shuggy's blog
Sadly when compared to some the argumets forwarded by religious scholars Dawkins is hardly ridiculous.
It is important to fall one side or the other when two thirds of the world belongs to an archaic reacionary method of political control.
Might tune in to this.
By the by: Jeremy Vine on his Radio 2 show spent half his interview with Dawkins attacking him for the name of the programme: "Religion: The root of all evil"
IT was gently pointed out to Jeremy Vine by a phone call from Channel 4 during the show that in fact it was called "Religion: the root of all evil?"
Made him sound like a silly wee prat.
You make some good points. I’m not sure that the competition between entertainments and Christianity was quite that straightforward, however. Don’t forget Tertullian’s notorious De spectaculis, in which he appeals for Christians not to attend pagan festivities and promises that the damnation of the souls will be much more entertaining:
‘I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the play-actors, much more “dissolute” in the dissolving flame; of looking upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows … ’
I can almost imagine a modern version of this: go to church rather than watching the box, because then eventually you’ll get to gloat while watching ‘I’m a celebrity, get me out of Hell!’
Can that entertainment argument be right - they banned public execution, didn't they?
And another thing: isn't the silly wee bugger overlooking the fact that doing a theology degree is one of the best attested innoculations against religous belief?
I still look back with a wry smile at my own gullibility in swallowing Dawkins' books whole. In mitigation, I can plead that he an extremely clever and persuasive writer, whilst admitting that that is no excuse for me not exercising my critical faculties. However, like Ms. Bunting, it was Dawkins' appearances on TV and his occasional rant-pieces in the prints that first rang warning bells in my head. The whole Darwinian theme seemed to have been not-so-subtly altered by Dawkins (and his supporters) into a mainly anti-Theist campaign. Like the 19th century bishops he (and they) loved to pillary, he (and they) brooked no dissent, even fellow biologists and Darwinists were to be crushed if they failed to follow the Truth - as seen by Prof. Dawkins and his friends!
I am a profound agnostic in acknowledging the impossibility (so far) of proving the existence or otherwise of God and I find Dawkins' spiteful intemperance on the subject both tedious and silly. Happily, my dis-satisfaction with Dawkins' behaviour has led me to investigate various critics of Darwin's theory which has been an enjoyable education.
Anyway, how can one take seriously a man who claims to be puzzled as to why women are upset if their children are taken for adoption on the Darwinian grounds that it leaves them free to produce even more children with the cost and time saved by no longer caring for the first? The man's obviously bonkers!
Interesting that you, like me, describe yourself as agnostic, David; it seems to be a comparatively unusual position to take on these spaces.
I read his Selfish Gene: I didn't know what to make of it scientifically, because I don't know enough about biology but when he ventured into the realm of social ethics and religion, it became clear that he was over-reaching himself somewhat.
My main beef with Dawkins (his supercilious attitude being only a minor irritation) is that he simply doesn't understand the strange and subtle phenomenon that is religious belief at all. His key complaint against religion is that it makes a virtue out of faith: this is for him the act of believing in something for which there is no empirical evidence; this is for me unbearably simple-minded.
Being agnostic doesn't mean anything though! Even the most fervently religious people would could easily describe themselves as agnostics by default.
At best it simply means you're doubtful and non-commital, pretty depressing and cynical when there is so much at stake. Logic and rationalism is under heavy attack from a plethora of shite.
Even the most fervently religious people would could easily describe themselves as agnostics by default.
WTF? 'Agnostic' in this context literally means you don't know on the question of god's existence; can't say I've been aware of many religious believers, 'feverent' or even lukewarm, who were similarly undecided about the issue.
At best it simply means you're doubtful and non-commital, pretty depressing and cynical when there is so much at stake. Logic and rationalism is under heavy attack from a plethora of shite.
You're right to descibe me as doubtful; mine is the politics of scepticism. I have no idea whether god exists or not but I do know that history teaches us that civil society and human liberty has prospered wherever religious devotion has been divorced from political economy. On this I am unequivocal and certain in my support - and I think you'll find that a number of atheists and religious believers of various stripes would agree with me, no doubt for reasons of their own; that's the point so many in this debate just don't seem to get.
