Monday, November 2, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute

by Michael Ruse - guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse

As a professional philosopher my first question naturally is: "What or who is an atheist?" If you mean someone who absolutely and utterly does not believe there is any God or meaning then I doubt there are many in this group. Richard Dawkins denies being such a person. If you mean someone who agrees that logically there could be a god, but who doesn't think that the logical possibility is terribly likely, or at least not something that should keep us awake at night, then I guess a lot of us are atheists. But there is certainly a split, a schism, in our ranks. I am not whining (in fact I am rather proud) when I point out that a rather loud group of my fellow atheists, generally today known as the "new atheists", loathe and detest my thinking. Richard Dawkins has likened me to the pusillanimous appeaser at Munich, Neville Chamberlain. Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True, says (echoing Orwell) that only someone with pretensions to the intelligentsia could believe the silly things I believe. And energetic blogger PZ Myers refers to me as a "clueless gobshite" because I confessed to seeing why true believers might find the Kentucky Creationist Museum convincing. I will spare you what my fellow philosopher Dan Dennett has to say about me.

There are several reasons why we atheists are squabbling – I will speak only for myself but I doubt I am atypical. First, non-believer though I may be, I do not think (as do the new atheists) that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting. This claim is on a par with golden plates in upstate New York. The Quakers and the Evangelicals were inspired and driven by their religion to oppose slavery, and a good thing too. Of course there has been evil in the name of religion – the pope telling Africans not to use condoms in the face of Aids – but as often as not religion is not the only or even the primary force for evil. The troubles in Northern Ireland were surely about socio-economic issues also, and the young men who flew into the World Trade Centre towers were infected by the alienation and despair of the young in Muslim countries in the face of poverty and inequalities.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse
_______________________________________________________________
[UPDATE] PZ and Jerry Coyne post comments on this as well

Schisms, rifts, and apologia for insanity
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/schisms_rifts_and_apologia_for.php

Ruse gibbers on...
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ruse-gibbers-on/

Posted: Monday, November 2, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 220 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #428942 by mrjohnno on November 2, 2009 at 5:43 pm

Fucking guardian

Other Comments by mrjohnno

2. Comment #428943 by Mark Jones on November 2, 2009 at 5:45 pm

A truly appalling article. Amazing that he's allowed it to be published - I think a 10 year old child could read through this and point out the howlers within.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

3. Comment #428944 by mrjohnno on November 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Anyone who thinks that the perpetuation of irrationality is in any way good should be shot.

Other Comments by mrjohnno

4. Comment #428945 by Mr Blue Sky on November 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm

PZ said it right "Clueless Gobshite"!

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

5. Comment #428947 by EvidenceOnly on November 2, 2009 at 5:48 pm

If Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins were a math teachers, Richard Dawkins would say that people who believe that 1 plus 1 is 5 are delusional and Michael Ruse would say (a) that Richard Dawkins is offending those people by being too blunt when he says that 1 plus 1 is 2, (b) that all those who believe that 1 plus 1 is 2 need to accept that those who believe that 1 plus 1 is 5 may have valid reasons for their beliefs, and (c) that most of them are good people who are accomplished in other disciplines which means that we should not criticize their beliefs.

That's what I'm reading in his nonsense.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

6. Comment #428949 by Demotruk on November 2, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Why is the word "schism" being used so frequently these days? It implies there was some unified atheist school of thought we all followed in the past. Yet we are defined only by one thing, a non belief in God. Our viewpoints on all other things can, do and always did vary wildly.

Other Comments by Demotruk

7. Comment #428950 by Rickuinox on November 2, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Interesting. However I would argue that the Quakers and evangelicals were inspired by their innate human empathy to want the slaves to be free. And without religion as a motivation, would anyone fly a plane into a building? maybe, but I bet they would be more against it if they saw death as annihilation. Religion gives people an escape when life gets tough. A tough life is easier to cope with when you diminish the importance of that life. I understand that.
But there is a huge price to pay when diminishing the importance of this amazing life we so improbably acquired. The players never take the dress rehearsal seriously.

