RedCelt69 wrote: Enjoy if you hadn't already discovered Tim Minchin's relatively recent gem.
macgamer wrote:Wow, inspired. I find it interesting that celebrities are now the providers of public's source of moral guidance. Steven Fry is a notable example, who comes across as secular atheist's Archbishop of Canterbury.
I recently finished reading a 'gem': 'Reason, Faith and Revolution' by Terry Eagleton:
That and learning some interesting facts about Richard Dawkins from a Professor who used to lecture at Oxford:
i) The majority of the content of his recent books are ghost written, but unacknowledged. This seems rather at odds with the public persona that he presents.
ii) In his earlier days he would invite female students to his home and take the tutorials in the bath; he had pictures taken of this and framed prints were in plain sight in his office. This is at striking odds with his role as 'high priest of atheism' that he presents.
macgamer wrote:Wow, inspired. I find it interesting that celebrities are now the providers of public's source of moral guidance. Steven Fry is a notable example, who comes across as secular atheist's Archbishop of Canterbury.
Haunted wrote:It's a sad reflection that it takes popular comedians to highlight even the most trivial of moral issues. Religion poisons everything (see Hitchslap 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRStkkGHXQA).
A gem of yet another courtiers reply. Eagleton is a strange one however in that he routinely leaps to the defense of theism without actually believing any of it. He is notoriously reluctant to ever state what he himself believes but throws off ideas of god as a meddler (i.e. someone who can answer prayers and perform miracles) as a 'caricature'. You'll of course be aware that the god of the catholics is such a meddler.
He says atheists should attack the best argument for theism rather than these caricatures (which strangely enough is also the sort of god that most believers believe in) yet he never offers any of these arguments. He just keeps making assertions about those horrible and impolite gnu atheists.
I could copy and paste alot of passages where he does this but it's easier to just link you to a comprehensive criticism of the whole book
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... lusion.php
How is it that someone who "used to" lecture at Oxford know about "recent books"? Unless his unemployment is also itself very recent there is not much room for overlap here.
The only one I do know that he wrote where he was not the sole author was The Ancestors Tale, where one of his students wrote great portions of the rather large book. He is of course profoundly thanked and his contribution recognised by Dawkins in the foreword.
Maybe if he had a theory of morality or was intent on making moral assertions about how the human race should behave there would be room to accuse him of hypocrisy.
Of course, despite your constant attempts to draw parallels with a lack of belief and your supernatural hierarchy, there is no such thing as a 'high [priest]' of nothingness (you also use inverted commas around high priest as if to imply it is somehow a stupid thing to have, perhaps you would like to draft a letter to Papa Ratzy elaborating this point further?). Such things are obvious to even most brain damaged of half wits who can grasp even the simplest [definition] of what atheism is. Don't let that stop however, you would seem to have precious little else to say other than to make (what you must think to be) hilarious and intelligent caricatures.
macgamer wrote:'Religion is poison'. Now didn't Mao say something along those lines during the cultural revolution:
If religion didn't poison Maoism what did?
Not that I'm a defender of circumcision, but isn't there an established link between circumcised males and a reduction in HIV infection? Although I presume that Hitchens was railing against the circumcision of infants.
What I thought was convincing was the critique of the Dawkins / Hitchens argumentation which gives no mention of the assumptions which the empirical sciences have to make and indeed need to make.
Indeed as Chair of the Public Understanding Science, Dawkins should speak more on the philosophy of science or get someone else to if he himself is incapable.
I think what Terry Eagleton perhaps was trying to address, if you can wade the excesses of his polemic, is that science and society needs to revisit epistemology questions: What is truth? How can we know it? What are the limits of our understanding using the current tools / approaches at our disposal?
Edward B. Aveling asked Charles Darwin for permission to dedicate a book 'The Students' Darwin' to him, which was rather polemical as regards religion. Darwin's letter of refusal read in part:
This from Darwin himself is, I think, sound advice for Dawkins and Hitchens.
This Professor spoke directly to researchers under Dawkins who did the scholarship for the recent titles and admitted to writing whole chapters.
Dawkins has called religion 'the root of all evil'. So to use the word 'evil' suggests that he has a personal framework of morality at least.
I wasn't suggesting that he has called himself high priest of atheism, but rather atheism of the Dawkins-Hitchens variety, has taken on a character of faith with dogma, that is statements of beliefs or principles which are unquestionably true.
[/quote][/quote]Those who question these are labelled, mad, bad or criminal, which is especially true of the environmentalists. The term 'climate-change denier' has a rather unsavoury tone to it. Not to say that I don't think there is a strong case for climate change that is.
jollytiddlywink wrote:Macgamer, got anything to say about Franco's explicitly religiously-inspired (and expressly catholic) fascist rule in Spain? Got anything to say about the participation of priests in the fighting, or about the explicit approval of the pope for what Franco was doing?
Or maybe you'd like to comment on the very awkward contrast this makes with Ratzinger's remarks about atheistic fascism... which themselves sit awkwardly coming from a former Hitler Youth member (willing or otherwise!).
