1. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210107 by lordfenriz on July 14, 2008 at 12:08 am

The American architects were believers in militias and government not having standing armies. It's ridiculous for us Americans to think that the so-called right to bare arms was about the weapons themselves...

Hmmm . . . many famous quotes, mainly from Thomas Jefferson, seem to contradict this. Are you saying that those quotes are fraudulent and not traceable back to primary sources?

. . . it was about being able to defend property and lives when our government had no ability to do it for us. If these same "architects" saw the state of our country today, it is my belief they would be against citizen ownership of fire-arms.

I'm no historian, but isn't it also true that the founding fathers lived during a period of government tyranny? Isn't it true as well that throughout the centuries prior to the American Revolution rulers controlled populations by preventing the "common people" from keeping arms? The history of Europe prior to the American revolution seems to suggest that the right to bear arms was meant to protect citizens from tyrants. I could be wrong though.

I'm just asking. I'm not committed to any particular position in this debate. It does, however, often times seem like anti-gun supporters use some of the same tactics arguing against the right to bear arms that some religious individuals use to undermine church/state separation: mainly clever sophistry involving "misinterpretations" of the constitution. For example, the argument that the establishment clause is meant to keep government out of religion, but not religion out of government. An absurdity to anyone who really thinks about it.

2. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208090 by lordfenriz on July 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Email sent:

President Bruininks,



I fully support Professor PZ Myers and his recent blog post that condemns the ridiculous antics of the Catholic League. Professor Myers' blog, Pharyngula, provides a refreshing drop of reason into the reeking and stagnant pool that is the American public square, which is overflowing with religious superstition. Professor Myers is an important voice. Religious fanatics, emboldened by our country's rights concerning freedom of conscience, seem to confuse respect for an individual's right to follow his/her conscience with respect for the ideas formed by his/her conscience. This common misconception shelters dangerous ideas from criticism and is the essence of the privacy and liberty fallacies discussed in Austin Dacey's great book, "The Secular Conscience." According to Dacey, "The result of these misconceptions about privacy and freedom is a culture unwilling or unable to sustain a real public conversation about religion, ethics, and values. What culture can survive without that conversation?"



Wolf S. von Pankow

Palo Alto, California

3. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149354 by lordfenriz on March 25, 2008 at 1:54 pm

We are going around in circles, So how am I dishonest if I knowingly interpret the bible because I genuinely believe that the Bible is meant to be understood in its proper context and that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time?

Ah...progress. The question is: do most moderates really believe this, or is it just a convenient excuse? Even if it's correct that the bible is primarily metaphor, do moderates come to this conclusion due to study and reflection, or because they want to reduce cognitive dissonance? My bet is on the latter.

4. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149288 by lordfenriz on March 25, 2008 at 11:50 am

Let me start by stating that all of you (Bonzai, Riley, SteveN, and Steve Zara) have made excellent points at times. I just want to add one little bit.

Why is it dishonest for a contemporary Christian to acknowledge that 16th Century theologians were wrong? This should be applauded.

Perhaps it is dishonest because these individuals should know better than to believe any of it. The fact that they use metaphor and interpretation isn't necessarily the dishonest part. It's why they use it. Although I have no data to support this and recognize it is purely anecdotal, it does seem that many liberal Christians, such as McGrath, want to have the best of both worlds. They value logic and evidence with respect to everything else in their lives, but give religion a free pass because they want it to be true. If a scholarly Christian wants to look for metaphor because he/she thinks that is the best approach as an academic and truth seeker, I don't see a problem with it. If, however, the same individual looks for metaphor to keep religion free from scrutiny, to continue the nauseating, tiresome, never ending act of moving the goal posts, then he/she is being intellectually dishonest.

5. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146270 by lordfenriz on March 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

A private company has the right to rent to whoever they please, and refuse to rent to whomever they please. It is not a free-speach issue.

If a private company decides not to rent to an individual because he is black, does this argument still hold?

No, it doesn't. I don't know about the UK, but here in the US a company can't discriminate against another group based upon race, religion, etc.

In other words, companies can't, in fact, do whatever they want in every situation.

I'll cede the point, of course, if there is a US lawyer on the forum who knows differently.

