1. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98825 by David Blackwell on December 14, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Comment #98230 by BAEOZ

David Blackwell. Here's a pointer. The philosophy of atheism is that there are no gods. There is no ideology of atheism. There is no ethics of atheism. It's not even a belief as such.
Marxism may require you be atheist. But it's Marxism you are attacking not atheism. As atheism has nothing to say on how a society should be run. Religion on the other hand has a whole bunch of ideology and philosophy, as well as moral and sometimes immoral imperatives.
Why is it so hard for people to grasp why religion can be blamed because it promotes a certain set of actions, but atheism just denies that gods exists and promotes nothing else?

Comment #98232 by gr8hands

David Blackwell, you are confused when you link dialectical materialism, and atheism. They are not synonymous, not equivalent, and not mutually interdependent.

You are confusing Marxism with atheism. Again, they are not synonymous, not equivalent, and not mutually interdependent.

You are also confused that Dawkins is saying that Stalin's/Hitler's ideology is not to blame for their actions -- he is saying that 'atheism' is not to blame for their actions, and was not their ideology.

You continue to be confused by suggesting there is an 'atheist philosophy'. No such thing exists.

Your complaint would have merit if anyone had committed atrocities in the name of atheism. But they didn't. They did them in the name of some other ideology or for some other reason. Atheism does not advocate, demand, require or 'inspire' any action. If any action happens, it is for other reasons.

RESPONSE TO ABOVE

Both beside the point surely? The priest, Jonathan Morris, was contrasting religion (of the sort he favours, of course) with atheistic ideologies (e.g. Marxism), and claiming that the atheism per se (not least of Marxism) led to the kinds of horrors we witnessed in the last century. His argument likely would be of the kind (to which none of us would subscribe): Without obedience to a "God" who requires that we treat the human individual with respect, or else (hell or whatever), we'll continue to witness these horrors. The issue here is not one of narrow definitions, as BAEOZ and gr8hands would have it, but an empirical question.

Of course, atheism per se refers to non-belief in a "God" (or "gods).

Just as theism in and of itself means belief in a "God" (or "gods")!

D.B.

2. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98224 by David Blackwell on December 13, 2007 at 9:55 am

As a great admirer of Professor Dawkins, not least because of his insistence on evidence-based thinking and the stimulus to the enlightenment of the populace that he represents, I nonetheless can't subscribe (nor for sure would RD himself wish otherwise for people) to a position of "Richard Dawkins right or wrong."

A case in point here is the repeated claim that when something we disapprove of is done in the name of religion, then somehow religion is to blame, but when something is done in the name of a non-religious ideology (the atheist ideology of dialectical materialism, for instance), that ideology is not to blame. I find this stance quite irrational.

Sure, religion can provide motive for behaviour (a seemingly likely example being many Muslim suicide bombings). But can anyone really deny, for instance, that (atheist) Marxist ideology has not also provided inspiration for committing barbarities, even if in the belief that in doing so one is furthering a better world? (Could Marxism be Marxism without its atheism?) Recall, too, that those glorious places, the capitalist dictatorship of China, North Korea and (as far as I know) Cuba, with their stellar respect for human rights, are, whatever else they may be, officially atheist states

It was interesting to note that in the BBC Have Your Say program, Richard D. talked in terms of things being done "in the name of religion." Of course, revolting things are and have been done in the name of religion—but in such cases there may or may not have been a religious motive at play (for instance, a person may profess a religious reason when pursuing what is in fact his or her own power, status or financial gain agenda). But this is equally true of things done for professedly non-religious reasons. Why should it be otherwise?

To deny these realities is to play into the hands of PR men like Father Morris and allow them to score what are in fact valid points. Would not a more fruitful approach be to concede that the execrable also happens in the name of, and can be motivated by, non-theistic ideologies, and instead to focus on the eminently defensible proposition that, notwithstanding the atrocities that are also committed in the name of an atheist philosophy, "one can be good without God"—and relatedly, on what is needed to foster ethicality without recourse to meaningless and unverifiable supernaturalism (in the upbringing of our children, etc.)?

D.B.

3. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66571 by David Blackwell on August 30, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Though I may have missed it before, I have been waiting decades to see someone with public profile call attention to the fact that human sacrifice lies at the very heart of Christian doctrine. Once again, well done, Sam Harris.

4. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64281 by David Blackwell on August 19, 2007 at 10:19 am

What a not only informative but highly entertaining piece. I found especially delectable the author's enlightenment of Marvin Olasky on points relating to the Revolutionary War and of a Roman Catholic host on a Fox radio station on Roman Catholic theology (the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth not being the same thing). One had better have their facts straight and have thought things through before taking on the redoubtable Christopher.

It's encouraging to note that Hitchens's god is not Great remains the #1 (hard copy, non-fiction) bestseller in Canada, while The God Delusion, which has been in the top ten for 42 weeks, still stands at #2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, with its first-hand, nitty-gritty account of growing up as a female Moslem child in Africa and portrayal of the reality of Islam, remains in the top ten at #8 spot. Incidentally, the pope's book on Jesus, which Hitchens refers to in his Vanity Fair piece, has not (yet anyway) appeared among Canada's top ten bestsellers.

Yes indeed, God bless you, Christopher Hitchens!

5. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55592 by David Blackwell on July 11, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Theologian Douglas Wilson argues that there is no rational basis ("warrant") for any moral code that an atheist (i.e. non-believer in "God") can provide, in the process attacking the idea of ethical imperatives being "derived from innate human solidarity" (Hitchens) on the grounds that this begs the questions of which imperatives and whose deriving prevails. I don't think Hitchens ever really answers Wilson on this. For instance, he (Hitchens) advocates "love thy neighbour." But on what rational grounds? Why "love one's neighbour"? (Notice relatedly how humanist manifestos and declarations typically resort to adherence to reason AND compassion.).

In response to Wilson, Christopher ("bearer of Christ"!) Hitchens holds that "ordinary morality is innate," and thus seemingly argues along the lines, it is rational to be moral/ethical because in doing so one is being consistent with what one is. For one thing, this would beg the question why one should be true to what one is. Also, if one grants the obvious fact that solidarity is a characteristic of the human species (among other animals), the obvious fact remains that a lot of "non-solidarity," e.g. desire to harm, which Hitchens acknowledges, is also a human characteristic. Which in turn begs the question, why therefore give priority to the solidarity characteristic? What rational case can be made for this? I have the distinct impression that Hitchens is missing Wilson's point (or understanding but avoiding answering it because he really can't?)—or at a minimum not really addressing it satisfactorily. If, for instance, experiencing compassion (sympathy, a feeling of solidarity and related) per se is claimed as sufficient rationale for helping others (i.e. "God" is surplus to requirements), as Hitchens and others clearly seem to do, then the question remains, what is the rational case to be made for a person to be compassionate who does not already feel compassion?

I know none of the above is in the slightest original. However, judging from the Wilson-Hitchens exchanges, these considerations remain, as they say, "operative.

All of which in no way even begins to intimate that supernaturalist Wilson makes a rational case for his own "objective" position on morality. The problem, though, is that Hitchens' (among others?) failure to rise to the challenge has left a theist visibly scoring points—and being in a position to do so again in the future by pointing to this.

As I see it anyway.

D.B.

6. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53453 by David Blackwell on July 1, 2007 at 2:02 pm

"memosphere"--clearly a meme with high survival potential