1. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60220 by Gordon Brown on August 1, 2007 at 10:36 am

Incidentally, it's been reported that presidential hopeful Barack Obama has said that he would send troops into Pakistan to combat Al Qaeda units there, if President Musharraf did nothing on his own part to eliminate them. Whether this is so much campaign saber-rattling remains to be seen, but it's an interesting development.

2. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60213 by Gordon Brown on August 1, 2007 at 10:28 am

I never thought that Dennis Prager would ever side with Christopher Hitchens on some issue involving religion, but I have to admit that some of Prager's comments are right on the money, especially his pointing out of the dichotomous attitudes toward throwing the Qu'ran in the toilet on the one hand, and Serrano's Piss Christ on museum display on the other.

But Prager needs to read the Qu'ran more closely. As Sam Harris has so ably shown, the exhortations of Islam to kill infidels are explicit and unmistakable.

As for Hooper, well, he's pretty clueless. It's a sad commentary on those who would rail about this alleged "hate crime" while ignoring acts of murder by Muslims against other Muslims in Iraq, or the stonings of innocents in Iran, or the slitting of children's throats by Muslim marauders in Algeria as took place about ten years ago—or, for that matter, the massacre of 7,500 Muslim men and boys by Serbs in Srebrenica, which also occurred several years ago. Right on, Christopher.

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

Comment #53279 by Gordon Brown on June 30, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Wow! What a lacerating, devastating criticism of "Behe 2." Yet upon reading it I don't see how people come up with the canard that Dawkins' rhetoric is shrill and angry. It's just pointful and dead-on, that's all.

Paul Emecz (No. 10) writes:

I would still like to hear [Dawkins] say, honestly and openly, "If morality means 'You should do one thing and you should not do another' then there is no such thing as morality".

This view of morality is falsely dichotomous, and therefore I expect that Dawkins would never advocate for it—Dawkins is much better than that. You don't have to be a theist, or a deist, to realize that morality, if it's anything at all, is much more than a set of categorical imperatives. The field of morality (and of moral analysis more particularly) involves hypothetical imperatives, and prima facie rights and wrongs (i.e., rights and wrongs "at first face") which can be overridden by more pressing moral concerns. Then there's the relevance of moral dispositions of a person, and one's intentions when acting...the list goes on.

[Dawkins] says things like the existence of God is very, very unlikely, but then has no other explanation for the existence of this universe where intelligent life exists.

Time for a refresher course in TGD! Read Chapter 4, particularly pp. 134-151 (hardcover edition).

4. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52987 by Gordon Brown on June 28, 2007 at 11:49 pm

Comments by Nefrubyr (No. 44) and bamboospitfire (No. 46):

I was wondering whether someone would raise this objection. But I don't see how the very subjectivity of the cogito makes much difference! We can easily imagine Santa Claus embarking on the same program as Descartes, subjecting everything to radical doubt, inferring thereafter that he must be a thinking thing, on pain of not being deceived by an "evil genius." You might retort that there has got to be a crucial difference when Santa Claus appears to be involved in such introspection, and when I introspect myself. But the fact of my thinking is at most a symptom of my existence, and not at the root of my existence, which is logically anterior to my disposition to think. I have tried to show (not very well, perhaps) that this symptom is not quite as convincing as it may appear.

As for the logistical ability of cardiovascular systems and such...good point that I will concede on some metaphorical level at least. But again, just skip over that premise, and argue as follows: "I'm Santa Claus. I read and assimilate letters from millions of children worldwide. I deliver toys to millions of households within just hours. To do so requires the ability to think, if anything does." And so on...

My point overall is that, contrary to many moderns such as W. V. O. Quine, I am not of the opinion that the ability to ascribe predicates to an object presupposes the existence of that object. On that matter I side with people like Terence Parsons and Nicholas Rescher, who hold that the logic of predication has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of the object to which predicates are ascribed.

I could go on about my difficulties with Russell's theory of descriptions, but I'll spare everyone. These are peripheral matters that are not really to the point of the article at hand.

And no, I'm not the new P.M. of G.B. I just play him on the telly! (;-}=

5. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52710 by Gordon Brown on June 27, 2007 at 10:03 pm

A note to Ben Kington (No. 15):

No doubt Descartes' cogito, ergo sum appears to be a brilliant argument on its face. But the issues aren't quite so simple. Consider this:

Santa Claus delivers toys to millions of households within a span of a few hours. For one to be able to deliver toys to millions of households within just hours requires enormous logistical ability. To have logistical ability requires the ability to think. Accordingly, Santa Claus is a thinking thing. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

Apart from that little difficulty, even if we give Descartes his "props" for the cogito, it's what he further deduces from the cogito that just falls to pieces. Not least of which is that he infers the existence of God through a lengthy chain of argument that is patently invalid.

Descartes was a great mathematician. Maybe in the top five of mathematicians; definitely in the top ten. But he should have kept his day job!

6. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51360 by Gordon Brown on June 22, 2007 at 1:27 pm

MEMO TO BIZARRO DAWKINS:

Our basic understanding of the Universe is laid on the foundation of causal relationships. In fact, that is precisely what science is intended to examine. It therefore seems contradictory that science, which is the study of causal relationships, could imply that the Universe itself, existing within the natural laws and principles, is itself un-caused.

Why on Earth must you suppose that the universe has any "existence" apart from all the objects in it? What if everything in the universe exists contingently and has a cause? That should take care of the "uncaused and necessarily existent entity" problem, whether construed to be the universe or God. (In that regard you should read "The Cosmological Argument" by philosopher Paul Edwards.) As Bertrand Russell quipped, if you have difficulty conceiving a series of causes and effects with no beginning or end, this is simply due to the poverty of your imagination.

Atheism's claims are tantamount to observing a baseball flying through a window and claiming that, because you can't see the individual outside who threw the ball, it must have hurled itself through the window.

Ghastly analogy, my friend. That someone (or something) propelled the baseball through the window is readily inferable on the basis of prior empirical evidence, even if in this instance we cannot witness who or what sent the ball on its trajectory. Quite on the contrary, no one has any credible empirical evidence of the existence of supernatural beings. 'Nuff said.

I'm not given to responding to side remarks by others that have little or nothing to do with the article in question, but sometimes one must make exceptions.

7. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51196 by Gordon Brown on June 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Wow...almost have to catch my breath after consuming this pile of dung! Here is yet another horse-shitful, straw-man, slippery-slope article that confuses insistence on belief based on evidence with a sort of "fundamentalism" matching that of religious zealots. Worse, this insistence is purported to lead inevitably to an "Inquisition" of sorts by scientists.

But the bulk of our respondents has already succeeded admirably in refuting this nonsense. To say nothing of the fact that the Preface to TGD, paperback edition, ought to make articles such as this one completely irrelevant—if only Manning and others like him would take the time to read it.

8. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #45972 by Gordon Brown on May 29, 2007 at 10:35 pm

...God is not an anthropomorphic deity; He is just "the name we give to our belief that life has meaning."

In addition to Harris's fine rejoinder, there's another point that he could have marshaled in his defense. The philosopher Robert Solomon describes this attitude toward God very aptly in his book, Introducing Philosophy, 7th ed., pp. 130-131:

...When people try to reinterpret God so that He is nothing other than some universal quality, as in "God is love," or "God is ultimate force," or "God is life," or "God is the universe," there is a very real possibility that God's existence as an independent being is being denied. One can say "God is love" as shorthand for "God loves us and wants us to love each other" without this danger. But if one believes that God simply is identical to people's loving one another, then it is evident that this belief is no different from that of a person who might not believe in God at all but just believes in love. Similarly, it is one thing to believe that God is a "force," among other things, who created the universe; but if you believe that God is nothing other than a force that created the universe, without consciousness or concern, then your belief does not differ from that of someone who also believes that some force created the universe but does not believe in God.

Solomon's point should be well-taken: If, as Hedges asserts, "God" is merely the name of a belief according to which life has meaning, why propose this name in the first place?

9. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43537 by Gordon Brown on May 22, 2007 at 12:11 am

Would the world be better off if religion disappeared? Some people would say yes, and since it's impossible to conduct this experiment, as faith is definitely not going away, we can't be sure.

Compare that line of reasoning to the following, which might have been evinced in the 19th century: "Would the world be better off if slavery disappeared? Some people would say yes, and since it's impossible to conduct this experiment, as slavery is definitely not going away, we can't be sure."

Methinks Easterbrook is a bit pessimistic as to whether faith will just dry up and blow away over time. Or maybe he's just shilling for faith instead, without giving a shred of proof that it could never go away.

Suppose religion vanished tomorrow morning, and [Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland] divided themselves by arbitrary labels that had nothing to do with faith. Let's say one position was arbitrarily designated "Orange" and the other "Green." Do you think the conflict would instantly end? No, it would continue as before, if not worsen, since Christianity--both Catholicism and Protestantism--would no longer be present to urge each side to love its neighbor.

Fine lot of good this Christian prescription has done to this point! And do you think for a moment that in the vacuum left behind by the disappearance of religion, there is nothing in the way of a moral code that would take its place, and have a lot to recommend itself? This is what Easterbrook likes to think, because he's just another one of those apologists who have of late been desperately lunging forward with that lame argument that without religion, there is no ground whatsoever for morality.

Gregg, stick to your Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on ESPN. You do a terrific job with that. In this arena, however, you are way out of your element.

10. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43055 by Gordon Brown on May 20, 2007 at 11:23 am

Couldn't help weighing in on this one. I think PeterK's comments (No. 26) are dead-on, and I would only add this: I think the entire matter of distinguishing atheists from so-called "agnostics" turns on a basic confusion between belief and knowledge. [For practical purposes, knowledge may be defined as "a proper subset of belief the evidence for which is so thoroughgoing as to make this belief credible beyond doubt, or very nearly so." I recognize that this definition has its problems, as W.V. Quine has pointed out!]

The agnostic position, as I understand it, means "a-gnostic"— i.e., "without knowledge." In other words, the agnostic professes not to know whether God exists or not. Problem is, this definition fits everyone, from the most rabid Christian or Muslim to atheists. Therefore, the concept of agnosticism, though useful as a description of our actual epistemic condition, is completely vacuous as a label used to distinguish one's own religious disposition from that of others.

Even Richard Dawkins admits that he is not absolutely certain that there is no God (and that because, being a scholar of the first rank, he's an intellectually honest person). Recall that in his book, he says that if one posits a seven-point Likert-type scale, with 1 being "certain belief that there is a God" and 7 being "certain belief that there is no God," he describes himself as a "6," even though he's possessed of very compelling arguments against God's existence. So the matter of what we label ourselves turns on what we believe or don't believe, not on what we know or not. In turn, those who profess that they cannot know that God doesn't exist, but nevertheless believe that he doesn't, are not really agnostics but atheists. I wish John Moore had taken these points to heart before getting bogged down at the end of what is otherwise a concise (and badly needed) refutation of that old saw about atheists having no grounds for morally acceptable behavior.

11. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #42604 by Gordon Brown on May 18, 2007 at 3:16 pm

This piece is more thoughtful than many posted here, not the least of reasons being that Gottlieb leaves ambiguous his own religious temperament. He does bring up salient points that are troubling for Harris' accounts especially.

However, when it comes to documenting Voltaire, he's gotten a bit sloppy. Gottlieb writes that the order and beauty in the universe persuaded Voltaire of the existence of a "supreme being." That's not quite correct: In his Treatise on Metaphysics, Voltaire writes:

[One way] of acquiring the notion of a being who directs the universe...is by considering ... the end to which each thing appears to be directed... [W]hen I see a watch with a hand marking the hours, I conclude that an intelligent being has designed the springs of this mechanism, so that the hand would mark the hours. So, when I see the springs of the human body, I conclude that an intelligent being has designed these organs to be received and nourished within the womb for nine months; for eyes to be given for seeing; hands for grasping, and so on. But from this one argument, I cannot conclude anything more, except that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has prepared and shaped matter with dexterity; I cannot conclude from this argument alone that this being has made the matter out of nothing or that he is infinite in any sense. However deeply I search my mind for the connection between the following ideas — it is probable that I am the work of a being more powerful than myself, therefore this being has existed from all eternity, therefore he has created everything, therefore he is infinite, and so on. — I cannot see the chain which leads directly to that conclusion. I can see only that there is something more powerful than myself and nothing more.

Voltaire, From Chapter 2 of A Treatise on Metaphysics, second version, 1736. Translated by Paul Edwards

Further, Voltaire was fond of parodying the limitations of the argument from design; in Candide he is notorious for having quipped (I paraphrase here), "Isn't it clever of God to have fashioned the human nose so as to be a supporter of eyeglasses?"

Inaccuracies of this sort make me wonder what else Gottlieb has glossed over.

12. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41669 by Gordon Brown on May 16, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Here is yet more evidence that these religious dunderheads, completely stymied by ratiocination and logic, find nothing better than to resort to aesthetic arguments: "Hitchens lives in a flat world...", "Scientific materialism is banal...", ad nauseum. We've heard it all before; remember Alvin Plantinga's description of "Dawkins' unlovely naturalism"?

I agree with several others who have already posted here and elsewhere: If only these jerks would find a more creative way to defend their faith...

13. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #38874 by Gordon Brown on May 9, 2007 at 11:20 am

Thank you, Russell, for clarifying the distinction between philosophers of religion and religious philosophers. Well-said, as is everything else you've placed on this thread.

I think catchy_nick does have a point in that some philosophers who dwell on the subject of religion happen to be religious persons. I think the matter boils down to the level of discourse in which they engage. In the main, atheists are probably justified in becoming very impatient with the likes of Søren Kierkegaard, William James, Paul Tillich, and more recently, Alvin Plantinga and Keiji Nishitani; I know that I am. But that doesn't mean that their works shouldn't be read and considered. Fact is, these writers have a great deal more to say in defense of their views than, say, someone like Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute, who fancies himself a philosopher but is really just a Roman Catholic apologist. Let's do as we always do on this blog, and examine their respective ideas before we condemn them to the ash heap!

14. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38557 by Gordon Brown on May 8, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Excellent posts by bokonon (#98) and SRWB (#125). Thank you! I've learned a lot just by reading this thread. Incidentally, Ms. Bunting's article is getting a real pasting on The Guardian's blog.

15. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #38526 by Gordon Brown on May 8, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Well, I happen to agree that Dawkins' treatment of the traditional arguments in defense of God's existence is mixed. He devotes a great deal of attention and care to the Ontological Argument; to the Cosmological Argument, less so (though his treatment is no more superficial, say, than in Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian, since both of them gloss over, or ignore altogether, the elaborate reductio that St. Thomas Aquinas has set up for each of the first three formulations, and which make them initially more plausible).

Anyone who is interested in reading further into these arguments should consider the following classic pieces: The philosopher C.D. Broad's essay, "A Critique of the Ontological Argument," from his Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research; and an exceptionally fine article by Paul Edwards, "The Cosmological Argument," from The Rationalist Annual, 1959.

Dawkins agrees with most modern philosophers that when it comes to the Ontological Argument, its assumption that "existence is a perfection, a property, or predicate of things" is mistaken. And so most of them criticize the argument along the same lines that Kant had done centuries previously. Broad has a different plan of attack: he tries to show that its core premise—that "God is a being than which none greater can be conceived"— is logically incoherent. Therefore, as Broad would put it, the argument is like "a ship that is wrecked before it ever leaves port"! The article is a bit on the technical side, but it's a fascinating read.

As for the Cosmological Argument: It's well-known that David Hume criticized the argument on several grounds, chief among them being that even if the universe is conceived as a finite string of causes and events, that would still not establish the existence of God; for the universe itself could be the source of its own existence, and the supposition of God's existence would be a redundant hypothesis. Edwards argues a different case: he envisages a universe that is infinite, and in which everything exists contingently and has a cause. Such a universe, he argues, has no need for a necessarily existent being (whether understood to be the universe itself, or God) and also does not commit one to arbitrary breaks in the chain of causality. Finally, he argues, since the "universe" has no being over and above the objects in it, there is no need to describe the universe as the sort of "brute fact" for which no natural or supernatural explanation can be found. Like the Broad article, this one too is a bit technically inclined, but also a good read.