This quote is from legalzoom.com:

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

6. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127489 by lordfenriz on February 15, 2008 at 10:42 am

I find it interesting how some of you non-Americans demonstrate your higher intelligence by drawing hasty conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence. I suggest you read, "Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking." Mistake number one: We prefer stories to statistics. Although I enjoyed Susan Jacoby's "Freethinkers," I'm disturbed that she decided to write her new book because she ran into two idiots in a bar. This is similar to the individual who claims that crime is on the rise because his neighbor just got robbed.

7. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68505 by lordfenriz on September 7, 2007 at 10:39 am

Lordfenriz
Not at all. I assumed that your name was an allusion to the Fenris wolf of Norse mythology. As I used to be rather keen on the old Norse myths, I tend to like such allusions.

I only really pick up missuses of my name or pseudonym when it is done by people who are having a go at me. I feel that the least they can do if they are slagging me is to spell my name right. Nichts wahr? (^8

True, it does have to do with Norse mythology. It's so hard to judge tone on the internet. I wasn't sure if you were joking about it or just making a comment. No problems here. I appreciate the response, and you are correct, people should spell your pseudonym correctly.

8. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68288 by lordfenriz on September 6, 2007 at 3:58 pm

pewkatchoo said:

lordfenriz (like the wolfie name)

I suppose. My first name is Wolf (Umlaut over the "o") as I'm German on my mother's side. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your comment isn't a "shot" at my pseudonym. Since I've made a very conscious effort to spell your pseudonym correctly and not make fun, I appreciate your return of the favor. You seem to have a lot of problems with this:

Bla, the name is pewkatchoo not pew. A pew is something you sit on in church.

Petal, my psuedonym is Pewkatchoo. Get it right petal (irony alert) and I might actually pay some attention to you (though probably not)

9. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68281 by lordfenriz on September 6, 2007 at 3:40 pm

LordFenriz:
Yes, I would be more inclined to look at Philip Johnson's literature on ID than I would the literature produced by the priest of my local church.

(Your argument seemed to be based on me not doing, so I hope you don't mind such a short reply.)

Doodinthemood,

No problem here concerning the short reply, although I don't think you looked closely enough at my argument. In fact, you seem to have reduced it to a strawman version. I used Phillip Johnson to illustrate a point. He wasn't the point. My argument isn't based on whether or not you have actually looked at Johnson's ID literature, or would be willing to do so instead of looking at the ID arguments of your local priest. My argument is based on the fact that arguments will stand or fall on their own, regardless of who is making them.

Consider what Prufrock says in post #66:

An example of appealing to an authority might be that evolution is true because Professor Dawkins said so and not because of the ridiculous amounts of observable, verifiable and testable evidence supporting it.

This is precisely my point. In the end, even if a person is highly qualified, it all comes down to the evidence. Evolution isn't true because Professor Dawkins says so. Professor Dawkins says so because Evolution is true.

I can appreciate your reliance on experts when it comes to sorting through materials, all of which compete for your time. I do this myself. As Jiten says in post 59:

Nonsense.There is not enough time in our short lives to check everything out rigoursly befre dismissing it.Are you going to check out every nutty idea before rejecting it? Are you going to read the Bhagvad Gita before saying that its cosmology is laughably rubbish in the light of modern theories?

I agree, except I would leave out "Are you going to read the Bhagvad Gita before saying that its cosmology is laughably rubbish in the light of modern theories?" Yes, I am going to read a book before I claim that it is rubbish. Rejecting a book and deciding not to waste your time on it is different than claiming its contents are "rubbish".

What I don't do is comment on the books I decided not to read. Why? Because I'm not familiar with the specific arguments.

As blaine says in post 62:

And it is perfectly sensible to give proportional weight to opinions of appropriate authorities in a field. It certainly makes sense to conclude from these factors that it isn't worth your time to read certain works. But these factors do not justify the conclusion that the points made in any specific unread work are wrong.

I agree.

If you (doodinthemood) want to spend your time on Johnson's ID literature instead of your local priest because of Johnson's education, so be it. I don't have a problem with this. However, don't turn around and say the specific ID arguments of your local priest are "rubbish" (to use Jiten's words) simply because he is a priest and has no formal training in logic. Again, this is the same attack many people in Academia launched toward Professor Dawkins.