Other Comments by Rickuinox

8. Comment #428951 by Sciros on November 2, 2009 at 5:51 pm

I confessed to seeing why true believers might find the Kentucky Creationist Museum convincing

Oh, I'll confess that too. It's all about the zonkey.

Why do they have a zonkey? It's a creationist museum! Why do they have a zonkey???

Seriously, though, this guy is an total asshat.

Other Comments by Sciros

9. Comment #428954 by Nunbeliever on November 2, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means.

Oh Bollocks! If he's actually an philosopher, then MAYBE before starting his discussion he should ask what GOD is... Before he can give us a meaningful definition we can't even start to think about the necessity of god.

Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.

Yes, and his answer to this is?..... NOTHING. Not a word. If Dawkins is so naive and childish, then would it not be a child's play for Ruse to point out these obvious fallacies. BUT NO! How come they NEVER give any arguments???

How on EARTH did this fool get his degree??? Anyone???

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

10. Comment #428956 by severalspeciesof on November 2, 2009 at 6:02 pm

Sigh...

At least the comments on the link to this article, for the most part, are worth reading...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

11. Comment #428957 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Ruse has written some really good articles on this issue in the past. These issues of methodology and so on are sort of a side-bar to the real substantive issue that concerns atheists and theists, and metaphysicians, and scientists alike (namely, the answer to the question "What is there?")

Reacting to any criticism (valid or not) with condemnation of the person in the way that some here are doing with Ruse, and have done with others, is just adding fodder to that side-issue, and this empowers those we think are WRONG about the substantive issue (precisely because it avoids it).

And actually, that's probably part of Ruse's point.

Other Comments by Spinoza

12. Comment #428958 by bendigeidfran on November 2, 2009 at 6:07 pm

Comment #428951 by Sciros

Funny you should post that picture today. Last night I dreamt I could play the bray-piano with my teeth and when I woke up I had eaten a zonkey.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

13. Comment #428960 by God fearing Atheist on November 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery

I'm getting tired of hearing this. Its like a pantomime sketch - "Dawkins doesn't understand theology" - "Oh yes he does" - "Oh no he doesn't" ... "Oh no he doesn't".

Instead of just repeating the mantra, why can't we have an explanation?

I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means.

but are you going to share it with us? "Oh no 'e's not" ...

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

14. Comment #428961 by A on November 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm

"meaning"

Michael Ruse, go fuck yourself sweety.

I'd stop around and explain, but I am tooling up for the schism.

Other Comments by A

15. Comment #428962 by BeyondBelief on November 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm

comment #428957 by Spinoza has a valid point: Being cordial, and dealing with the weaknesses in this man's article, does not mean you're an accommodationist.

All the "gobshite" "ass-hat" comments do is beat the believer at their own game... off-topic name calling.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

16. Comment #428963 by adamd164 on November 2, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Ruse makes some sweeping generalisations about the beliefs of the "new atheists".

Assuming he includes within this group those of us who do not think that Dawkins' dismissal of theological fodder was dishonest or inaccurate, then he'd better explain on what basis he claims us all to think that religion is solely a source of evil?

Plenty of us are prepared to accept that both good and evil can be done in the name of religion; we merely contend that religiousity per se is not necessary for goodness, and that certain acts of evil could not have had secular inspiration (suicide bombings, I agree with Dawkins, fall into this category).

Ruse is just as dismissive and ignorant of the "new atheism" movement as he claims us to be of theology; yet our arguments are far more lucid and substantive than those of any theologian.

Other Comments by adamd164

17. Comment #428965 by Sciros on November 2, 2009 at 6:19 pm

All the "gobshite" "ass-hat" comments do is beat the believer at their own game... off-topic name calling.

Hey that's one more front we got them beat on, then.

Ruse is an atheist. He's not writing his nonsensical essays for the believers, and I submit that they do not really want to hear what he has to say anyway. Whether Ruse likes it or not, he's on our side as far as nearly all theists are concerned, so his handwavy attempts to equate the [relatively] uncompromising position of Dawkins and others with that of dogmatic theists falls mostly on deaf ears, and I'd say is only really appreciated by other such accommodationists (and of course flea authors looking for a quote or two to mine).

