was, they were not interested in anything outside themselves but could not find any purpose within themselves either. As Bertrand Russell once commented, a person looking for meaning purely within, without any reference to the outside world is rather like a sausage-making machine taking a long, hard look at itself and trying to figure out what it's for without reference to meat.

The long and short of all this is that Dalrymple feels that religion gives some people meaning to their lives and if you take this away they might well start to resemble the people he used to treat in prisons and hospitals.

Some of us have found much more solid things that give our lives meaning but if someone feels that their existence only makes sense if there is a god, who are we to say otherwise? You and I might say we have every right to say so. Dalrymple disagrees. That's his prerrogative. However, it doesn't make him an elitist.

You say that events in your own family are a testament to the wrong-headedness of Dalrymple's views. Without prying too much, could you tell me why? I'd actually be more than happy to learn that Dalrymple is wrong wrong wrong.

390. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #84837 by keith on November 3, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Dialector,

Given that the forces of darkness have always enjoyed a sufficiency of brilliant apologists like Bertrand Russell, Steven J. Gould, Carl Sagan and Gore Vidal,"

I am always dissapointed to hear the forces of rationality and humanistic enlightenment being portrayed as the "forces of darkness"

I know you know that the author had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he wrote this. He was, of course, describing atheists in the way that believers tend to see us. The fact that he clearly doesn't subscribe to this view had some comedic effect. Now, I know you know all of this. So, this being the case, why the complaint? There's nothing to be 'disappointed' about at all. No one is going to be persuaded by this comment that we really do represent the forces of darkness, not even at the deepest subconscious level. Please, lighten up a little and be pleased that out side has a sense of humour while theirs doesn't.

391. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #84835 by keith on November 3, 2007 at 9:32 pm

A genuine question: Could someone explain to me what a non-rational force is? For example, is gravity rational or non-rational?
Thanks in advance,
Keith

392. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #84697 by keith on November 3, 2007 at 8:16 am

Very good article. Nice to hear what someone who doesn't already belong to the Hitchens fanclub thinks of him. I thought the writer picked up on some easily overlooked but telling moments in the debate.

393. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #84693 by keith on November 3, 2007 at 8:00 am

Loren Michael,
Sorry, I pretty much repeated your posts. I only saw them after I posted.
By the way, is that you on your avatar? You look like a very pleasant chap.

394. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #84690 by keith on November 3, 2007 at 7:52 am

Atheists believe in everything 'normal' people believe in, minus gods. Actually, the name is a bit of a give-away. Why the confusion among believers? It does exactly what it says on the tin.

My only confusion is with the wording of the topic under discussion:

"If you don't believe in God, you must not believe in anything".

As it stands, this is an order not to believe in anything. The opposite of 'you must believe in something' when talking about logical deduction is 'you can't believe in anything', not 'you must not'. This, surely, is the sense in which it is meant.

395. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84684 by keith on November 3, 2007 at 7:28 am

Good post Roger.

396. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #84625 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Dear Eric,

Who is the audience? What are their assumptions? Are you trying to change their assumptions or reinforce them? How do you know if you've done it?

I enjoy your comments but when you start them, you could tell us if you're referring to something someone said or whether they are just extensions of ideas that started in your head 20 minutes previously.

I imagine that the first comment was referring to the implied assumption in the thread topic that a good argument is valid in all situations. Is that right? If so, and if you're right that unless you know who you're arguing with you can't know where your argument is going, then the same would apply to any book you care to mention. Therefore, a book written for an atheist audience would be incoherent to a religious audience since they wouldn't be able to decipher what the writer was saying. Thus no believer (or atheist, depending on who you think it was written for) could begin to understand The God Delusion? In your opinion, which audience was this book specifically written for and which groups are excluded from understanding it? Or maybe arguments are different to books? But since there are any number of possible people to debate and we can never know in which direction any particular argument will develop, does this mean that we can never rehearse any arguments? You always have to know who you're opponent is and why your having the argument before even thinking the problem through (albeit out loud and on a website)?

Perhaps by starting your comment in mid-thought you were graphically showing us just how necessary the context is to a thought? Nice trick.

Forgive me for asking, but what happens when you win the debate?

I had the same problem with this post. I'm guessing that this was motivated by the implied assumption in the thread topic that one side can actually win an argument or were you responding to something someone wrote? Either way, I believe you can win an argument without there being some kind of formal acknowledgement of the fact by your opponent. It's not like a war where one side has to officially capitulate. It doesn't have to be a knock-down victory. Just a slow erosion of their certainties is fine. Even just having the satisfaction of arguing well can sometimes be enough. There is pleasure to be had in simply expressing your thoughts. If you're after all or nothing results then, of course, you'll find most arguments pointless.

397. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84602 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 6:52 pm

35bluejacket,

...the true nature and purpose of man is "to seek meaning". This is our evolution. Grab a telescope, microscope, emerse ones self in the math of Newton, Godel or any of the greats. Stand in awe of the cosmos, atomic world, biology, etc. Swim in the fountain of knowledge that will flow through every door we open and will never cease to quench the desire of our hearts and its longing. No human imagination can hold a candle to the glorious mysteries of the universe. And through our efforts we will drag, as always, reluctant civilizatin with us.

Does this sound too religious?

No, not too religious. In fact, I can almost hear Carl Sagan's sonorous voice intoning the words, heavy with significance, as the dramatic crescendo to a 164-part series made for American TV about man's place in the cosmos. Grand stuff. The only bit I felt that was missing was something akin to Darwin's moan about the time he got his clothes caught in an entangled bank. You could also, perhaps, have finished the whole thing off with a sentence about boldly going where no man has gone before.