P.S. To Nails: Please don't be quick to dismiss the work of philosophers of religion. Most of them, like Broad and Edwards, are devastatingly critical of the claims made on religion's behalf, particularly the Abrahamic religions. And even some of those who are somewhat supportive of religion (such as Charles Hartshorne) exercise a rigor and logical discipline that one will not find in the popular Christian literature—even if these philosophers ultimately prove to be wrong.

16. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38265 by Gordon Brown on May 7, 2007 at 11:01 am

In a another passage [Sam] Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition.

What a shitty analogy. The people who were victimized by the Inquisition, as far as I can tell, had no intentions of blowing up subways, or flying airplanes into skyscrapers (or, more reasonably, their equivalents in Inquisition times). The "disturbing conclusion" reached by Harris here is simply that if A acts in self-defense against B, whose beliefs would result in the prompt destruction of A, then A's actions may be morally justified. Harris' justification is not aimed at people whose beliefs are merely daffy, or contrary to his own.

Does religion still have an important role in human wellbeing? In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier, less prone to mental illness and so the list goes on.

This claim is sufficiently contentious that Ms. Bunting owes us at least some references to rigorously controlled studies that bear these conclusions out.

With little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use religious identity in political contexts, they've missed the proverbial elephant in the room.

How do people use religious identity in political contexts? By installing "faith-based" initiatives in public policy? Banning so-called "partial-birth abortions" and midterm abortions? Condemning the use of condoms in AIDS-riddled countries such as Africa? Blowing up subways? If Ms. Bunting alludes to such as are impelled by their faiths to improve the lot of people in severely impoverished communities, she has not shown that their faith was either a necessary or a sufficient condition for that impetus. This is a point that Dawkins and Harris make again and again in their books, but Ms. Bunting isn't listening.

This piece may be a clever bag of rhetorical tricks, but from a substantive standpoint it's mostly garbage.

17. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34340 by Gordon Brown on April 23, 2007 at 8:28 pm

What a disappointment. Prof. Dawkins is allotted four-and-one-half precious minutes to explain his position, and after a lengthy and pompous preamble by Billy-O, Dawkins is given approximately one-third of the time remaining, in between which O. pontificates. I sincerely hope I'm wrong in projecting that this will not change many minds among the Fox TV viewership.

18. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34323 by Gordon Brown on April 23, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Here's my take on this loathsome video of the AFA: Let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that its premises are true: There is a God, and he's really, really pissed at us for all the malfeasances perpetrated most notably by school administrators, legislators, Hollywood types, recording artists, and so forth. Why then does God choose to unleash all of his wrath and fury upon mostly innocent children and young people, and their grieving families, instead of retaliating directly against those who offended him?

This video is a case of the post hoc fallacy run amok, and betrays the egregious stupidity of its producers and others of their ilk. For if God is truly as this video describes, that only confirms Prof. Dawkins's observation that he must be "a psychotic delinquent."

19. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33366 by Gordon Brown on April 20, 2007 at 12:46 am

Thanks for the clarification, Steven. I didn't sense the irony in your first post.

20. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33364 by Gordon Brown on April 20, 2007 at 12:32 am

stevenkarrwork (No. 27):

Luke 13:4-5 'Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'

Words of comfort for the distressed and bereaved? Sounds more like a self-interested and thinly-veiled threat to my ears.

But that's of no consequence here. Kudos to Prof. Mapantsula for providing an elegant counterpoint to the execrable, vile and wretched rant of Mr. D'Souza.

21. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33270 by Gordon Brown on April 19, 2007 at 7:03 pm

[Teapot-dammit, I'm so angry at D'Souza right now that I couldn't resist posting a follow-up...]

Memo to Mr. D'Souza...please check out this chillingly prescient essay:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god1.htm

22. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33266 by Gordon Brown on April 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Oh please, let me be the first to comment here. Bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT! An exemplary straw-man argument if ever there was one. Besides, D'Souza's claim that no atheist has visited this horrible story is just false. It's already been addressed on the site where Sam Harris posted his piece on Pascal's Wager...if only D'Souza had the energy and the patience to check it out.

23. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33200 by Gordon Brown on April 19, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Oh, great! I can hardly wait for Mr. "Does-your-vibrator-have-a-name?" to spout off about the connection of belief to morality. I don't see this as a no-win situation for RD. Let's hope that O'-LIE-lly doesn't get under his skin, and RD defuses him with his usual unflappable calm and reasoned manner.

24. God and His Gays

Comment #27569 by Gordon Brown on March 25, 2007 at 10:14 am

An afterthought...anyone interested in the moral implications of sexual preference (if, indeed, any exist) should read John Corvino's excellent essay on the topic: Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), especially pp. 4-7. Therein he carefully dissects the distinctions between "moral/immoral," "natural/unnatural," and "disgusting/nondisgusting." The upshot is that the natural/unnatural distinction cannot provide normative force; i.e., we cannot base what is moral on what is natural, and contrariwise. Thus when individuals express moral misgivings about homosexuality, Corvino argues, they are actually rendering aesthetic judgments, not moral ones.

25. God and His Gays

Comment #27564 by Gordon Brown on March 25, 2007 at 9:59 am

All talk of mustard aside (;-}= ...I appreciate how Meyerson, with a minimum of rhetorical fuss, makes the logical conundrum so clearly cut. I believe that the evidence for genetic disposition to homosexuality will be treated by members of the God Squad in exactly the same manner in which they treat the evidence for evolution of species. They will either refuse to acknowledge the evidence; or, much as they've already done with "scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and others of that ilk, they will concoct a florid and tortuously labyrinthine countertheory to explain it all away.

26. Polish woman wins abortion case

Comment #26708 by Gordon Brown on March 21, 2007 at 8:24 am

In this terrible story we have the perfect illustration of the tragic conflict between reason and superstition. On the side of reason, the following quotation of Sam Harris is representative:

[T]here is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.

And on the side of superstition, Michael Novak of the AEI, and ever the Catholic, would dismiss the case of Alicja Tysiac thusly:

Atheism is in the main for comfortable men, in a reasonable world. For those in agony and distress, Christianity has seemed to serve much better and for a longer time, not because it offers "consolation" but precisely because it does not. For Christians, the cross is inescapable, and one ought always to be prepared to take it up. I myself have watched three deeply religious people die without consolation, bereft, empty of feeling for God. To be empty of consolation, however, is not to be empty of faith. Faith is essentially a quiet act of love, even in misery: "Be it done to me according to thy will."

I appeal to all reasonable people, not just fellow atheists: If this dichotomy doesn't make your blood boil, then you haven't been paying attention.

27. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26371 by Gordon Brown on March 19, 2007 at 1:12 am

Sheezus, where to begin with this??!! I'm glad others such as BaronOchs have taken up the cudgels and rebutted this point-by-point, and so I'd like to make just a couple of general observations. Why is it that people like Alvin Plantinga, Paul Campos, and now Michael Novak have almost failed utterly to address the core arguments presented by Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris in their books? Why is it that they uniformly resort to ad hominem, or to some type or other of aesthetic refutation? Much as Plantinga decries the "unloveliness" of Dawkins' naturalism, Novak wants to mock atheists for purportedly wishing to live in a tidy, orderly world where reality doesn't bite. Worse still, Sam Harris is alleged to have "written a love letter to himself," and also to be "wholly uninterested in Christianity on any level." I would think that, had he really read Harris' book, Novak would find Harris to be sufficiently interested in Christianity to know that it elevates the blastocyst to a higher moral standard than befits the millions suffering from diseases for which advances in stem-cell research might afford a cure!

I could go on at length about Novak's fulminant and turgid contribution to this debate, but why bother? Fine-sounding phrases are the final stock-in-trade of those who have utterly run out of coherent arguments.