In short, he's not even making himself worth anyone's time.

Other Comments by Sciros

18. Comment #428969 by Apathy personified on November 2, 2009 at 6:22 pm

First

I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist

You-fucking-what? Let's break that down. Because of TGD, you are ashamed that you do not believe in a god, or gods? Seriously, how the fuck does that work?

If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?

So now atheism is a religion? Evolutionary science is a religion?

Me thinks he believes in belief a bit too much and has had his empty head filled with post modern shite.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

19. Comment #428970 by MarcCountry on November 2, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Mr. Ruse is aptly named.

""What or who is an atheist?" If you mean someone who absolutely and utterly does not believe there is any God or meaning..."

A-Theist. Not A-meaningist. Idiot. There's a famous Ad Reinhardt cartoon, where a gallery-goer looks at an abstract painting, and scoffs "What's it MEAN?", and the painting comes alive and retorts, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN?" What's the meaning of a person? What's the meaning of a banana, for that matter (other than to cause atheist nightmares, of course)?

"The Quakers and the Evangelicals were inspired and driven by their religion to oppose slavery, and a good thing too."

Obviously false. They shared their religion, Christianity, with the worst slavers. What "inspired" their opposition to slavery was their human moral sense, which they share with atheists. It is morality, not religion, that is the motivator, here. Duh.

"...young men who flew into the World Trade Centre towers were infected by the alienation and despair of the young in Muslim countries in the face of poverty..."

Retarded. These were not poor people. They were very well funded. What absolutely disgusting apologia.

I'm tired of this ruse...

Other Comments by MarcCountry

20. Comment #428971 by hungarianelephant on November 2, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Here is where I gave up:

The troubles in Northern Ireland were surely about socio-economic issues also, and the young men who flew into the World Trade Centre towers were infected by the alienation and despair of the young in Muslim countries in the face of poverty and inequalities.

Because seriously, you can't throw a tea brack in North or West Belfast without hitting at least a couple of people banging on about socio-economic issues. And of course the young men who flew into the World Trade Centre are very different from those whose last words as they ran Flight 93 into the ground were "Allahu Akhbar".

Now if the point is that religion is not the only factor in these things, that is well made. But Richard and co are very clear on this issue. Who's the cherry picker here?

9. Comment #428954 by Nunbeliever

If Dawkins is so naive and childish, then would it not be a child's play for Ruse to point out these obvious fallacies. BUT NO! How come they NEVER give any arguments???

They have learned well from Mr Blair. "I refer to my previous evasions on that subject."

Actually the charge here is "first year undergraduate", which is a variation on the usual "sophomoric". It's an interesting type of put-down. It suggests intelligence, but a certain lack of sophistication and background knowledge. But why is this such a bad thing anyway? Sometimes you need simplicity to cut through the crap which accumulates around a particular subject. It is perfectly valid, for example, to ask for evidence of the existence of deities before going on to discuss what kind of biscuits they like with their coffee - even if that is a "first year undergraduate" question. Peering over your glasses and saying "Young man, perhaps you haven't considered the biscuitology problems on page 879 ..." simply doesn't cut it.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

21. Comment #428972 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 6:27 pm

In short, he's not even making himself worth anyone's time.

Why don't you read his essay "Creation-Science is Not a Science" in the journal Science, Technology, and Human Values Vol. 7 No. 40 (Summer 1982). (Here's a link: http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/7/3/72 )

He's been making worthwhile, solid, meaningful contributions to this debate for nearly (actually perhaps more than... I'm not quite sure when he began weighing in, though he was an expert witness testifying in a case of creationism in the classroom in 1981) 30 years now. To write him off in this way is just absurd.

If you don't like what he says in the article, address the concerns of the article properly. This ad hoc dismissiveness is absurd, it just proves his point.

Other Comments by Spinoza

22. Comment #428973 by mirandaceleste on November 2, 2009 at 6:28 pm

What a horrid and nasty article from a willfully confused/ignorant/arrogant author. Wow.

This passage is especially frustrating and wrongheaded:

But that is no excuse for political stupidity. If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?