Incidentally, I enjoyed the joke about emersing oneself in Godel. Personally, I'm still working my way through, 'Have Fun with Long Division!' by Eric Blackmore (pub. Longman Press, 1983) and that evergreen classic, 'Trigonometry for Schoolgirls, vol 1' by Edward Parker-Smythe (4th Edition; pub. Oxford Press 1954).

398. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84601 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Damien White,

"...and challenge God to strike him dead in 60 seconds. God bided his time, but got Bradlaugh in the end..."

So what? Wasn't the challenge to strike him dead IN 60 SECONDS?

If this drivel is to be believed, I can prove i'm a god right now by pointing at someone and saying: "You will die at an unspecified time in the future."

This, I think, was a joke. The man's an atheist. Atheists don't believe that there is a god to strike people down.

399. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84600 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Will Young,

Sorry Will, but I didn't understand this sentence:

So he is functionally illiterate concerning what it is like to be part of the "rest of humanity"

Does 'funcionally illiterate' mean he doesn't understand the rest of humanity? If so, why doesn't he?

400. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84533 by keith on November 2, 2007 at 9:32 am

In my opinion Theodore Dalrymple is usually an excellent writer, both in style and in his thinking. He is, of course, on Sam Harris's recommended reading list (I have been wondering if Sam will strike him off it in a fit of pique. To do so would be childish, but not to do so would be like saying you adored someone who despised you; this is possible of course, though perhaps it's not a normal human reaction. Still, Sam's a Buddhist of sorts so I'm sure he'll have some trick up his sleeve, something along the lines of different definitions of the self e.g. the self that wrote The End of Faith was not the self who was insulted in the review etc.).

From the comments now raging on another thread I suspect that most members of this site would not be impressed by Dalrymple's analysis of where the current evils of British society come from. Though he puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of progressive left-wing intellectuals, he also sees the people at the bottom of society as being better able to direct their fate than they presently do. Once they are stripped of the fiction that they are simply helpless victims whose fate is as inevitable as the weather, they might start to see themselves as active agents and begin to gain some control over their lives. Of course, to do this they would need some help. But they would also have to want to help themselves.

Dalrymple is critical of the welfare state and sees this as having contributed to the breakdown of traditional social relations and creating a section of self-perceived passive victims in society. The fact that Sam has recommended Dalrymple's book, Life at the Bottom, suggests to me that he subscribes to many of Dalrymple's views. If not, why would he recommend the book? I can almost hear the comments on this site if that turns out to be really the case:

"Though Sam Harris is an astute commentator on religion I think it's time he got his act together on social issues. How can he be so callous as to not give a damn about the poor? I really don't think he can trusted on anything if he thinks in such a right-wing way" etc. etc.

I personally think 'Life at the Bottom' is a wonderful book and simply because Dalrymple writes for a right-wing journal shouldn't disqualify his views from serious consideration. For me this is obvious, but I've noticed here that labelling someone as right-wing is seen as both an insult and a winning argument rolled into one.

While on the topic of labels being a way of circumventing an argument, I think Sam was right in dividing his reasons for wanting to lose the badge of atheism into philosophical reasons and strategic reasons. I feel he was completely right on the former and partially right on the latter. However, in my view he wasn't right enough on the strategic part to warrant exchanging the strength we now feel in our new-found solidarity for a more refined way of infiltrating the defences of the faithful. I feel a sledge-hammer approach rather than the odourless knock-out gas approach is what's needed, at least at the moment.

Back to Dalrymple. He reviewed The God Delusion about a year ago and BaronOchs is absolutely right in his analysis of what is on Dalrymple's mind when he attacks the New Atheists: he sees the fabric of society unravelling and anything that might keep it together, as he believes moderate religion can do and has done, is worth preserving. He adheres to Dan Dennett's car bumper sticker advice regarding how to achieve happiness, namely, to dedicate your life to something bigger and more important than yourself. Religion is obviously one way of doing this with the added bonus of keeping unbribled selfishness and nihilism from the door.

I think Dalrymple feels that although the intellectually inclined can have larger-than-self interests like reading the classics or developing an appreciation of art, for the rest of humanity religion offers a useful door onto something outside their own petty, seemingly pointless lives.

I have to say that when I look at the problems that English society has right now, I actually don't believe that getting rid of the C of E is our main priority, at least in the short term, though getting rid of Islam possibly is. Once again I think Sam is right to point out that we are being dishonest when we try to be even-handed in our criticisms of religion. Moderate Christianity isn't really a danger any more and to tar it with the same brush as Islam is facile. I think it is the former kind of religion that Dalrymple is trying to defend - from us.

Having said all that, I found his review of The God Delusion really lame and this latest review is even worse. I couldn't believe that someone who could write with such insight about other subjects could write so sloppily and tendentiously about the so-called New Atheists. Just the fact that he wants to corner the market in transcendental moments for the faithful is a big fat cheek. Though I must confess to never having had a proper one myself (this is tantamount to confessing to being a 30-year-old male virgin at the rugby club), others here appear to have them on a regular basis, assuming that 'awe' counts as something transcendental. However, I did, one night several years ago, suddenly feel strangely at home in the universe as I sat on a hard wooden bench, gazing up at the night sky while my friend went off to get us both another 'Krug' from the beer tent at the Oktoberfest in Munich.