"He isn't an 'expert' in Philosophy or Theology", says the critic. "Thus, his arguments aren't valid"

It's going to be fairly difficult to defend Dawkins from these critics if we apply a double standard.

"Hey critics, why don't you attack Professor Dawkins' arguments in The God Delusion, not his qualifications as a Philosopher or Theologian. Of course, I don't need to attack the arguments presented by the religious because I already know without reading that their arguments are probably fallacious because most of them lack the proper qualifications".

How is this different than the double standard employed by Dawkins' critics that he (Dawkins) needs to provide scientific evidence to back up his claims in The God Delusion, while the religious, apparently, don't need to provide any evidence to please them(TGD critics). As Dan Dennett says to Orr in his reply to Orr's review of TGD:

Who does Orr favor? Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Plantinga, or some more recondite thinkers? Orr brandishes the names of two philosophers, William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein, and cites C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, a fairly nauseating example of middle-brow homiletic in roughly the same league on the undergraduate hit parade as Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ (1998) and transparently evasive when it comes to "meticulous reasoning." If it were a book in biology—Orr's discipline—I daresay he'd pounce on it like a pit bull, but like many others he adopts a double standard when the topic is religion.

10. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68021 by lordfenriz on September 5, 2007 at 4:51 pm

I am also speaking for a few like minded souls who are fed up of the rip-off merchants crawling out of the woodwork and making a buck on the back of someone elses hard work.

pewkatchoo,

I agree and sympathize with you on this one. I think it's a good point. Regardless of all this talk about qualifications, it does seem to me that the same "arguments" can be made without using identical cover art, similar titles, and Atheist names on the front. I understand your anger with these people.

11. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68019 by lordfenriz on September 5, 2007 at 4:33 pm

doodinthemood said:

I think your likening of pewkatchoo's statements to criticisms of Dawkins are misplaced. Look at them:
"Dawkins knows nothing about theology, so cannot comment on God." - This is because God need not be a theological question. Whether or not there is a god can be answered through logic and reasoning. As a successful scientist, Dawkins shows that he is not just capable of logic and reasoning, but very intelligent logic and reasoning, and so it's worthwhile to hear his views.
"The iPod tutor knows nothing about anything past website design, so cannot comment on Dawkins." - Differing from the last statement that it gets likened to, a criticism of Dawkins would need knowledge of something past website design. A theologian could give a criticism. A theist scientist could give a criticism. An atheist could give a criticism of style. All these criticisms would be worth looking at, because they come from specialists of a greater understanding than myself of the respective stances. Had the iPod tutor done something on website design, it may be worth looking at, but this probably isn't.

You're assuming this author has no knowledge of anything past web design. How do you know this? As BicycleRepairMan says in post 53:

...without actually making an effort to find out about the content in question, he COULD have spent all his life reading books on theology, biology, science, or whatever, so without having any official qualifications and papers, he could know and understand more of the subject than any of us, or Dawkins for that matter.

doodinthemood,
I actually agree with you concerning Professor Dawkins. I think he is more than qualified to address the question of God. But do his qualifications really matter in the end? The God Delusion will stand or fall on its arguments, not the qualifications of Professor Dawkins. Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of the Intelligent Design movement, is highly educated. His higher degree in law certainly qualifies him to talk about logic and philosophy, but does it really matter? Does this automatically add justification to his intelligent design arguments? No, it doesn't. I disagree with people like Orr because they attack Dawkin's qualifications instead of his arguments (although Orr thinks he made an adequate rebuttal of the 747 argument). My likening of pewkatchoo's statements to criticisms of Dawkins isn't misplaced. The reasoning is identical.

Isn't all the talk about "qualifications" really just an ad hominem argument against individuals who lack professional degrees in the particular subjects, and a "free pass" to those who do hold the degrees? Do you really want to give any amount of automatic respect to Phillip Johnson just because he has a background in law, and thus in logic and argumentation? Your argument requires you to do so. As you said:

Whether or not there is a god can be answered through logic and reasoning

True, Johnson's intelligent design arguments aren't good examples of logic and reasoning, but that is precisely the point. Intelligent design fails because of its arguments, not because of the credentials of its proponents.

12. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67768 by lordfenriz on September 4, 2007 at 5:12 pm

blaine said:

Like everybody else here, I am nearly certain that this Guide has nothing intelligent to say, and is probably misleading and retrograde; but those findings should be based on the work (including the free samples provided), not upon whether the author is accredited, has spent enough money on distribution, or has a complete (or even attractive!) resume.

I agree.

pewkatchoo said:

And what are the commentators' qualifications, er, none by all accounts. Barry Krusch is actually a rather ordinary individual.

Be careful with this criticism. It sounds awfully familiar. Consider H. Allen Orr's review of The God Delusion:

One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins's book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length?

In his response to Orr's review, Jason Rosenhouse observes:

Let us begin with the obvious: The reason Orr was asked to review this book is that he is an evolutionary biologist. If biologists have no particular qualifications for discussing this topic, one wonders why he didn't tell the editor of the NYRB to find a theologian instead.

Dan Dennett also replied to Orr and noted that by Orr's own reasoning he (Orr) wasn't "qualified" to make the review:

I'd really like to know which published critique of the 747 argument you endorse, so I can explain to you, a non-philosopher, what its shortcomings are.

Be very careful...the logical consequences of your arguments apply to you as well. Orr learned the hard way.

13. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63563 by lordfenriz on August 14, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Thanks for the link etny

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63525 by lordfenriz on August 14, 2007 at 4:55 pm

darwin2

You said:

All I can say is that this is what I truly believe in. I can't imagine a universe existing without a designer. The exception is God because God is the Originator.

I understand that you believe this stuff, but you need to recognize at some point that believing in something doesn't make it true. You need to start asking yourself, "Do I have good reason to believe these things, or do I just want them to be true?" You can't imagine a Universe without God because you don't want to imagine it.

You've said in previous posts that you have no objective evidence for your beliefs. I gave you objective logical evidence that demonstrates why your design argument fails. You basically ignore it. This is wishful thinking and intellectual dishonesty on your part. If you aren't willing to change your beliefs in proportion to the evidence, then I agree with several other posters. You are wasting our time.

So to answer your question, we don't have evidence now because we are temporarily blinded in this short lifetime by our mistakes in the past.

Again, learn the difference between well supported beliefs and wishful thinking. I can dream up all sorts of explanations for things too, but that doesn't prove anything. You need to start examining the evidence before you form your beliefs. You are currently deciding what you want to believe, and then looking for evidence to support it.

15. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63308 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm

darwin2,

If consciousness continues after death, we will get a wealth of scientific evidence to pursue this issue further.

Why don't we have the evidence now? If consciousness continues after death, it has been doing so for a very long time.

16. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63304 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 8:51 pm

darwin2

You said:

I have read Dawkins book as well as those of Harris and Hitchens. The design argument doesn't go ad infinitum. It stops at God.

It doesn't end at God unless you arbitrarily choose to end it at God. The infinite regress follows from your argument. This is a fact of logic. Again, logically, you can't state that complexity requires a designer in order to prove God's existence and then not apply that same premise to God. If you don't apply premise 1 to God, you are essentially "cherrypicking" the rules of logic to suit your argument. Regardless of whether or not you want to end it at God, this doesn't follow logically from your argument.

If God, a highly complex being, can exist without a designer, then the Universe can as well.

You are basically saying this:

With the exception of God, complexity requires a designer. But why the exception? If you can imagine a complex God without a designer, why can't you imagine a complex Universe without a designer?

17. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63263 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 5:50 pm

darwin2,

You said:

I disagree with Dawkins who proposed that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the possibility for the existence of God is very low, almost zero. I am perplexed that scientists can actually come to this conclusion.

Read Physicist Victor Stenger's book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" for an indepth look at why God fails as a scientific hypothesis.

I believe the opposite of what Dawkins says is true and that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the odds are very high, almost 100% that God, the One Surpreme Being, Designer and Creator exists. Would a scientist conclude that the Space Shuttle, one of the most complicated aircrafts in existence, was made by natural selection.

This is a false analogy. As others have pointed out, a space shuttle isn't a biological system. Evolution shows that biological simplicity begets biological complexity. Please study Evolution.

A false analogy is a logical fallacy. Please visit, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html, for more information.

The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

Sometimes the obvious answer isn't the correct one. "The earth is flat" was the obvious answer in the past to questions concerning the shape of our planet.

Dawkins addressed your complexity argument in "The God Delusion". Please read and understand the book before you make a post. Your argument looks like this:

Complexity requires a designer
The Universe is complex

The Universe required a designer

Dawkins points out that any designer of the Universe must be equally, if not more, complex. By your own premise, complexity requires a designer. Thus, God must also have a designer. Moreover, God's designer must have a designer. And God's designer's designer must have a designer, ad infinitum. This leads to an infinite regress. If you can arbitrarily stop the regress at God, then Dawkins can arbitrarily stop it at the Universe.

18. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61288 by lordfenriz on August 4, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Wee Flea,

You said to Daksian:

And your first post was so reasonable! I'm afraid that I have other aims and motives than that. The bottom line is that on this website anything which goes against the party line is going to be incendiary.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm sure it seems this way to you, but I think it has a lot to do with how you approach us. As Daksian pointed out:

First, the language you choose to use. There are hot-button terms that are bound to get an atheist's hackles raised when referring to them: fundamentalism, belief, and the like because it refers to a lack of rationalism, which is something atheists pride themselves on. I have no doubt you use these terms deliberately and as often as possible to provoke angry responses, further justifying your position since it makes it seem as if you are the reasonable one. In truth, it is a psychological trick, which leads me to my second point.

I won't speculate about your motives. You're the only one who knows for sure. However, there is no doubt that the language and punctuation you use puts most Atheists in a defensive mode, which is the wrong approach if you really want to change minds. As Daksian pointed out, applying terms like "fundamentalism" and "belief" to Atheists is perceived as an insult by most people on this site. You may not intend it as an insult, but it is definitely perceived as one. You have to start thinking about your audience. This isn't a "fence sitter" website.

Your approach is no doubt alienating your arguments from Atheists who would otherwise be more than willing to look at them with an open mind. The same could be said about Douglas Wilson, the author of "Letter from a Christian Citizen". He didn't do himself any favors in the "Sam's Flea" thread months ago.

As far as the "flea books" are concerned, no, we shouldn't just disregard them because they use similar cover designs and Dawkins', Dennett's, and Harris' names in the titles. That being said, I think some of them lack taste. Again, Theists need to think about the audience. Using an identical cover to "The End of Faith" and titling the book "The Irrational Atheist: Dessecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris" wasn't the best decision. I get to hear insults toward three authors I highly respect before I even reach the first page.

19. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60716 by lordfenriz on August 2, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Wee Flea,

In your previous comment you said, "I still have this silly and fading hope that people on this site actually are open to discussion and different thinking". If you really mean this, I want to offer you a few words of caution. The people you trade insults with on these threads aren't the only ones who read them. There are far more of us who read these posts than respond to them. I want to hear your arguments, but they get lost in all the childish ranting and raving. You're not the only one who does this, but you're the only one with something to prove. As another person on this site once said (sorry, I don't remember who):

Read clearly
Think clearly
Speak clearly

20. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59380 by lordfenriz on July 28, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Well said MrEmpirical. We definitely need a more visible presence here in the US in order to protect the separation of church and state. With respect to politics, our individualism is our greatest weakness.

21. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58669 by lordfenriz on July 25, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Comment #58457 by the_assayer on July 24, 2007 at 11:49 pm

Lordfenriz- Politeness may not be a belief system, but it is certainly a belief and most often a result of the belief system one adheres to. Naming someone as "polite" may be seen as equally stifling, 'cause then people might always expect a kid to be polite and never express his disagreement with things. All parents are guilty of some sort of indoctrination. But luckily they are not the only source of information for a child and perhaps this is where we should be really focussing our attention. Schools, friends, books, internet, movies etc also can make significant changes to a persons belief system.