WHAT? That makes NO sense whatsoever, completely distorts and misrepresents the First Amendment's religious clauses, and is an utterly ridiculous piece of nonsensical and clueless bullshit.

Who else is going to be responding to the Guardian's question ("Is there an atheist schism?")? I don't see that mentioned anywhere on the site.

Other Comments by mirandaceleste

23. Comment #428975 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 2, 2009 at 6:34 pm

We want disrepute - bring it on. And don't say "us" without asking to be in our gang first. We may not want you.
TGD is the scientific approach - it is the only rational way to approach the question. No philosophy needed, thanks anyway. Define the monotheist god, look for evidence for and against it's existence and reach a conclusion:
2000 year old made-up stories (no evidence for any god per se - plenty of evidence for the power of brainwashing children so they believe in a supernatural power as adults and repeat the cycle);
vs.
4 billion years of life as a result of evolution by natural selection (no evidence for supernatural intervention).

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

24. Comment #428976 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 6:37 pm

No philosophy needed, thanks anyway.

Well, I certainly hope Richard Dawkins doesn't think that (and I'm fairly certain he doesn't).

Is this sort of nonsense a way of avoiding dealing with criticism?

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #428977 by Sciros on November 2, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Why don't you read his essay "Creation-Science is Not a Science" in the journal Science, Technology, and Human Values Vol. 7 No. 40 (Summer 1982). (Here's a link: http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/7/3/72 )

He's been making worthwhile, solid, meaningful contributions to this debate for nearly 30 years now. To write him off in this way is just absurd.

If you don't like what he says in the article, address the concerns of the article properly. This ad hoc dismissiveness is absurd, it just proves his point.

Come on, Spinoza bro... you referred me to an article of his from 1982! That is 27 years ago! And it's in a journal of a society (4S) that as of last year has a grand total of 1200 members. Whoo-wee.

If you don't like what he says in the article, address the concerns of the article properly.

Ruse is repeating himself and other accommodationists in making statements that have been refuted countless times. Why should I repeat what so many others have already said in response (to this particular essay and others)? Besides, what I had to say was far from just a personal attack.

If you're buddies with Ruse, then fair enough; at least I understand why you're trying to make sure people attack the ideas rather than the person. But honestly I just have no respect for the guy and he's done nothing to earn it. Writing baseless, handwavy admonishments seems to be his M.O. these days. His past work may stand on its own merit, but this isn't about his past work.

Other Comments by Sciros

26. Comment #428978 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Michael Ruse wrote:

Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery. Dawkins was indignant when, on the grounds that inanimate objects cannot have emotions, philosophers like Mary Midgley criticised his metaphorical notion of a selfish gene. Sauce for the biological goose is sauce for the atheist gander. There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian theologians. We atheists should demand no less.

Indeed. This set of comments on his article is starting to prove exactly why Ruse said this.

If you DON'T think that this is a fair reconstruction of the argument in The God Delusion, provide a plausible reconstruction of it that does better.

If you don't care to do that, you're committed to exactly the thing Ruse accuses you of -- You clearly don't care about understanding what's going on in the debate.

I should add that I think Richard's view on this issue is better than he is given credit for, and certainly more cogent than the dumbed-down version of it he is often accused of championing. That is, I think a reconstruction is possible that avoids mis-characterizing the arguments. Richard has often said that if your view of God is of the Einsteinian sort, he's got no problem with that (and that in some sense this IS his view).

Einstein's view is largely consistent with his Spinozism, and thus with the ontological argument in propositions 1-15 of the first part of The Ethics (read it, it's great!)

The issue becomes substantive when you ask what such logical commitments entail, substantively, as far as the properties of the necessary existent thing you've got at must have.

Theists are going to try to push "mind" or "consciousness" into the ontological argument, and a good atheist (that is, one who cares), is going to try and show them why they can't do this. And it isn't as simple as the arguments in The God Delusion.

As I said, though, I think Richard's got a way out -- I almost wish Ruse would take a step back and see it too (as I see it), and help reconstruct the "Who just did God, then?" argument in a more elegant, systematic, logical way.

