1. Comment #430882 by Mr Blue Sky on November 10, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Reasonable piece but seems to be trying to mount the latest bandwagon of I'm an atheist but... At least he didn't actually use the word strident!

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

2. Comment #430885 by mordacious1 on November 10, 2009 at 6:35 pm

1. Comment #430882 by Mr Blue Sky

No, he didn't use the word "strident", he changed it to "notorious", as in "notorious gangster".

I do not think you could be "the world's foremost explainers of the theory of evolution" without being an atheist. Religion tends to get in the way of clear-thinking on the subject.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #430891 by Richey99 on November 10, 2009 at 7:07 pm

"Even so, interviewers ask about atheism and "The God Delusion," and people who most adamantly insist nonsense such as intelligent design ought to be taught alongside valid science most likely will never look at Dawkins' book."

I do believe Richard said that he didnt expect anyone who believes in intelligent design to read this book.

Other Comments by Richey99

4. Comment #430898 by BeyondBelief on November 10, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Again... an article starting with "stridentism"

Richard is "a notorious atheist"... "not that I have anything against atheists."

Why does that ring to my ears like, "I'm talkin' about you bitches... not that I have anything against women."

Or... "Steve is a notorious faggot... not that I have anything against homosexuals. Love 'em. Lots of them are my friends."

Grrr....

[edit] And, upon reading the article, it is a crying shame that someone with such an ebulliently positive review of the content of TGSOE spent so much of the article regurgitating references to Richard's religious stance.

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

5. Comment #430899 by DNR on November 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm

It's a darn shame that Dawkins isn't friends with everybody in the world -- I've seen that episode of Sesame Street, and so should have Steeve Goble.

Other Comments by DNR

6. Comment #430902 by InYourFaceNewYorker on November 10, 2009 at 8:06 pm

The title of this article should be, "It's Too Bad That People Keep Harping on 'The God Delusion' When the New Book is 'The Greatest Show on Earth.'"

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

7. Comment #430907 by Adrian Bartholomew on November 10, 2009 at 8:14 pm

The flip side to Mr Goble’s position that Richard’s “notorious” atheism hurts his promotion of Evolution (not an unreasonable point) is that his promotion of evolution and fantastic reputation in that area has MASSIVELY improved his promotion of atheism and reason. I think it has been a worthwhile trade.EDIT: Yes it is argument from authority, but it works.

That is too darn bad, because the science he presents in "Greatest Show" is breathtaking.

And:

The people who would most benefit from this book are the undecided, those who perhaps see the whole evolution vs. intelligent design debate as a circus side show. If you've been wondering which side to believe, Dawkins has provided you a one-stop shop to learn how evolution really works.

It's an amazing ride.

It is a shame about the title of the review but I’m finding it hard to get upset as it is pretty glowing overall.

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

8. Comment #430911 by notsobad on November 10, 2009 at 8:27 pm

It's actually very fortunate and too bad for them. They chose to be ignorant.

Other Comments by notsobad

9. Comment #430915 by Stonyground on November 10, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Surely it is impossible to make a strong case for evolution and atheism without alienating certain sections of the world's population. I think that it is time to point out that it is the stupid and ignorant sections that have the problem. The nineteenth century had the flat earthers, the bible was their reason for believing that the Earth was flat, it clearly says so. Now that flat earthism has become completely untenable we have the modern equivalent, the anti evolutionists. The Bible is wrong about the shape of the earth and is not much use as a textbook on biology, (bats are birds, rabbits are ruminants, insects have four legs) so anyone who still clings to it as a fount of knowledge needs denouncing as an ignoramus no matter how much they feel alienated.

I agree with some of the previous poster's reservations, but on balance I think that this is a pretty positive review and if it encourages some to read the book that can only be a good thing.

Other Comments by Stonyground

10. Comment #430927 by Lucas on November 10, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Would Richard be doing all these interviews and public appearances if he hadn't written TGD and it hadn't made him a famous atheist? Would any of these reviews ever have been written? Would Richard ever have been so immersed in creationism that he felt moved to write TGSOE?

Other Comments by Lucas

11. Comment #430929 by Spinoza on November 10, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Most people I know who are critical of The God Delusion will agree that Richard's other books are spectacularly well-written, well-thought-out examples of popular science (some possibly even in the top 5 or 10 quintessential books of the genre).