I am an agnostic because I think that Popper's point is valid (I paraphrase): The propositions that 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' are simply not scientific propositions because they are incapable of falsification. One of them is completely true and the other is completely false, but we have no means of knowing which is which. Belief in *either* is a matter of *faith* - a point I love to put to athiests!
I am neither depressed or cynical, James. Organised religion, like any human construction can be good, bad or downright ugly depending on the circs. The teachings of Jesus, apart form his belief in God, seem to me to be a reasonable set of precepts upon which to base one's private life - but I must add hurriedly that they have no place in the conduct of international affairs.
Nor do they have any place in scientific affairs - so far. However, scientists should not get too cocky. There are still some huge unanswered questions to which science - so far - has no answers. The good scientists know this and are humbled by it and are indeed "doubtful" in the exact meaning of that word. Darwin, who would have detested Dawkins, was one of them.
I call myself an atheist because the various cases I've heard put for the existence of a God are all utterly unconvincing: no evidence worth a hoot. Moreover, they seem to trail twaddle in their wakes: infallible Popes, indeed; witch trials; prancing around idols, graven or ungraven; hugging trees - awa' to Freuchie!
WTF? 'Agnostic' in this context literally means you don't know on the question of god's existence; can't say I've been aware of many religious believers, 'feverent' or even lukewarm, who were similarly undecided about the issue.
With respect that is beautifully naive. All the religious devotees I know and love are the most sheepishly agnostic but do their whole religion to the t. Of all of those on thon fence, they have the sorest sorriest arses.
To the point: Perhaps unlike you I think that even 'lukewarm' belief is an aggressively extremist position. Therein lies our difference, so fair doos.
It is a little unfair to describe Dawkins as pontificating on a subject in reverse proportion to his knowledge. By definition God is a subject on which everybody has zero knowledge, which doesn't stop the Pontif pontificating. If we knew anything about God it wouldn't be Faith.
My guess is that if anybody does find out anything about Himself it will be a scientist, like Dawkins not a pontif.
By definition God is a subject on which everybody has zero knowledge, which doesn't stop the Pontif pontificating.
It's his pontificating about faith, about what it is to be religious, that I have the problem with. It's this he doesn't really get. I'll wait for the programme tonight but I'll offer the prediction that he will as usual treat relgious faith as if it were purely a matter of giving one's intellectual assent to a number of doctrines.
With respect that is beautifully naive.
It is? All I can say is that our experiences of religious believers must have been rather different. Depends who you talk to, I suppose. I can honestly say I haven't met any who would describe themselves, or would be described by others, as agnostic - with the possible exception to the befuddled Church of Scotland minister who was chaplain when I was at school.
Dawkins has all the fire of a Grand Inquisitor, doesn't he? He's great fun, but it's not really worth the energy. The best thing about him is his complete philosophical contradiction - on the one hand, he's an extreme materialist, preaching that physical laws are all that exist; on the other hand, he's a pious ranter who sees fit to shout about the rights and wrongs of all manner of social questions. As a consistent materalist, he should accept that religion is a fairly normal part of the human condition and has proven to have (in moderation) extreme evolutionary advances.
Incidentally Shuggy, I think you close the question of Communism's atrocities vis-a-vis those of religious tyrannies far too quickly. Except for a very few freakish episodes, Christianity is a moderated religion that sees all humans as potential followers. Communism is much closer to a gnostic sect, which polarises humans into the good (the Party, the working classes) and the evil (the aristocracy, the kulaks, the Church).. Lacking a consistent (any!) doctrine of the soul, the evil are beyond redemption except through punishment or death.
(Also, although agnostic is the wrong term, many believers - myself included - do so in a very sceptical and economic way.)
Some late comments which may just repeat what others have said....