Other Comments by Spinoza

27. Comment #428980 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 2, 2009 at 6:55 pm

The writer of this article seems to forget that Dawkins made it clear that he doesn't expect to "convert" people who are "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" but rather people who are on the fence or haven't given it much thought.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

28. Comment #428981 by Mango on November 2, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Sciros wrote

Come on, Spinoza bro... you referred me to an article of his from 1982! That is 27 years ago!

Spinoza's point was completely lost on you; he's arguing that Ruse has been considering these issues for a very long time, and even if you disagree with his views, argue against the views and not the man (i.e. ad hominem). His views are worth understanding.

Other Comments by Mango

29. Comment #428983 by Russell Blackford on November 2, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Udo Schuklenk and I have co-authored a piece in this same series that Comment is Free is publishing this week. Needless to say, we take a rather different view from Ruse's.

Ophelia Benson also has a piece in the series. Not sure who else.

There will be a new answer to the "atheist schism" question each day.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

30. Comment #428984 by Sciros on November 2, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Indeed. This set of comments on his article is starting to prove exactly why Ruse said this.

If you DON'T think that this is a fair reconstruction of the argument in The God Delusion, provide a plausible reconstruction of it that does better.

If you don't care to do that, you're committed to exactly the thing Ruse accuses you of -- You clearly don't care about understanding what's going on in the debate.

Why are you being so unusually bothersome in this particular case?

What reconstruction of the TGD argument? Ruse makes no attempt at one; why pretend that his rather out-of-context tidbit quoting Dawkins as saying "who created god?" even amounts to a reconstruction of an argument? It's a straw man at best. The whole idea of "god necessarily existing" as a response to the idea of everything-but-god needing a cause is indeed utterly nonsensical, and to "understand" it as Ruse has claimed to do, is the purest bullshit. Does Ruse even attempt to elaborate on his attempt to "understand" the free pass that the god concept gets regarding origin? (No.)

As for the reference to the metaphorical "selfish gene," the fact that it is a metaphor means that criticizing it as if it's literal is nonsense, so case closed there. Don't fall for Ruse's word games, Spinoza. And stop challenging us to waste further time on that disreputable hack by pretending he has anything of value to actually say (anymore, if ever).

Other Comments by Sciros

31. Comment #428985 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 7:03 pm

You didn't understand his point.

The whole idea of "god necessarily existing" as a response to the idea of everything-but-god needing a cause is indeed utterly nonsensical, and to "understand" it as Ruse has claimed to do, is the purest bullshit

Usually when intelligent people want to claim something is bullshit, they at least try to show why it is. That requires an argument.

Other Comments by Spinoza

32. Comment #428987 by Sciros on November 2, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Spinoza's point was completely lost on you; he's arguing that Ruse has been considering these issues for a very long time, and even if you disagree with his views, argue against the views and not the man (i.e. ad hominem).

Did you read the rest of my response or not? Fucking hell, what is with these people...

Ruse could have been considering these issues for five hundred years for all it matters; he's still a worthless hack and his latest literary discharge has as little insight and reaches as indifferent an audience as the one he spewed last month. Color me unimpressed.

I'm pretty sure I understood and dismissed it outright (I'm not interested in actually addressing it because my point is that nobody gives a shit), but if you think I missed it you are welcome to restate it in plainer terms.

Other Comments by Sciros

33. Comment #428988 by Adrian Bartholomew on November 2, 2009 at 7:06 pm

I loath the term “atheist schism” as it tacitly implies that atheism bears similarity to religions. In my opinion it verges on the oxymoronic and I refuse to acknowledge it as a worthwhile phrase.

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

34. Comment #428991 by Mango on November 2, 2009 at 7:08 pm

Sciros, I did read the rest of your post and didn't want to comment on it for fear of carping, but I did find this troubling:

If you're [Spinoza] buddies with Ruse, then fair enough; at least I understand why you're trying to make sure people attack the ideas rather than the person.

You seem to suggest that ad hominem attacks are acceptable, or expected, unless someone in the room knows the person.

Other Comments by Mango

35. Comment #428992 by Sciros on November 2, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Usually when intelligent people want to claim something is bullshit, they at least try to show why it is. That requires an argument.