I think most philosophers I know who are critical of the book, and have read it, are critical of it because they know the terrain very well, and know what to look for in good arguments on either side of the fence. That's often what's meant by "I'm an atheist, but...", and I think that's fair enough. I don't think The God Delusion is a work of philosophy. How could it be? Not even Bertrand Russell's potboilers like "Why I'm Not A Christian" are considered "philosopher proper" by anyone who knows what they're talking about. That isn't to demean either, though. Or at least, it shouldn't be. To the extent that this criticism (i.e. "It's not very good philosophy") is fair criticism, it can be shown why, and it does nothing to undermine the point or value or message of the work in question. I'm sure there are philosophers who wish Russell hadn't written so much "garbage" -- That is, books written for non-philosophers/general public consumption -- but I'm not one of them... and for the same reason, I'm glad Richard wrote The God Delusion.

At the same time, I think those of us who care to can understand why this (what appears to be) rather odd sort of criticism has been leveled, and what exactly it means.

Someone recently pointed out that it's similar to Richard's response to Midgley back in the 80s when she misunderstood what a "selfish gene" was meant to be -- It's not that Richard has now reversed that and misunderstood how to use philosophical terminology -- though, as is the case with any "amateur" (by which is simply meant work done by those who are not professionals in the field, and which is no guarantor of mediocrity), there is more often than not bound to be a lack of nuance by comparison to the pros. This is not a denigration of the work, as it isn't a denigration of Russell's pop-essays. It's a misunderstanding of the point. But it is a fruitful misunderstanding, since it provides an opportunity for clarification.

Other Comments by Spinoza

12. Comment #430937 by mordacious1 on November 10, 2009 at 9:54 pm

What's that ol' saw? "If everyone likes you, you probably don't have much of a personality". I guess Richard has a lot of personality.:)

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #430938 by TIKI AL on November 10, 2009 at 9:57 pm

To all the reviewers and fleas Richard must seem like a one man stimulas package.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

14. Comment #430939 by MrPickwick on November 10, 2009 at 9:58 pm

@10 by Lucas

Would Richard be doing all these interviews and public appearances if he hadn't written TGD and it hadn't made him a famous atheist? Would any of these reviews ever have been written? Would Richard ever have been so immersed in creationism that he felt moved to write TGSOE?

Extremely good point!

Other Comments by MrPickwick

15. Comment #430944 by RichardofYork on November 10, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Someone is going to have to put me on the right track with this "Not a good philosophical argument" routine .God has no evidence none, not a shred, nothing .I would think it just as likely to have "not a good philosophical argument" about unicorns and dragons .Please tell me where Im going wrong with this as it makes me feel annoyed through my ignorance as I see it so often. Thanks
Richard

Other Comments by RichardofYork

16. Comment #430945 by Jos Gibbons on November 10, 2009 at 10:41 pm

Comment #430929 by Spinoza

Interesting points (I'm not sure why you brought them up here, but I actually find threads more interesting when they're off-topic anyway, so thank you). I'd be interested to know how you would characterise the difference between philosophy proper treatments of the God question and the sort of thing RD or BR produced for the populace. Is the difference one of logical validity of the arguments the authors use for their conclusions, or accuracy in exposing the logical invalidity of their opponents' arguments? (My guess is you do not think that, since like most people on this site you likely agree with many of their points.) Or is the difference something I would (naively?) consider less relevant?

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

17. Comment #430954 by Nunbeliever on November 10, 2009 at 11:38 pm

To SPINOZA:

"I think most philosophers I know who are critical of the book, and have read it, are critical of it because they know the terrain very well, and know what to look for in good arguments on either side of the fence."

I'm SO tired of these PHILOSOPHERS ála Michael Ruse that claim Dawkins arguments are just ridiculous from a philosophical point of view without EVER presenting one good example exactly why this is so. They just gladly point out Dawkins immaturity regarding philosophy. I would be pleased if maybe YOU could enlighten us exactly in what way... please...

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of modern philosophy. If I good philosophical case for a personal god (which I have never seen or heard of) can be made despite scientific observations pointing in the other directions. I'm sorry to say PHILOSOPHY has to go. ANYTIME.


But please! Feel free to show that I'm wrong.

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

18. Comment #430957 by God fearing Atheist on November 10, 2009 at 11:54 pm

17. Comment #430954 by Nunbeliever

I'm SO tired of these PHILOSOPHERS ála Michael Ruse that claim Dawkins arguments are just ridiculous from a philosophical point of view without EVER presenting one good example exactly why this is so.

Here here! The galling part is not the accusation, but the lack of examples, which leaves me unable to consider the merits of the argument for myself.