Assayer,

Calling politeness a belief is sort of a stretch of the imagination, don't you think? When I have children, I'm going to teach them to be polite because I don't like being around rude people. I would call this a pragmatic decision based upon my experiences, not a "belief". But if you want to call it a belief, let's call it a justified true belief. I know that rude people exist and I know that I don't like being around them. I also know that most people would agree that rude people are no fun to be around, and that rude people don't exactly foster human cooperation. Is this type of belief really similar in all the relevant and important ways to religious beliefs? No.


True, religious beliefs don't always lead to violence. Plenty of people have faith, and yet somehow manage not to hurt other people. However,
although religious belief isn't a necessary condition for violence, it certainly is a sufficient condition for acts of lunacy. It has the potential to do great harm. At the foundation of these beliefs is the idea of faith: belief without evidence, and sometimes in spite of the evidence. The terrorists of 9/11 had faith in their beliefs about martyrdom and the afterlife.

When comparing the teaching of the "politeness belief" to the teaching of religious belief, you need to ask the following question: Is the "politeness belief" a sufficient condition for acts of lunacy? If it is not, then you can't accuse Dawkin's of arbitrarily attacking religious belief over politeness belief. He criticizes the teaching of religious belief because it is sufficient for violence, while politeness is not. This certainly isn't arbitrary. Can you imagine someone flying a plane into a building due to a belief in politeness? Is politeness really "equally stifling" when compared to religious belief? Somehow it doesn't seem likely to me that a person will blow up a building because he could never express his true opinion on account of his learned politeness.

I stand by my original post. Comparing the teaching of politeness to children to the teaching of religion to children is a false analogy. Politeness is not sufficient for violence and thus isn't analogous to religious faith in the most important and relevant ways.

22. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58453 by lordfenriz on July 24, 2007 at 10:56 pm

40. Comment #58393 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm


I'm not sure I buy into Memes, I believe the scientific community is mostly sceptical about the whole thing. Nonetheless, the point I was making is, why is it 'wicked' to label a child who wants and chooses to pray as a child of faith and not wicked to label a child who has no understanding of politeness (but a good understanding of rewards) as polite.

As I repeat, I genuinely don't understand the arbitrary nature of the supposed wickedness of labelling. What is this moral judgement based on? is it merely the opinion of an Oxford scientist?


Fides,

The short answer to your question concerning the analogy between labeling a child "polite" as opposed to labeling a child "Christian" is that it is a false analogy. "Politeness" isn't a belief system. Christianity is a belief system. An argument from analogy must compare two things that are similar in all the "relevant" ways, otherwise it commits the fallacy of false analogy.

Dawkin's problem with labeling a child "Christian" is that in many cases it predisposes him/her to Christianity before he/she can think critically about Christianity. In his book, "Why I Rejected Christianity", the former Apologist John Loftus talks about "The Outsider Test for Faith". He talks about how difficult it is, once inside the circle of belief, to think critically about religious belief. According to Loftus, everything makes sense within the circle, and it wasn't until he stepped outside the circle and viewed it as an outsider that he could truly see the arguments against Christianity. When you label a child "Christian", you're putting him/her into the Christian circle of belief. As the others have noted, this is much different than an adult who willingly enters the circle from the outside.

What you need to think about is this: Does "politeness training" place your child into a circle of belief that could adversely affect his own life, and the lives of everyone else in the world? Is it likely that he will fly a plane into a building or torture another human because you taught him "politeness"?

"Politeness training" and "religious training" are similar in that you "taught" both behaviors to your son. But they are different in the most important ways.

23. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #52977 by lordfenriz on June 28, 2007 at 9:12 pm

"Atheism is a belief system the way not crossing my fingers is a superstition."

I like this quote as well (Richard Morgan post #29)
It reminds me of George Smith's excellent book "Atheism: The Case Against God." One of his main points in the book is that Atheism isn't a positive belief like religion. It is simply the lack of theistic belief. The statement, "I believe that God doesn't exist" is much different than "I don't believe in God". Thus, the Christian is the one with the belief. The Atheist simply doesn't believe until he/she has good reason(evidence) to believe.

I agree that Sam's book is great. The UK edition looks cool compared to my American version. Perhaps I can get a copy via Amazon UK.