Spinoza give me a break, you want me to refute the ontological argument? I don't feel like wasting my time, where should I copy-paste from?

Mango

You seem to suggest that ad hominem attacks are acceptable, or expected, unless someone in the room knows the person.

Yeah, because in the latter case I think it would be in bad taste. And honestly, only righteous douches would otherwise try to admonish people for insulting others on the internet (see what I did there?) when they have no personal connection to either party.

Other Comments by Sciros

36. Comment #428993 by Brian English on November 2, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Spinoza in 428978, that quote from Ruse doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you're saying. I'm probably just too ignorant to understand it. However, it seems to me that saying God doesn't need a cause but everything else needs a cause is just special pleading, and thus has no more merit and is a lot less parsimonious than saying the universe doesn't need a cause. At least we've lots of evidence for the universe. Perhaps you're saying Deus sive Natura, but Ruse is talking about theologians who are not saying that. They're talking about the Abrahamic god which is not a different mode of nature.

Ruse's comparison of that with Midgleys deliberate misunderstanding, or seemingly deliberate given the repetition of the decades, of Dawkins' metaphor is ~~a non sequitur~~ irrelevant.

In the words of a xenophobic ex-politician from bannana-bender land. Please explain.

Other Comments by Brian English

37. Comment #428994 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 2, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Well lump me in with the scientific atheists - I don't believe in philosophical atheism.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

38. Comment #428995 by rhis on November 2, 2009 at 7:12 pm

It's amazing how many people self-identify as atheist only when they want to complain about schisms.

Other Comments by rhis

39. Comment #428996 by SaintStephen on November 2, 2009 at 7:13 pm

Second, unlike the new atheists, I take ~~scholarship~~ leprechaun scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be ~~an atheist~~ a leprechaun-respecting atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how ~~God~~ the leprechaun God could need no cause, Christians claim that ~~God~~ the leprechaun God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused the leprechaun God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery. Dawkins was indignant when, on the grounds that inanimate objects cannot have emotions, philosophers like Mary Midgley ~~criticised his metaphorical notion~~ were completely bamboozled by the concept of a selfish gene. Sauce for the biological goose is sauce for the atheist gander. There are a lot of very bright and well informed ~~Christian theologians~~ Leprechologians. We atheists should demand no less.

Mr. Ruse is astonishingly lost. What Richard is trying to do is clear the table of nonsensical explanations for our existence, so that the world can get on with the important business of scientific exploration and discovery. We don’t need the inane and vacuous religious cop-outs any more, Ruse. The great philosophers of history would have ALL moved on to the study of science, just as Daniel Dennett has done in modern times, because it is in Science – not theology or leprechology -- where the true mysteries and wonders of life reside.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

40. Comment #428997 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 7:13 pm

Sciros, actually, I don't want you to refute the ontological argument. I want you to understand it.

Other Comments by Spinoza

41. Comment #428998 by Brian English on November 2, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Spinoza, which ontological argument?

Just read some of Spinoza's Ethics (Spinoza senior, that is), lots of Aristotelean metaphysics.

Other Comments by Brian English

42. Comment #428999 by Adrian Bartholomew on November 2, 2009 at 7:16 pm

40. Comment #428997 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Sciros, actually, I don't want you to refute the ontological argument. I want you to understand it.

Patronising much? Pfff. Nasty.

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

43. Comment #429000 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm

Adrian it's not patronizing AT ALL. It's the OPPOSITE. I think he's CAPABLE of understanding it.

If I DIDN'T, THEN I would be patronizing.

Brian, it doesn't really matter. I think Spinoza's is the most systematic and clearly thought out (but also the hardest to understand). The others are a bit too quick to really show the background information they're taking for granted that goes into the argument. (*edit* - Spinoza's terminology is in a way inherited from the Scholastics, and so will read like Aristotelianism, but it's the farthest thing from Aristotle in many respects, not the least of which is Spinoza's rejection of final causation).

I'm not saying ANY of them succeed, only that they are not as easily understood (or dismissed) as many people here (who are clearly anti-philosophical, for who-the-hell-knows what reason...) seem to think they are.

This is, as Ruse says, thinking at the level of the undergraduate philosophy student, which is not an ad-hominem, but an accurate characterization of an attitude of antipathy to understanding.

Other Comments by Spinoza

44. Comment #429001 by Corylus on November 2, 2009 at 7:22 pm

And energetic blogger PZ Myers refers to me as a "clueless gobshite" because I confessed to seeing why true believers might find the Kentucky Creationist Museum convincing. I will spare you what my fellow philosopher Dan Dennett has to say about me.

This intrigued me. The implication above is that Dennett called Ruse something worse that a 'clueless gobshite'. This seemed so utterly out of character that I did some further research.

It appears that Ruse and Dennett had a heated email exchange.

Now, I wouldn't normally judge, because some people just need a scrap now and again. However, it appears that Ruse, in a huff, forwarded the exchange to Demski and told him to publish. Demski obliged on his lovely ID website. Now, publishing private correspondence without permission (unless one is being directly threatened) is a bid of a moral no-no in my book, but that's just me.

I have read the exchange ('cuse me while I disinfect my PC after going on uncommondescent) and the irony is that Ruse it is who comes across as all emotional and potty mouth. Ho Hum.

N.B. If anyone has some further info on this, or feels I have misrepresented Ruse, do speak up. I try to be fair.

[Edit: Nice to see you back Brian]

Other Comments by Corylus

45. Comment #429003 by Pilot22A on November 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Mr. Ruse, you are not an "Atheist," if you hedge your bets, like to seem to be doing in the first sentence of your column.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

46. Comment #429004 by Hektor on November 2, 2009 at 7:26 pm

"If ... evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution ... separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?"

I can't belief this guy is a professor. Does he really think this? It is astonishingly stupid.

Evolution disproves religion therefore, by the first amendment, evolution should be banned from school.

I would not have believed this could come from the mouth of a professor of any school or discipline.

Other Comments by Hektor

47. Comment #429005 by Mark Smith on November 2, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Spinoza
I understand where you are coming from in asking for less ad homs. But it really is an extremely poor article, and it's pretty tempting to deal with it with rudeness rather than attempting a critique.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

48. Comment #429006 by Sciros on November 2, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Sciros, actually, I don't want you to refute the ontological argument. I want you to understand it.

Spinoza, what is this turning into?

Alright, tell you what: I'll do you a big favor, and give you the opportunity to outline the ontological argument that Ruse is referring to for me right here, and then you can conclude with your defense of Ruse's favorable treatment of it.

For the record, I understand the various forms of the ontological argument well enough, but I don't understand how that is relevant when it is a fact that they have been dealt with soundly by many already. Your assumption that I don't understand it is, I submit, a symptom of your sense of intellectual superiority which frankly is uncalled for and presently unsupported.

Other Comments by Sciros

49. Comment #429007 by Adrian Bartholomew on November 2, 2009 at 7:28 pm

43. Comment #429000 by Spinoza on November 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Adrian it's not patronizing AT ALL. It's the OPPOSITE. I think he's CAPABLE of understanding it.

If I DIDN'T, THEN I would be patronizing.

Rubbish. Both you and Ruse are pulling the ‘I understand and you don’t’ card and it’s patronising. Don’t give us this “CAPABLE of understanding it” line. That’s even MORE patronising. Sheesh.

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

50. Comment #429008 by Brian English on November 2, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Thanks Spinoza. I don't think any of them work either. My reasoning is anything that can be thought to exist can equally be thought not to exist. I.e. there is no God implies no contradiction and one would need to go out into the world to discover if there is a God. However, this would mean God's existence is not necessary and thus any ontological argument that starts with the premise that God's existence is necessary cannot succeed. But that's just my amatuer opinion.

I'm still a at a loss as to why you think denying a theist special pleading when pointing out that if God can be uncaused, then so can the universe, isn't reasonable. God can be thought not to exist, but reality (the universe) cannot as its presupposed by thinking. So I'll stump for why can't the universe be uncaused.....

Other Comments by Brian English

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next | Last