"A brief explanation of the philosophy of God for busy non-philosopher atheist scientists" would be a worthwhile xmass read. But what do I order from Amazon?

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

19. Comment #430958 by Sally Luxmoore on November 10, 2009 at 11:55 pm

"Notorious" -- Goes into a reverie --
Alfred Hitchcock's 'Notorious' is one of my all-time favourite films.
Cary Grant (sigh), Ingrid Bergman (soo beautiful), sinister, emotionally wrenching, suspenseful - a wonderful film! ---
Oh sorry, where were we?
Ah yes.
Another article by a reviewer who thinks that you can't praise a book without finding an angle from which to bash the author.
But Notorious is a fantastic film.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

20. Comment #430963 by God fearing Atheist on November 11, 2009 at 12:19 am

Before anyone else thinks learning about theological philosophy is useful, listen to Dan Dennett's comments at 48:02 - 49:11 in the video here:- http://richarddawkins.net/article,4547,The-Evolution-of-Confusion,Dan-Dennett-AAI-2009-RDFRS-Josh-Timonen

I'm still curious though. Perhaps I should just read Dennett for xmass.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

21. Comment #430965 by Alternative Carpark on November 11, 2009 at 12:25 am

Dawkins has alienated some people?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

What has Dawkins got to do with disbelief in the worlds god myths?

"Well, I've had my doubts about the existence of god for a while now, and evolution by natural selection sounds more plausible to me each day, but some English Professor, from Oxford, England, has alienated me, so badly, that I have been forced to accept that universe is instead the creation of a god who put everything together in six days and then rested a few thousand years before finally settling down in the town of Galilee and enrolling in a carpentry apprenticeship."

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

22. Comment #430973 by Spinoza on November 11, 2009 at 1:43 am

I'm SO tired of these PHILOSOPHERS ála Michael Ruse that claim Dawkins arguments are just ridiculous from a philosophical point of view without EVER presenting one good example exactly why this is so. They just gladly point out Dawkins immaturity regarding philosophy. I would be pleased if maybe YOU could enlighten us exactly in what way... please...

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of modern philosophy. If I good philosophical case for a personal god (which I have never seen or heard of) can be made despite scientific observations pointing in the other directions. I'm sorry to say PHILOSOPHY has to go. ANYTIME.


But please! Feel free to show that I'm wrong.

I agree with you in part. To the extent that a professional philosopher levels criticism at The God Delusion, I think they should take a minute to explain themselves. Part of the reason this hasn't been done in a few cases, I think, is a result of misunderstanding what The God Delusion is. Another part of the reason is probably that none of them cares sufficiently to charitably reconstruct any arguments actually given in The God Delusion and show why they're not "up-to-snuff", as it were.

I actually just don't think that's the purpose of the book (to present a philosophical bolstering of atheism, or against theism).

Take Chapter 3 of The God Delusion (as this is the chapter most likely to be misunderstood as an attempt to do philosophy).

Richard describes the Ontological Argument as "infantile" before he even begins to analyze it (what analysis there actually is of it, which is to say, not much, which is why I don't think he was even trying to do philosophy here). Then he provides a "translation" (not a proper reconstruction, which would not have been conducive to what I take the point of the book to be anyway) that renders it as a schoolyard bunch of nonsense.

This might piss off philosophers, even ones who think there IS something wrong with ontological arguments (maybe even that they are functionally equivalent to the schoolyard nonsense Richard thinks they are) -- For obvious reasons. This isn't philosophy, it's sophistry. It's a bit of low-brow rhetoric designed to appeal to people who didn't understand the argument in the first place. (And anyone who was actually trying to understand it would ask questions about the terminology before declaring it nonsense).

It's a good chapter in that it introduces people who otherwise would never have heard of them to these arguments. But it does not take any of them seriously (and, as I've said, that was never its purpose, and it shouldn't -- Philosophers criticizing this chapter haven't understood that it can't possibly have been Richard attempting to do philosophy, and to characterize it as such is just silly).

If this sounds like I'm attacking The God Delusion, I don't know what else to tell you. I'm not attacking it in the slightest. It is a great book for what it is -- And if you don't think that the reasons I've given for philosophers being somewhat irked by the sophistical treatment of philosophical issues are justified, well, in some sense I agree with that too... but I think understanding why they are irked is important, too. (And does not imply that philosophers are simply trying to defend theology, or are useless [though in some sense I think they are, as I am one, and I think this is important])....

Anyway... does that help?

Other Comments by Spinoza

23. Comment #430974 by Paine on November 11, 2009 at 1:59 am

He has to meet the enemy on his own ground. If TGD is not philosophy, that's because none of the arguments for God are philosophy either.They are all pure fantasy falsely elevated to the state of philosophy by centuries of pseudo-profound sophistry.
You can set up theoretical 'philosophical' metaphysics over the existence of leprechauns, pixies, astrology etc. Very interesting, but none of it having any bearing on the reality of the subjects. The arguments against anything can not rise above the level of the arguments for it.

Other Comments by Paine

24. Comment #430975 by Spinoza on November 11, 2009 at 2:10 am

If TGD is not philosophy, that's because none of the arguments for God are philosophy either.They are all pure fantasy falsely elevated to the state of philosophy by centuries of pseudo-profound sophistry.

... The arguments against anything can not rise above the level of the arguments for it.

However, bad arguments are not vitiated by bad arguments (and your latter point is just false).

In any case, I think you missed the point of what I said to some degree. It isn't that The God Delusion isn't philosophy BECAUSE arguments for the existence of deities (or the warrant of religious belief) aren't philosophy.

That doesn't even make sense. Philosophy can be done which shows arguments to be failures. That is, it doesn't follow from something's being a failed argument that vitiating it does not require argument (and thus, logic, and thus, philosophical investigation).

The ontological argument isn't meant to be "profound", it's a rationalist argument that can be viewed as trying to provide an escape from infinite regress, arbitrariness, or vicious circularity in explanations.

This is nothing if NOT philosophical in nature, at least, when the work being done is not guilty of rhetoric, bias, invective, and other fallacious modes.

There are, however, serious problems with arguments from conceivability, and pointing out where they go wrong is in the purview of philosophy -- But if The God Delusion had gone into detail about the problems with conceivability arguments it would have ceased to be a book written for a popular audience (and thus, ruined the whole point of the thing -- there are thousands of books written by philosophers, for philosophers, on similar subjects... the general public generally doesn't read them. And this is just fine.)

P.S. It *is* too bad some people are alienated from Dawkins. The Ancestor's Tale is one of my favourite books ever written (and I read PHILOSOPHY...!).

Other Comments by Spinoza

25. Comment #430980 by Border Collie on November 11, 2009 at 2:31 am

"Notorious" ... wasn't that a film by Hitchcock?

Other Comments by Border Collie

26. Comment #430988 by Sonic on November 11, 2009 at 3:36 am

When I listened to the audio CD edition of The Greatest Show on Earth, occasionally I found myself wondering, "What might this book be like if Richard's public record as an atheist was completely stripped out?" I mean, just as a fantasy, suppose Richard even published the book under a pen name, like, I don't know, Anne Elk?

The answer I always came up with was that the book would still need to contrast Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection against the present-day attacks against it in the form of Creationism/ID. Presenting this contrast is necessary for the fence sitters who have been exposed to both sides but are still sitting on the fence.

I like this review by Steve Goble, because which would you rather have -- Goble's review that starts "negative" and ends completely positive, or Nicholas Wade's review that starts "positive" and ends completely negative? Recognizing your real friends is an crucial skill in life, not just responding to stroking that feels positive in the moment.

Yes, it's too bad Richard has alienated some people, and it's too bad we have to die, and it's too bad our sun will expand into a red giant to evaporate the oceans, and it's too bad the universe will die a heat death of boring equilibrium. But I will still wake up tomorrow, to enjoy my shower and my breakfast, and I will still make a point to tell my friends how wonderful they are! And I'm happy to see Goble's responses to comments on his paper's web site -- I say he's fighting the good fight.

That is the theory that I have and which is mine and what it is, too.

Other Comments by Sonic

27. Comment #430990 by God fearing Atheist on November 11, 2009 at 3:40 am

Thanks Spinoza, I'm begining to understand.

What I understand is that its not good philosophy to take the piss out of atrocious arguments. Good form is to boringly deconstruct them, piece by boring piece. TGD is popular science, and therefore taking the piss if far more fun. Hence square philosophers (Ruse) get all upset.

I have been looking at this:- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

for example:-

Plantinga
1. God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
3. A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
4. A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)
5. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)
7. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
8. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
9. Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)

There would appear to be two "God"s here; a "concept of god" held in the human imagination, i.e. fictional God (fGod), and the real god (rGod)

The argument then goes:-

1) We can accept fGod

2) rGod > fGod

pre 3) fGod exists = rGod

3) rGod can be conceived.

What does "conceived" mean? Its either "Conceived in the imagination", but "imagined rGod" is fGod by definition so you can't get rGod by that method, or 2) "conceived as born or built" which requires rGod to be taken as an axiom, which is begging the question.

Has that crap really occupied theologians' minds for a 1000 years?

And as for:-

8. St. Anselm's Ontological Argument

There is an enormous literature on the material in Proslogion II-III. Some commentators deny that St. Anselm tried to put forward any proofs of the existence of God. Even among commentators who agree that St. Anselm intended to prove the existence of God, there is disagreement about where the proof is located ...

FFS! I wonder how far Einstein would have gone if his peers weren't sure if he had proved general relativity or where in his papers the proof lay.

Dan Dennett is right! (20. Comment #430963 by God fearing Atheist)

Pity Dennett doesn't write a book and put a properly argued boring philosophical bulldozer through this theological crap ... deepidy, deepidy deepidy ....

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

28. Comment #430996 by Rodger T on November 11, 2009 at 5:10 am

For a stridently notorious atheist RD is a very nice bloke and not at all stuck up.

Other Comments by Rodger T

29. Comment #431006 by Steve_Goble on November 11, 2009 at 6:44 am

Hello, all. I'm the guy who wrote the column. Let me say I did not mean to imply atheism is bad or stupid or that Prof. Dawkins is headed off to hell or anything of the sort. I read his books, I'm glad he does what he does.

My point, which perhaps might have been made more clearly, was that because he is a well-known spokesman for atheism there are large swaths of people who will ignore him entirely. Many of those people aren't necessarily head-in-the-sand Creationists, either. They are people who scarcely pay attention to all this evolution stuff, but tend to vote for "teach the controversy" because it sounds "fair," or perhaps they vote for that nice school board candidate who likes God and wants to teach intelligent design.

I think (or at least hope) that a lot of those people might see the difference between valid science and ID mung, if they can be persuaded to look at the evidence. If they pass up Prof. Dawkins' wonderful book because all they really know about him is that he's that atheist guy ... that's a shame. It's not Dawkins' fault, really, I don't expect or want him to be someone else. I just wish someone would write an eloquent best-seller that those people in the middle might read.

More power to Prof. Dawkins, though, and I hope he continues to speak up on all matters that are important to him. His is a voice that ought to be heard.

I hope that clears things up.

-- Steve

Other Comments by Steve_Goble

30. Comment #431008 by mordacious1 on November 11, 2009 at 7:06 am

29. Comment #431006 by Steve_Goble

Hi Steve, welcome to RD.net. Do you think that the people you describe, those that "scarcely pay attention to all this evolution stuff", would read Richard's book if he were more like Michael Ruse? Would they know who Michael Ruse was? I doubt it.

I think that those who will read TGSoE won't care about Richard's lack of belief. Those that do care wouldn't read it anyway. Jerry Coyne is an atheist who is probably less known for his lack of belief than Richard. Are these "teach the controversy" types of whom you speak flocking to buy his book on evolution? I really doubt it.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #431009 by Steve_Goble on November 11, 2009 at 7:20 am

As for the point about Prof. Dawkins' reputation enhancing his ability to speak out for reason and atheism — I agree, it certainly does help to have a big stage and I'm certain he's encouraged am awful lot of people who were quietly atheist to come out and decide they're not going to take it anymore (a good thing, in my book).

But that's a promotion of atheism, and my column was looking at promoting science education, which is not necessarily the same thing. Yes, Dawkins has certainly added to my knowledge of evolution, and to the knowledge of many others, but I'm already pre-disposed to read this science stuff anyway, as are most of his other readers. His rep makes us all aware of the next big book ... but does it get people who AREN'T science-saavy to read is stuff? Probably not.

In my opinion, Dawkins' rep as an atheist and his occasional choice of words such as "ignoramuses" make it really tough to bring the casual evolution doubters (as opposed to the hardcore Creationists, who likely will never change) on board the science train. If we're only preaching to the choir on this science stuff ... who are we reaching?

I try to write columns that won't cause the faithful to damn me and quit listening, because I'd like them to give science a try and see what it can do. It's probably a futile effort on my part; I often get accused of hating God and leading people away from Christ, etc. etc. etc., no matter how much I try to stick to the science and skip the theology. But every now and then I'll get an e-mail or an online comment from someone who says they are thinking a little harder about some of this science stuff, and they write to say thanks. My stage is a small one, and my rare victories are perhaps tiny ones ... but I figure I gotta try.

OK. Enough whining from me. Thanks for reading.

-- Steve

Other Comments by Steve_Goble

32. Comment #431012 by Jos Gibbons on November 11, 2009 at 7:54 am

Comment #431006 by Steve_Goble

Hello, thanks for joining us. For what it's worth, I got what your point was, about it being a shame that RD's reputation would put off many. Just about all people in a position to defend evolution are also non-religious, but at least a lot of them aren't known for it.

Further to mordacious1's comment, I'd personally like to see something like this coming from, say, Ken Miller, Simon Conway Morris or someone like that. They really are religious proponents of evolution (although, their way of gluing the two together shows a profound misunderstanding of convergent evolution, but that's a wrinkle we probably can sacrifice when informing the public).

Is it noteworthy that such people haven't? Since only a tiny handful of biologists have written these types of books this year, actually probably not (the odds of even one such book's author being religious, assuming all experts were equally likely authors, weren't exactly overwhelming), although sometimes I get the impression that evolution's religious proponents aren't willing to go as far in defending or teaching it as are its irreligious proponents. Maybe I'm just reading stuff that isn't there though.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

33. Comment #431013 by Quine on November 11, 2009 at 7:58 am

Comment #430975 by Spinoza:

But if The God Delusion had gone into detail about the problems with conceivability arguments it would have ceased to be a book written for a popular audience (and thus, ruined the whole point of the thing -- there are thousands of books written by philosophers, for philosophers, on similar subjects... the general public generally doesn't read them. And this is just fine.)

There it is.

Other Comments by Quine

34. Comment #431018 by Nunbeliever on November 11, 2009 at 9:33 am

SPINOZA:

Thank you for your detailed answer. Yes, I think I understood your point. I guess I should look into the world of philosophy a bit more as it bugs me a bit...

Edit: What bugs me is the arrogant attitude (again referring to Michael Ruse) that because Dawkins has an infantile understanding of philosophy (stated without any furhter arguments or examples) the whole book (God Delusion) is to be considered a complete non-sequitur in the discussion about gods existence. To me it seems like philosophers have come to realize their arguments don't matter anymore in this regard and are angry for not being invited to take part in this discussion.

"How dare this....this SCIENTIST bring up philosophical arguments when that is OUR area of expertise. Well, we don't have a good case either, BUT still they could ask our opinion so that we would feel important."... But that's just my slightly cynical opinion ;-)

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

35. Comment #431021 by Steve Zara on November 11, 2009 at 9:43 am

Comment #431009 by Steve_Goble

This science/atheism thing is a real problem. Personally, I have no doubt that atheism is a scientific position which is pretty much proven. To use Dawkins' term from TGSOE, Atheism is a "Theorum": the idea that the universe is purely physical and there has been no divine fiddling during its existence has firm evidence, and all past supposed evidence for theism has been shown to be either just plain wrong or extremely unreliable. Atheism can't be proven in the same way as a mathematical or logical statement, but that is no excuse for anyone trying to sneak God in because of that.

But how do you not put off theists from learning science? I guess just present the facts. But to me that feels like trying to teach geology without actually saying that the Earth is round because you don't want to put off flat-Earthers. Still, if it is necessary..

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #431024 by AllanW on November 11, 2009 at 9:54 am

Thanks for dropping by Steve and adding some further insight to your article. You make a valid point in the original piece and have clarified it in your posts here. Keep up the good work of trying to further science education; it’s a task that’s never done but always needed.

As far as getting lukewarm religiots to at least think about science goes, the best approach (or at least the approach that avoids the knee-jerk one) is to point to religious scientists and writers who also believe in God. Jos and mord have named a few in Miller and Morris but there are others.

But to go to the next level of your original question in the article, here’s a question for you; hasn’t someone who has so far failed to access any of the vast cornucopia of information available now about these issues effectively self-selected themselves out of the debate and sided with the deluded?

There is a humungous, stupendous amount of academic literature about evolution available to non-academics nowadays, and even if someone is not inclined to access this rich treasure-trove of information there are swathes of non-academic literature and presentations specifically created for the popular audience (a veritable explosion of this in the last five years by all kinds of authors both academic and non-academic, religious and non-religious) and even after this there are places and resources available from Eugenie Scott’s group, government departments, TV documentaries and kids science shows, Attenborough documentaries, nature channels and the list goes on that can help people to understand the science. My point is that you can’t spend ever-increasing amounts of time and other resources in an effort to reach the stubbornly indifferent. You accept and we all accept that portions of the population are wilfully ignorant of the arguments being made; they have made their choice and are sticking to it to side with irrationality but you’re asking for just one more step to be taken by the rest of us who are based in the real world to reach out one more time, make that extra effort to reach those who you think still haven’t spent any time or effort to access what is available but still might be susceptible to the arguments. And my observation would be, how do you tell them apart from the head-in-the-sand delusionals? Are you sure these possible converts really exist?

Other Comments by AllanW

37. Comment #431026 by Stafford Gordon on November 11, 2009 at 9:58 am

More progress; it's working; about time.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

38. Comment #431030 by SaintStephen on November 11, 2009 at 10:13 am

16. Comment #430945 by Jos Gibbons on November 10, 2009 at 10:41 pm

(I'm not sure why you brought them up here, but I actually find threads more interesting when they're off-topic anyway, so thank you).

I'm glad somebody else feels this way. Complaining that someone is off-topic, IMHO, is a subtle form of censorship. And although I have no evidence for this next statement, I don't necessarily think keeping RD.net thread discussions uniform in their subject matter is a significant force for good in the world.

And that was off-topic, too.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

39. Comment #431034 by geru on November 11, 2009 at 10:48 am

"I have nothing against atheists, except that people shouldn't be atheists."

This is pretty much how I read the beginning of the text.

Other Comments by geru

40. Comment #431036 by Steve Zara on November 11, 2009 at 11:04 am

Comment #431030 by SaintStephen

Complaining that someone is off-topic, IMHO, is a subtle form of censorship

No, it certainly isn't. If you want to have a conversation about something else, you can set up a blog somewhere else in minutes, or have a chat on Facebook or Twitter. Or, you can start a thread in the Forums. This site is set up for discussions on articles that are presented. As we have seen, the authors of those articles do occasionally turn up and join in the discussions. It seems to me to be at the very least bad manners not to keep at least to some degree to the topic within the first few pages comments.

Sorry, but I feel quite strongly about this. This is an excellent free site that gives our comments world-wide visibility. The least we can do is try and help it work as intended.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #431037 by Steve_Goble on November 11, 2009 at 11:42 am

Re: Comment #431034 by geru

I read "I have nothing against atheists" as, um, "I have nothing against atheists."

And I don't have anything against atheists.

-- Steve

Other Comments by Steve_Goble

42. Comment #431039 by Steve_Goble on November 11, 2009 at 11:50 am

Re: Comment #431024 by AllanW

I am sure the possible converts, as you call them, really exist, because I have met some. They live in a fairly busy world, with a billion distractions, and don't so much ignore the scientific evidence for evolution as simply never get around to it.

They sometimes are as prone to say "teach the controversy" or "there are no transitional fossils" as the die-hard Answers in Genesis fan, but it's mostly because that's what they hear from their church friends, parents, etc. When given an opportunity to hash it out with someone who knows the science, they sometimes have a "wow" moment and decide to learn more.

It's not easy, and it's not guaranteed, but I think it's worth the effort. Anyway, I'm certain it's tough to engage somebody on a topic like this once you've declared them to be an idiot. Just my two cents.

-- Steve

P.S. More replies to other people here if I get time later. Thanks, all.

Other Comments by Steve_Goble

43. Comment #431043 by hungarianelephant on November 11, 2009 at 12:10 pm

40. Comment #431036 by Steve Zara

It seems to me to be at the very least bad manners not to keep at least to some degree to the topic within the first few pages comments.

The problem with that, of course, is that with a vastly increased number of articles being posted, few threads get beyond a couple of pages. Especially now that comment volume is so low - which is perhaps because the interesting discussions don't often get going in the first place. Now it seems we need some crazy Catholic for everyone to pounce on.

I appreciate that this self-denying ordinance is well intended, but I wonder if it was quite what was meant. Some of the most interesting threads - Lying For Jesus, Fleabytes - meandered into territory which had nothing at all to do with the topic. There was no lack of intellectual rigour and robust argumentation for that. It was a standing joke on the excellent Sarah Palin thread that the thread barely mentioned Sarah Palin.

Discussing irrelevant personal matters is rude, I agree. The sort of discussion that was starting between Spinoza and Jos Gibbons above, for example, seems to me anything but rude and disrespectful, even if it was rather tangential. Is it really the aim of this site to discourage that? I would think that most authors would be delighted that they had managed to provoke an intelligent discussion. If Steve Goble is still here, he can perhaps express his own opinion on that.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

44. Comment #431044 by SaintStephen on November 11, 2009 at 12:11 pm

40. Comment #431036 by Steve Zara on November 11, 2009 at 11:04 am

Would that all human minds were as logical and organized as yours, Steve. They aren't. Human brains are much more fractal and chaotic in the way thoughts are formed, at least that's my experience.

To spend time harping on someone for being human and having a human brain is an utter waste of time. It is even possible that new, fruitful ideas relevant to the on-topic discussion could spin off from any given "off-topic" remark.

I don't see very many people on RD.net -- if any -- who are purposely attempting to derail threads in a way intended to squelch discussion of the topic. Just so you know, I for one, will not be listening to, or give any respect to, a request to stay "on-topic", from anyone, short of the administrators of this website themselves, or our heroic and admirable patron Richard Dawkins.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

45. Comment #431045 by Steve Zara on November 11, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Forgive me; I probably sounded a bit too harsh. It is natural (and healthy) for conversations to wander. It was the use of the word 'censorship' that raised my hackles. It is a very strong word.

Just so you know, I for one, will not be listening to, or give any respect to, a request to stay "on-topic", from anyone, short of the administrators of this website themselves, or our heroic and admirable patron Richard Dawkins.

If you look back to earlier in the year, our admirable patron was indeed requesting that threads stay at least initially on topic.

Anyway, I shall shut up now, as this very discussion is off-topic.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #431046 by Bonzai on November 11, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Off topic alert

I agree with hungarianelephant and the other who favour a more free flowing discussion style. Here we believe in evolution, don't we? So let the discussions evolve and mutate and see where they will take.

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #431048 by SaintStephen on November 11, 2009 at 12:46 pm

45. Comment #431045 by Steve Zara on November 11, 2009 at 12:35 pm

If you look back to earlier in the year, our admirable patron was indeed requesting that threads stay at least initially on topic.

Scientifically speaking, it would be interesting to know how Richard would break that request down. I don't mean to get all reductionist about it... but what, exactly, defines an on-topic statement? Must it include the name of the author of the article? The one who submitted it? A string, perhaps, quoted directly from the text? Of course I'm being a little wacky (off-topic?) here, but it is still a question that deserves a fairly good answer -- if one is going to be strident about it.


(And last time I checked, when he was in Berkeley in early October actually, Richard appeared to be very human himself.)

Other Comments by SaintStephen

48. Comment #431050 by God fearing Atheist on November 11, 2009 at 12:55 pm

On the question of whether RD's reputation increases or decreases the number of people who will read TGSoE.

If reliable book sales figures are available for all RD's books, a plot of sales over time for each book should give a good indication. Will TGSoE outsell his last book on evolution, and by what margin? RD will have the figures, but he may be the only one.

As for the change of opinion, or the number of "fence sitters" this reaches, we will probably never know, unless MORI (or like) are carefully surveying the population over time.

Maybe RDFRS should commission some polls and get into social/political science!

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

49. Comment #431053 by Peacebeuponme on November 11, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Bonzai

Here we believe in evolution, don't we? So let the discussions evolve and mutate and see where they will take.

Very well said.

The off topic thing is only really an issue where a small group of posters engage in excessive exchanges of in-jokes, or one poster feels the need to sustain a remarkable posting rate relative to other posters. Many have been guilty of this from time-to-time, me included. At the moment Saint Stephen, lovely chap though he is, can make the site a little too multi-coloured, and I have some sympathy with those who complain about off-topic posts in this context.

On balance though, a generally freefrom posting environment has led to the more interesting debates. Saint Stephen, or anybody else, should not feel any apprehension before posting what he thinks is interesting.

[EDIT: btw - can someone bring up Sharia Law, Socialized Medicine, the placebo effect...maybe even Peak Oil. I feel like we need to get a decent barney going.]

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

50. Comment #431054 by Steve_Goble on November 11, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Comment #431043 by hungarianelephant

I'm new on this board, so my opinion on meandering away from the thread topic shouldn't change the prevailing "house rules" here or anything, but for what it's worth I don't mind a bit if things wander into other areas.

On a board like this one I suppose digressions into areas such as walking the dog or burping the baby probably would be a no-no, but the Spinoza-Jos exchange is interesting and seems to be par for the course to me. It seems more of a "spin-off" than a "thread hijack," if that makes sense, and I might learn something by paying attention.

So ... I say have at it. Freewheeling discussions are good.

-- Steve

Other Comments by Steve_Goble