Careful not to confuse religion with spiritual experience. Religions choose to concern themselves with empirical markers (display, behaviours, responses,'outward show') and as such, of course, should be subject to the critiques and limitations of ANY other social expression or movement. But to judge spiritual experience simply in these terms is simply to repond to fundamentalists, of all beliefs/non,on their terms alone. And much of the powerful beauty of life may be diminished, unexplored and unexpressed as a result. And.. when that happens, humans don't get to fulfil themselves fully as humans, and when THAT happens....well, that's just the empty horror of the unexamined life, innit? Further, to take a linear sledge hammer like Popper's falsification theory (a theory to define SCIENCE, remember, not religion) to religious truth claims never really works, does it? One reason? Maybe it's 'cos we're struggling to find words and means to talk about non-empirical experiences: non-empirical experiences which, by the way, are not simply anthitical to rational discussion. See more than 2000 years of Hellenic, Arabic and Judaic philosophy. Down with linear fundamentalism of all hues, I say. 'There is a miserable servitude of the spirit in this habit of taking signs for things'.
Hello? That last comment there was mine!! How did it get attributed to you, Shuggy? Anyway, for the record, here's my spake...
Some late comments which may just repeat what others have said....
Careful not to confuse religion with spiritual experience. Religions choose to concern themselves with empirical markers (display, behaviours, responses,'outward show') and as such, of course, should be subject to the critiques and limitations of ANY other social expression or movement. But to judge spiritual experience simply in these terms is simply to repond to fundamentalists, of all beliefs/non,on their terms alone. And much of the powerful beauty of life may be diminished, unexplored and unexpressed as a result. And.. when that happens, humans don't get to fulfil themselves fully as humans, and when THAT happens....well, that's just the empty horror of the unexamined life, innit? Further, to take a linear sledge hammer like Popper's falsification theory (a theory to define SCIENCE, remember, not religion) to religious truth claims never really works, does it? One reason? Maybe it's 'cos we're struggling to find words and means to talk about non-empirical experiences: non-empirical experiences which, by the way, are not simply anthitical to rational discussion. See more than 2000 years of Hellenic, Arabic and Judaic philosophy. Down with linear fundamentalism of all hues, I say. 'There is a miserable servitude of the spirit in this habit of taking signs for things'.
Re: Popper's theory. Surely the burden of proof is on the religious to prove god's existence, not on atheists to prove his non-existence. I could make any number of nonsensical claims here and now, and we'd both be equally right because you couldn't prove that I was talking rubbish, despite everything pointing to it? I don't think the phenomenon of religion is always evil (it is quite a lot, though) but I can't be convinced that God exists just because I can't point to where he isn't.
Planes don't fly, ships don't sail and cars don't move because of faith, but because of the application of science. If imbeciles like the US evangelical interviewed by Dawkins gain power all that will happen will be economic decline. Maybe that doesn't matter to them of course - they will all be caught up in the Rapture...
How did it get attributed to you, Shuggy?
Erm, dunno - it wasnae me...
Maybe it's 'cos we're struggling to find words and means to talk about non-empirical experiences: non-empirical experiences which, by the way, are not simply anthitical to rational discussion.
But I think that's a good point. I think one of my problems with Dawkins is that sometimes his problem is he can be as literally-minded as the fundamentalists he criticises.
Popper's theory. Surely the burden of proof is on the religious to prove god's existence, not on atheists to prove his non-existence.
Popper's theory was about establishing the criterion of falsification in principle, rather than the search for evidence but in general I'd agree; just because one can't disprove the existence of UFOs, one shouldn't feel obliged to accept the little green men theory. I'm thinking people have taken me to be more sympathetic to religion than I actually am.
You assert that more deaths in communist countries were because "the 'atheist regimes' in question had the technology"
In Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and the Congo, millions were hacked to death by machetes. Technology is hardly a prerequisite for mass killing.
Re Popper's theory - is falsification falsifiable? Now there's a potential logical paradox - i.e., in order for you to falsify falsification, you're proving the principle as you're disproving it - wa-hey! In general, this is the problem with attempting scientific discussion of metaphysical questions - we see through everything and end up seeing nothing.
Technology is hardly a prerequisite for mass killing.
Of course it isn't but it makes it a whole lot easier - witness the body-count of the 20th century and tell me this had nothing to do with technology.
More to do with imperialism and fascism.
Technology should be made mankind's ally in defeating those two.
More to do with imperialism and fascism.
Technology should be made mankind's ally in defeating those two.
Yeah, cool. Let's kill as many imperialists and fascists as we can find.
Commenting by HaloScan