Haunted wrote:If I was any more cynical I would suggest you are doing so deliberately.
There is also an established link that shows having no legs is a good preventative against developing athletes foot, your point being?
How is this a defence of theism? Atheism needs no assumptions, materialism certainly, but not atheism. Though the word 'assumption' implies as if these things are pulled out of nowhere or made up with no justification. Induction is the proper term and there would be no scientific method without it and if anyone wishes to criticise the scientific method and all it's achievements they are welcome to.
He's been retired for at least a year now, but no he didn't need a degree in philosophy to communicate scientific knowledge to the public. It would be difficult to over estimate the number of lay people who now understand the core of biology through reading his many best selling books on the topic.
Save it for the philosophers (Grayling and Dennett perhaps). Dawkins' position on the whole thing is there is not one shred of evidence for anything supernatural. Not one. After how many thousands of years of poking around, everything that we once thought was magic ALWAYS turned out to be NOT magic. If you wish to disagree with this then by all means share with the world your incontrovertible proof and we can finally have empirical proof of something supernatural. You would easily get a Nobel prize in physics for such a discovery. As it is, Dawkins is not mistaken in his position, but that doesn't seem to matter to his critics.
Darwin is not the emperor of biologists or atheists. Why the constant implication of some sort of power structure? Can you not imagine anything without one? Perhaps Darwin would have more to say were he to learn that over 150 years later most of the population still believe in magic to explain his field.
If you wish to paint a picture of a vile old man who cares only about fame and fortune you could try producing a little more than idle hear say.
The sentence you are responding to was about Schrödinger but ok, Dawkins has opinions and beliefs, your point?
What is this dogma? Who is the incontrovertible authority to which we must submit our lives and immortal souls. The definition of the word dogma demands certainty and infallibility. Such things I challenge you to find in their writings. Dawkins himself has made mentioned on numerous occasions his scale of belief on which he places himself at 6.5 i.e. NOT 100% CERTAIN.
If god wanted to be known she could do anything to make her presence known. How about transmit the secret to cold-fusion to all the countries of the Earth at the same time? How about resurrecting all the victims from 9/11? If god is omnipotent then such acts are entirely possible and if done would prove beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of powerful supernatural intelligence.
If Dawkins and Hitchens have a Dogma then it is one that champions changing your mind based on new evidence. Changing your mind and admitting you are wrong is something to be proud of (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2095). You'll find no such virtues among the faithful where even the very act of doubting is discouraged.
macgamer wrote:My knowledge of the Spanish Civil War is limited, and so will be my response.
I know of no involvement of Pius XII or his predecessor Pius XI in endorsing Franco and the things he did. I'm sure they probably condemned the Republicans who were murdering priests and religious. Given it was one side against the other, there may have been moderates fighting against the atheism of the leftists, but not too keen on the fascism of the right-wingers. Civil wars are bloody and convoluted, both sides were wrong for different ideological reasons and for the same senseless murder.
macgamer wrote:Your use of 'religion poisons everything' was designed to wind me up.
Again being I was being implicit. I was suggesting that, although I still have mine, the loss of the foreskin is not necessarily damaging, but may be beneficial.
The morality of circumcision of male infants is debatable
but children don't get a choice whether they want to be vaccinated and arguably it may be better done earlier than later.
The use of the term 'assumption' is perfectly legitimate, the term is used in logic and hence philosophy and mathematics both of which supported the development of the sciences. We assume that our senses provide a true picture and understanding of the world.
Well he held the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. Knowledge is one thing, understanding is quite another. People can have an understanding of a topic divorced from its fundamental foundations.
The aim of the Professorship is to communicate science to the public without, in doing so, losing those elements of scholarship which constitute the essence of true understanding.
In the words of Charles Simonyi:
The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all.
I think the key word is 'super' in 'supernatural'. God is so-to-speak above the empirical sciences, it is not something that the sciences can prove or disprove.
My, and other reasonable religious peoples' biggest problem with the likes of Dawkins is his insistence that faith and reason are mutually exclusive.
To hold the position of atheism is a reasonable and rational one,
but so too is it to hold a theistic position.
There is no empirical proof either way and either position can justified by reasoning.
I think it is implicit from Darwin's quotation that he prefers to illuminate men's minds and allow them to come to their own conclusions, allowing the evidence or truth to speak for itself.
I wish I had substantive evidence, but I have none. I suppose this is what it feels like to be a News of the World journalist on a bad day.
He has these ethical beliefs: do they have a framework? What are the influences? Has he applied the same rigour to the formation of these principles as his scientific work?
Well it is a pity that the public's understanding of scientific evidence and certainty, after Dawkins' tenure, is not a concept which has been grasped properly.
I think the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is quite telling.
John Chapter 20 verse 29 is useful here:
'Jesus said to him, "Is it because you have seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet have believed!"' If should God reveal Himself truly there would be no faith.
As for doubt amongst the 'faithful', the beatification of John Henry Newman is an example of a man who underwent great doubt in his life and trials of conscience (Read his 'Apologia' for examples). Blessed (Mother) Theresa of Calcutta is another example.
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests