Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
God is not the enemy of reason
by The Jewish Chronicle
Reposted from:
http://www.thejc.com/articles/god-not-enemy-reason
Melanie Phillips
October 17, 2008
It is an article of faith (except, of course, among those who actually have a faith) that the dethronement of God by the apostles of secularism has ushered in an age of reason. Belief in the Almighty is now widely held to be a priori evidence of primitive stupidity.
In fact, we are living in a deeply irrational age, where millions are putting their faith in such mumbo-jumbo as astrology, parapsychology, paganism, witchcraft or conspiracies between sinister groups and extra-terrestrial forces. All of which goes to prove the truth of the old adage that when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything.
Nevertheless, the belief has taken hold that religious faith is inimical to reason, as defined and exemplified by the scientific mind. Such belief expresses itself in the near God-like status afforded to Professor Richard Dawkins - the Savonarola of atheism - on the basis of his aggressive contention that evolution accounts for the origin of life, and that anyone who believes the world had a creator and a purpose should be exiled altogether from intelligent discourse
Interestingly, over the past few months Dawkins has been meeting his match in a remarkable Oxford mathematics professor called John Lennox, who argues for the existence of a creator on the basis of science - and demonstrates that, on his own scientific terms, Dawkins's arguments fail the test of reason.
Next week, the two of them will slug it out in a debate freighted with historic resonance at Oxford's Natural History Museum - the very place where, in 1860, Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, tried to pour scorn on Darwin's Origin of Species, only to be savaged by "Darwin's bulldog" TH Huxley. I wouldn't put money on the same outcome this time.
The fact that secularism has taken on the characteristics of religious fanaticism, in espousing dogma inimical to human flourishing and punishing dissenters in order to slam the lid on debate, is explored in a timely monograph by Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, the influential American think-tank.
This institute is a front-line combatant in America's culture wars, in which it seeks to defend the values of western civilisation against the onslaught from those trying to destroy it. In his book, America's Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion, London argues that the rise of secularism has so hollowed out Western society that it has left it acutely vulnerable to the predations of radical Islam.
The decay of religion, he says, has given rise to moral relativism, which regards all beliefs and principles as being of equal value and truth as a relative concept. This has given rise to multiculturalism, which masquerades as the promotion of equal rights but is actually a disguised form of cultural and national self-loathing.
This in turn lies behind the idea that nations are illegitimate or passé, and that the world's problems can all be solved by everyone on the planet coming together to harness the power of reason to arrive at a solution. But, in robbing people of their national identity and capacity to believe in anything except the fiction that reason trumps all, this is an essentially irrational negation of self-interest.
No less irrational is the overreach of science which, as London writes, has been hijacked by secular fundamentalists who want to supplant religion by asserting that only in science can truths be found.
Such "scientism" - as this overreach is termed - goes beyond the ability of science to explain the nature of the world around us and claims to tell us how life began. Yet the assumption that science provides a complete theory of knowledge is itself fundamentally unscientific.
Science generates more questions than it can answer. The more science unravels the mysteries of the world for us, the more mysterious it becomes. And, as the many scientists who are also religious believers demonstrate, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science.
The dogma that science provides the answer to every question and so supplants religion has led to a junking of the moral codes deriving from Judaism and Christianity that underpin western society.
This loss of cultural nerve has created an unwitting collusion between secular zealots and the Islamists who have declared war upon western civilisation, and who believe - correctly - that a secular west will be unable to resist them.
Science, rationality and the pursuit of truth are intimately related to the religious traditions of the west. If those traditions are not defended from within against the threat from without, this will be how the west was lost.
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist
http://www.thejc.com/articles/god-not-enemy-reason
Melanie Phillips
October 17, 2008
It is an article of faith (except, of course, among those who actually have a faith) that the dethronement of God by the apostles of secularism has ushered in an age of reason. Belief in the Almighty is now widely held to be a priori evidence of primitive stupidity.
In fact, we are living in a deeply irrational age, where millions are putting their faith in such mumbo-jumbo as astrology, parapsychology, paganism, witchcraft or conspiracies between sinister groups and extra-terrestrial forces. All of which goes to prove the truth of the old adage that when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything.
Nevertheless, the belief has taken hold that religious faith is inimical to reason, as defined and exemplified by the scientific mind. Such belief expresses itself in the near God-like status afforded to Professor Richard Dawkins - the Savonarola of atheism - on the basis of his aggressive contention that evolution accounts for the origin of life, and that anyone who believes the world had a creator and a purpose should be exiled altogether from intelligent discourse
Interestingly, over the past few months Dawkins has been meeting his match in a remarkable Oxford mathematics professor called John Lennox, who argues for the existence of a creator on the basis of science - and demonstrates that, on his own scientific terms, Dawkins's arguments fail the test of reason.
Next week, the two of them will slug it out in a debate freighted with historic resonance at Oxford's Natural History Museum - the very place where, in 1860, Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, tried to pour scorn on Darwin's Origin of Species, only to be savaged by "Darwin's bulldog" TH Huxley. I wouldn't put money on the same outcome this time.
The fact that secularism has taken on the characteristics of religious fanaticism, in espousing dogma inimical to human flourishing and punishing dissenters in order to slam the lid on debate, is explored in a timely monograph by Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, the influential American think-tank.
This institute is a front-line combatant in America's culture wars, in which it seeks to defend the values of western civilisation against the onslaught from those trying to destroy it. In his book, America's Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion, London argues that the rise of secularism has so hollowed out Western society that it has left it acutely vulnerable to the predations of radical Islam.
The decay of religion, he says, has given rise to moral relativism, which regards all beliefs and principles as being of equal value and truth as a relative concept. This has given rise to multiculturalism, which masquerades as the promotion of equal rights but is actually a disguised form of cultural and national self-loathing.
This in turn lies behind the idea that nations are illegitimate or passé, and that the world's problems can all be solved by everyone on the planet coming together to harness the power of reason to arrive at a solution. But, in robbing people of their national identity and capacity to believe in anything except the fiction that reason trumps all, this is an essentially irrational negation of self-interest.
No less irrational is the overreach of science which, as London writes, has been hijacked by secular fundamentalists who want to supplant religion by asserting that only in science can truths be found.
Such "scientism" - as this overreach is termed - goes beyond the ability of science to explain the nature of the world around us and claims to tell us how life began. Yet the assumption that science provides a complete theory of knowledge is itself fundamentally unscientific.
Science generates more questions than it can answer. The more science unravels the mysteries of the world for us, the more mysterious it becomes. And, as the many scientists who are also religious believers demonstrate, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science.
The dogma that science provides the answer to every question and so supplants religion has led to a junking of the moral codes deriving from Judaism and Christianity that underpin western society.
This loss of cultural nerve has created an unwitting collusion between secular zealots and the Islamists who have declared war upon western civilisation, and who believe - correctly - that a secular west will be unable to resist them.
Science, rationality and the pursuit of truth are intimately related to the religious traditions of the west. If those traditions are not defended from within against the threat from without, this will be how the west was lost.
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist
Comments 1 - 50 of 77 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #266235 by Steve Zara on October 18, 2008 at 12:41 pm
There is little point challenging this nonsense in detail. But something does stand out:This loss of cultural nerve has created an unwitting collusion between secular zealots and the Islamists who have declared war upon western civilisation, and who believe - correctly - that a secular west will be unable to resist them.
This is clearly nonsense. The freedoms of Western societies seem to be producing change in Muslim communities. There are now quite visible Muslim groups which support gay rights, and female equality. An example of the latter:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3219537/Professor-becomes-first-female-to-lead-mixed-Islamic-congregation-in-Britain.html
Those who try and label Muslims as some unified and threating community just aren't dealing with reality.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
3. Comment #266236 by JHJEFFERY on October 18, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Not to waste words on this, or even use a good one:Stoopid
Other Comments by JHJEFFERY
4. Comment #266238 by Quetzalcoatl on October 18, 2008 at 12:46 pm
This article is a masterpiece. Never have I seen writing more riddled with ad-hominems, strawmen and downright dishonesty.
on the basis of his aggressive contention that evolution accounts for the origin of life, and that anyone who believes the world had a creator and a purpose should be exiled altogether from intelligent discourse
Dawkins has never said anything of the kind. Ironic that Philips is complaining about exclusion from intelligent discourse, given that her article so clearly fails to qualify as such.
London argues that the rise of secularism has so hollowed out Western society that it has left it acutely vulnerable to the predations of radical Islam.
Ah yes, the invocation of fear-based rhetoric. What Daily Mail article would be complete without it?
No less irrational is the overreach of science which, as London writes, has been hijacked by secular fundamentalists who want to supplant religion by asserting that only in science can truths be found.
Sheer rubbish.
Such "scientism" - as this overreach is termed
Termed by who?
The dogma that science provides the answer to every question and so supplants religion has led to a junking of the moral codes deriving from Judaism and Christianity that underpin western society.
Deriving from Judaism and Christianity, which in turn were ripped off from older cultures. And what junking of moral codes is this? The same one that cheap rags use to claim that we are living in "Broken Britain"? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This tripe is how newspapers are sold.
Science, rationality and the pursuit of truth are intimately related to the religious traditions of the west. If those traditions are not defended from within against the threat from without, this will be how the west was lost.
Right. Only Christianity can save us from the Islamic bogeyman. The pursuit of truth? It is precisely the truth that Philips is railing against in this article.
Total rubbish, all of it.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
5. Comment #266241 by Steve Zara on October 18, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Quetz- Phillips is also a global warming denier, and does not believe that certain vaccines is safe. She is a nut.Other Comments by Steve Zara
6. Comment #266242 by Quetzalcoatl on October 18, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Steve Zara-
Well, she does write for the Daily Mail.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
7. Comment #266246 by 8teist on October 18, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Science generates more questions than it can answer. The more science unravels the mysteries of the world for us, the more mysterious it becomes.
This appears to be more evidence that the religious are more concerned with comfort than the uncertainty of reality.
Prof Dawkins has met his match ? Lol
Other Comments by 8teist
8. Comment #266247 by Elles on October 18, 2008 at 1:04 pm
"Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist."'Nuff said.
Next!
Other Comments by Elles
9. Comment #266249 by phatbat on October 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm
So so wrong in so many ways. Other Comments by phatbat
10. Comment #266251 by JAMCAM87 on October 18, 2008 at 1:13 pm
"In fact, we are living in a deeply irrational age, where millions are putting their faith in such mumbo-jumbo as astrology, parapsychology, paganism, witchcraft or conspiracies between sinister groups and extra-terrestrial forces. All of which goes to prove the truth of the old adage that when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything."
What does that say about belief in God then? It's like that guy who said that belief in God is being replaced by worship of X-factor and such-like. Does this mean that belief in God is as shallow and superficial as a pop contest?
In my opinion this provides (very weak and speculative) evidence that memes can occupy loci in the brain. One gap gets replaced by another.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
11. Comment #266256 by AllanW on October 18, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Melanie Phillips has been seen for a long while now as a sad, deluded ignoramus for spouting views like those in this article. As others have rightly pointed out she is not only a fearful, bigotted religiot but also one of the main-stays of the anti-MMR campaign that continues to harm the health of Britain. Climate change denier, Islamophobe and Christian delusional, I think it telling that not even the Daily Mail would publish this thoughtless bile but am saddened that the Jewish Chronicle has sunk so low in its standards. Other Comments by AllanW
12. Comment #266259 by phatbat on October 18, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Professor Richard Dawkins - the Savonarola of atheism - on the basis of his aggressive contention that evolution accounts for the origin of life, and that anyone who believes the world had a creator and a purpose should be exiled altogether from intelligent discourse
No dear, RD doesn't contend that evolution accounts for origin of life, just the diversity of life. It's not people who think the world had a creator that should be exiled from intelligent discourse, just people like you who don't know the difference between evolution and abiogenisis.
John Lennox, who argues for the existence of a creator on the basis of science - and demonstrates that, on his own scientific terms, Dawkins's arguments fail the test of reason.
No he doesn't. John Lennox argues for a creator on the basis of "pointers" found in the bible, in the assigning of purpose to the natural world and that he cannot accept that evil people can die without recieving justice here on earth, there-for God.
I can't be bothered to even start with the rest of this nonsense. desperate, very desperate.
Other Comments by phatbat
13. Comment #266260 by 8teist on October 18, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Savonarola, isn`t that a type of mobile phone???? :0 Other Comments by 8teist
14. Comment #266261 by geru on October 18, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I just saved about 3 minutes of my life by stopping at the first sentence of the second paragraph.Sarcasm time: Wow, the "If people leave official religions they'll end up making all kinds of crazy religions of their own"-argument, never heard that one before.
Hmm, I finally resigned from church about 2-3 years ago, and I still haven't become a homeopath or founded a cult for Satan worshipping, guess I'm the exception that proves the rule then.
Other Comments by geru
15. Comment #266263 by MaxD on October 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Dummy says,
The dogma that science provides the answer to every question and so supplants religion has led to a junking of the moral codes deriving from Judaism and Christianity that underpin western society.
I must have missed the meeting where we "junked" the moral codes. When was that. I wonder if by "junked the moral codes" she means the first 4 commandments are not honored very sharply these days? Or is she lamenting that women found not to be virgins on their wedding night don't get stoned on their fathers doorstep as regularly?
Again I did miss this meeting where secularist "junked" them so clearly I missed something.
Other Comments by MaxD
16. Comment #266264 by decius on October 18, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Professor Richard Dawkins - the Savonarola of atheism -
Yeah right. Everybody knows that Dawkins is advocating the burning of degenerate christian books and art.
Dawkins has been meeting his match in a remarkable Oxford mathematics professor called John Lennox, who argues for the existence of a creator on the basis of science
Of course. Lennox's beliefs - which pile up medieval papal doctrine (such as the immaculate conception of the mother of Mary) onto a literal reading of the gospel - are deeply rooted in respectable sciences like Alchemy, Magic, Necromancy and Voodoo.
Other Comments by decius
17. Comment #266268 by Swordmaiden on October 18, 2008 at 2:00 pm
"God-like status afforded to Professor Richard Dawkins "Why didn't someone tell me? Now I'll have to stop believing in The Prof too! Dammit!
Other Comments by Swordmaiden
18. Comment #266270 by Diacanu on October 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm
decius-
Yeah right. Everybody knows that Dawkins is advocating the burning of degenerate christian books and art.
I think all this fear comes from guilt.
They assume once people start abandoning their cult in droves, some people will say to themselves "hey, your stupid cult fucked with my life, and ability to be happy!", which of course to their mind automatically leads to "rip off their faces!!!!!".
Cuz, y'know, that whole lack of faith in humanity thing religion has going on.
Hey, religiots, how about "not interested in your cult, please leave us alone"?
That one too hard to process?
No, it's always book burnings and persecution with you folks.
Other Comments by Diacanu
19. Comment #266274 by JAMCAM87 on October 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm
"God-like status awarded to Richard Dawkins"
"characteristics of religious fanaticism"
There is just no pleasing the religious. We "worship" Dawkins and have the "characteristics" of a religious group. We have all the things that they admire in themselves but it's just not good enough! When we are devoid of belief it's bad and when we worship the "holy text" of the Origin it's also bad. We can't win.
I just love the "your just as faithful and dogmatic as us" argument. It makes me laugh everytime.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
20. Comment #266275 by Bonzai on October 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm
This loss of cultural nerve has created an unwitting collusion between secular zealots and the Islamists who have declared war upon western civilisation, and who believe - correctly - that a secular west will be unable to resist them.
That's right. When secularists call for getting rid of faith schools, including Muslim faith schools which are some of the worst youth indoctrination camps, guess who protest the loudest? All faith heads eventually circle the wagon whenever they see the threat from atheism.
Other Comments by Bonzai
21. Comment #266278 by epeeist on October 18, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The Daily Mail - so toxic that irate_atheist won't let his cat use it to shit on. Other Comments by epeeist
22. Comment #266279 by Diacanu on October 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Swordmaiden-
"God-like status afforded to Professor Richard Dawkins "
Why didn't someone tell me? Now I'll have to stop believing in The Prof too! Dammit!
No, so long as we don't create rigid dogma about the nature of him, but have individual fluffy watered down "personal faiths", about his existence, we'll be fine.
My particular Richard Dawkins shoots rainbows out of his eyes, and the left rainbow makes skittles, and the right rainbow makes Lucky Charms marshmallows.
I don't need to prove this, because this particular Dawkins lives in my heart, not in scripture, and I simply KNOW him to be the true Dawkins.
Despite the latter assertion, whatever Dawkins makes you happy is totally cool.
Other Comments by Diacanu
23. Comment #266280 by NewEnglandBob on October 18, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Once again, time to FLUSH this article down the crapper to eliminate it's stench from humanity. Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
24. Comment #266281 by decius on October 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Comment #266270 by DiacanuI agree with your astute analysis.
Other Comments by decius
25. Comment #266288 by rod-the-farmer on October 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm
we are living in a deeply irrational age, where millions are putting their faith in such mumbo-jumbo as astrology, parapsychology, paganism, witchcraft or conspiracies between sinister groups and extra-terrestrial forces.
So only these beliefs are irrational, I suppose. Religions are rational ? Which ones ? Some/all/none ? Since they mostly contradict each other, some of them have to be irrational. The safe bet is to consider them all irrational, until any one of them can prove otherwise.
secularism has taken on the characteristics of religious fanaticism, in espousing dogma inimical to human flourishing and punishing dissenters in order to slam the lid on debate
I must have missed the memo on atheist dogma. Especially the part about it being inimical to "human flourishing". Boy. You snooze, you lose. That would be the most important part, too. Human flourishing. Wow. If anyone reading this has a copy of that, please send it to me. I thought I was already flourished enough. Maybe I could have been even more so. Humph.
ScienceReligion generates more questions than it can answer. The moresciencereligion claims to unravelsthe mysteries of the world for us, the more mysterious it becomes.
Until finally religion collapses in a death spiral of ridicule and inanity.
This (Hudson)institute is a front-line combatant in America's culture wars, in which it seeks to defend the values of western civilisation against the onslaught from those trying to destroy it.
And they would be ? Atheists ? Secularists ? Militant muslims ? Be specific.
In his book, America's Secular Challenge: The Rise of a New National Religion, London argues that the rise of secularism has so hollowed out Western society that it has left it acutely vulnerable to the predations of radical Islam.
So let me see if I can trace this out. We need more religion in the west, to battle against the religion of the middle east ? Hmm. Does that ring a bell with anyone else ?
What balderdash.
OK, that's it for me. I could have dissected each and every paragraph, but I can't be bothered any more.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
26. Comment #266294 by alan baylis on October 18, 2008 at 2:59 pm
This article is such mind numbing drivel from end to end, that it is hard to know where to start shredding it.Perhaps I could start by asking the readers of the Jewish Chronicle what it feels like, having your intelligence insulted like this?
Other Comments by alan baylis
27. Comment #266298 by gazzaofbath on October 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Absolute tripe.
But I do look forward to the day when a half decent critique of atheism or defence of theism is made by some believer. I'm not imagining that it would be likely to affect my atheist outlook but as a rationalist I relish the challange that a half decent argument would present to my intellectual facilities.
I just don't see anything approaching challenging, however, from any so-called theist intellectual.
Maybe we could think of a half decent argument ourselves! A bit like the silly undergraduate exercises I remember joining in trying to think of arguments that might persuade you the earth could be flat.
I think any argument posing a purely personal god, with a sort of 'god of gaps' aspect would be the toughest line though mainly 'cos it is a bit fuzzy, and therefore hard to pin down.
Other Comments by gazzaofbath
28. Comment #266303 by JAMCAM87 on October 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Comment #266298 by gazzaofbath
"Maybe we could think of a half decent argument ourselves! A bit like the silly undergraduate exercises I remember joining in trying to think of arguments that might persuade you the earth could be flat."
It just isn't worth posing an argument for the existence of God. But while we are at it, lets pose an argument for the existence of the greek gods as well. There are no skyhooks. There is no supernatural. End of.
What is a greatly more difficult question is how we should live our lives when there is no inherent purpose in the universe.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
29. Comment #266305 by j.mills on October 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Strawmen, distortions, misrepresentations, lies, caricatures, howlers and Melanie Phillips. It's a perfect parody, except that it's not a parody.And of course the usual failure to address at all whether any religion is true. Yet for some reason, Judaism and Christianity are "good" and Islam, paganism and witchcraft are "bad". Go figure.
Other Comments by j.mills
30. Comment #266307 by m-man on October 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm
"On the basis of his aggressive contention that evolution accounts for the origin of life"this really shows that they know so little about evolution
Other Comments by m-man
31. Comment #266312 by hawt4dawk on October 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I would like to alert you to a connection I noticed:The fact that secularism has taken on the characteristics of religious fanaticism, in espousing dogma inimical to human flourishing and punishing dissenters in order to slam the lid on debate, is explored in a timely monograph by Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, the influential American think-tank.
This is a little blinking red light some people might not notice as they dismiss this as "Daily Mail" drivel.
The Hudson Institute is actually a very right-wing think-tank. Here is what sourcewatch.org says:
While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left."
This guy Herbert London is a bit more respectable than someone like Melanie Phillips and he is the one behind her ideas here.
I think these ideas will be more than "flea" arguments and will continue to inform the backlash against books like The God Delusion, End of Faith, and God is Not Great.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/03/how-secularism-misses-the-mark/
It concerns me because this is more than mere "religiot" defensiveness. The more intense arguments and distortions/disinformation will come from the people who are fighting for political control of the USA and using the Christian right to do it. Heads up.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
32. Comment #266317 by amalthea on October 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm
well, I read the article, and now I feel like I felt when I saw 'Punch Drunk Love' at the cinema. I'll never get that time back.
Thanks Mel.
Is there anyone here who wouldn't change their position on ANYTHING if they were given the evidence to show their position was false?
Thought not.
So why do these idiots insist on forcing their bullshit on us? It's very tiring.
A
Other Comments by amalthea
33. Comment #266327 by Ed-words on October 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm
MY religious beliefs are rational.YOUR beliefs are "mumbo-jumbo".
( If religiholics became secular
paranormalists there'd be a lot less
violence in the world)
Other Comments by Ed-words
34. Comment #266334 by Mark Jones on October 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Comment #266312 by hawt4dawk
The fact that secularism has taken on the characteristics of religious fanaticism, in espousing dogma inimical to human flourishing and punishing dissenters in order to slam the lid on debate, is explored in a timely monograph by Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, the influential American think-tank.
I think that's a good point from h4d. This is a flagrant straw man about secularism; it's just about the *opposite* of what secularism is. But, in fact, as she admits, it is what the fervently religious like to do.
So... the faithful are now trying to suggest that secularists are punishing dissenters (anyone put a thumbscrew on a theist recently?) and slamming the lid on debate (ironically underneath a paragraph about RD debating!), so that they can *step up* their (long-standing) punishment of apostates/infidels and censoring of debate.
They are very nervous about losing their privileged 'above-criticism' status. Which, dog willing, they currently are.
Other Comments by Mark Jones
35. Comment #266338 by articulett on October 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Yep, I agree.God is not the enemy of reason.
Neither is Satan, Zeus, Santa or the Grinch.
MAGICAL THINKING is the enemy of reason. Unfortunately religions tend to be the biggest promoters and glorifiers of "magical thinking".
Other Comments by articulett
36. Comment #266339 by mmurray on October 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm
But I do look forward to the day when a half decent critique of atheism or defence of theism is made by some believer. I'm not imagining that it would be likely to affect my atheist outlook but as a rationalist I relish the challange that a half decent argument would present to my intellectual facilities.
When I first registered on this board about two years ago and started reading there was this constant claim from the theists that the new atheists were failing to understand the subtlety of the modern theological perspective on God. Like you I thought it would be interesting to hear what this was. But they never come and explain it. I think that either they don't have one or they don't want to share it with their congregation as it is so sophisticated it looks like atheism.
I've also wondered about how I would argue for god. I think I would go for the universality of belief in god amongst human cultures, get around the multitude of gods with some sort of argument that we are all seeing different aspects of the same thing etc. But all that gets you is some sort of deism and there is the problem of evil to be argued away and the big leap to the personal christian god to be made. It's a tough ask.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
37. Comment #266346 by Laurie Fraser on October 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I agree entirely, Michael. How I long for the killer theist argument. The thing that twerps like this woman don't get is that atheism is, for most of us anyway, an open-minded inquiry. Provide proof, in the form of validated scientific investigation, that God exists, and you've got me, and I daresay, just about everyone else on this board.Still waiting...
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
38. Comment #266349 by qomak on October 18, 2008 at 5:44 pm
He says God is not the enemy of reason and I agree; It's hard to be enemy of anything if you don't exist. Other Comments by qomak
39. Comment #266373 by Liveliest Crib on October 18, 2008 at 6:43 pm
This article is quite a find. Succinct and well-written, nearly every single sentence conveys a myth, misconception or lie.Other Comments by Liveliest Crib
40. Comment #266380 by iType on October 18, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Melanie trying to stir up the troops by burning some straw men. What a sorry article, it's sad that people digest this stuff.Other Comments by iType
41. Comment #266381 by Beachbum on October 18, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Great!
Belief in the Almighty is now widely held to be a priori evidence of primitive stupidity
I just found the another T-shirt slogan.
Thanks Melanie
Did some digging around on that London too...
I bet Melanie "McCarthyism" and London are great at parties.
Other Comments by Beachbum
42. Comment #266382 by alexmzk on October 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm
It is an article of faith (except, of course, among those who actually have a faith)
merely the first line is the sort of thing that one expects is an invitation for the writer's colleagues to start head popping and whooping "you go!".
Other Comments by alexmzk
43. Comment #266383 by Eshto on October 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm
He uses the word "multiculturalism" as if it's a terrible thing.Yikes. Very James Dobson-esque.
Other Comments by Eshto
44. Comment #266430 by beebhack on October 19, 2008 at 12:51 am
Phillips's views on religion are risible but, finally, predictable and harmless. However, she was among the journalists most responsible for spreading public fear of the MMR vaccine and must share responsibility for the damage done. A powerful public platform coupled with a refusal to engage in science can be toxic. Take a look at her outpourings on man-made climate change ('a scam', it seems) and evolution (which is -- yawn -- 'just a theory').Other Comments by beebhack
45. Comment #266432 by epeeist on October 19, 2008 at 1:05 am
Comment #266380 by iTypeMelanie trying to stir up the troops by burning some straw men.Yes, pity it couldn't have waited a few weeks longer before publication.
There are enough strawmen in it to provide guys (Fawkes) for most of the bonfires across the UK.
Other Comments by epeeist
46. Comment #266435 by mmurray on October 19, 2008 at 1:15 am
By the way the way he is a shehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Phillips
or you can use a gender neutral term like `twerp', `dill', `idiot' etc
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
47. Comment #266466 by Logicel on October 19, 2008 at 2:43 am
Though Phillips may not have chosen the title, no way will I waste my time reading an article titled thusly. Perhaps if it was titled, God belief is not the enemy of reason, I would at least browse its content. Also being familiar with the dipshitness of other Phillips' articles aided in my decision not to waste my time.
All of which goes to prove the truth of the old adage that when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything.
_______
Phillips, I am sure you have heard of the expression, People living in glass houses should not throw stones?
Because you religites already believe in anything.
Other Comments by Logicel
48. Comment #266469 by yesspam on October 19, 2008 at 2:53 am
<<That would be the moral code that says that homosexuality and blasphemy are punishable by death, would it?
Other Comments by yesspam
49. Comment #266479 by notsobad on October 19, 2008 at 3:31 am
In fact, we are living in a deeply irrational age, where millions are putting their faith in such mumbo-jumbo as astrology, parapsychology, paganism, witchcraft or conspiracies between sinister groups and extra-terrestrial forces. All of which goes to prove the truth of the old adage that when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything.
I bet only a minority of people believing in such things are atheists.
Other Comments by notsobad
50. Comment #266487 by Roger Stanyard on October 19, 2008 at 4:09 am
Some facts that people in here might find useful:
1. The Discovery Institute was initially part of the Hudson Institute.
2. Melanie Phillips seems to change her politics according to whoever is paying her. As one time she was a left wing jourbnalist on the Guardian.
3. The chief scientist has suggested that Phillips "campaign" against MMR has resulted in the deaths of between 50 and 100 children.
4. Phillips' response was to say that she was "only reporting". No apology has been made.
5. The family that ownes the Daily Mail supported Hitler and fascism for years in the 1930s.
6. Phillips is a Jewess.
7. The Daily Mail only changed its tune over fascism when Jewish busiensses started pulling the advertisements from the paper (the most notable was Joe Lyons).
8. Money seems to speak louder than integrity at the Daily Mail.
9. The foul mouthed editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, refuses to discuss in public the paper's or his, position on anything.
Not a pretty picture, is it?
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #266231 by Opti-mystic on October 18, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Other Comments by Opti-mystic