28. God's dupes

Comment #25963 by Gordon Brown on March 15, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Oh, how refreshing it is to read another Sam Harris piece that just tells it like it is, without varnishing or sugar-coating! What I so admire about Sam's work, apart from his mastery of argument, his breadth and depth of knowledge, and breathtaking literary flair, is that he appears not to abide the notion, put forth in so many textbooks on critical thinking, that we ought always to "temper" our discourse, and make it disinterested and dispassionate. I believe Sam feels, as do I, that we should not always spare the feelings and sensitivities of people who might easily be offended, or manipulated, by such robust uses, and even misuses, of language. On the contrary, I think Sam assumes better of his readers, thinking perhaps that they are not so easily manipulated, and would prefer to carry on within a more libertarian atmosphere according to which we let the reader beware.

Kudos for another well-spoken piece, Sam. Keep up the good fight, and don't ever let religious fundamentalists, liberals, or moderates grind you down!

Sincerely,

Gordon M. Brown
San Diego, California

29. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25211 by Gordon Brown on March 11, 2007 at 1:11 am

A recent two-part episode of the satirical cartoon South Park paid tribute to [Dawkins'] profile, but not his personality. One character explained the scientist's success this way: "He learned that using logic and reason isn't enough—you have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you."

Think instead of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ann Coulter—minus the use of logic and reason.

30. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25049 by Gordon Brown on March 9, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Funny, this guy rails against The God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation, but says nothing about The End of Faith, the one book of the three that really torches the doctrines of Islam to cinders. Is he not aware that Sam Harris has therein described Islam as (I paraphrase) "perhaps the closest thing we have to a thoroughgoing cult of death"? Has he bothered to look at The End of Faith? Has he read any of these books, for that matter?

31. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24862 by Gordon Brown on March 9, 2007 at 12:13 am

Has anyone checked the message board of the O.C. Register lately? As of March 7th, "No," 67 votes; "Yes," naught!

Don't withhold your comments, folks! Why not post them on the OCR's site as well, and submit your vote? Note that there are two places in which to comment; the bottommost form is the one that posts your comments to the site.

Cheers!

GMB

32. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24467 by Gordon Brown on March 6, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Don't apologize, Liveliest Crib. Your attack is right on the money!

33. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24466 by Gordon Brown on March 6, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I wonder...are the person(s) who are authorized to approve and disapprove posts on this site sometimes bending backward just to be overly fair? This is the biggest load of confused rubbish I've read in a long time. In the first place, Prof. Campos should read David Hume and a spate of other philosophers on the nonconnectedness of divinity with morals, and even further back to Socrates, as he scourges the pious with the Euthyphro dilemma (Plato, Euthyphro).

Secondly, if Campos thinks Wilson's arguments about atheists and religious people agreeing on preserving Earth's biodiversity don't fly, then he should first present Wilson's arguments, and subject them to critical analysis. Instead, he completely disregards them, tosses off a blithe prediction about humanity's duration on this planet, then claims a genuine atheist would remark, "So what?"

Has Campos checked with the National Academy of Sciences—most of whose members are nonbelievers—and polled them as to their stance on preserving biodiversity?

If Prof. Campos is charged with inculcating lawyerly practices in his students, it would appear from this article that he's doing a fine job of it, if lawyerly practices entail a knowing sophistry, as I believe they often do.

34. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24234 by Gordon Brown on March 5, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Hello David (Wee Flea),

5) Gordon Brown (41) - Are you THE Gordon Brown - son of the Manse and soon to be Prime Minister of GB?! The title is 'myths' not 'myth'. Glad you like the 'ranting'. No doubt you will consider the comments that followed calm, reasoned and clear. That's what happens when you live in a reversed parallel universe!

No, I am not the future Prime Minister of Great Britain (although I play the Prime Minister on television (;-}= ). I hail from sunny Southern California, where I had taught symbolic logic, critical thinking, and philosophy courses for over 17 years until 2005. As such I can spot an ad hominem, a red herring, and a straw man as well as anyone, and contrary to what you suggest, I have never endorsed the tone, the rhetoric, or even the level of argument that pervades this blog, no matter how much I happen to agree with most of its participants.

I would invite you to study the blockquote above, and ask yourself: Does this not sound like a rant?

Gordon

35. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24119 by Gordon Brown on March 4, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Hmm...I wouldn't presume to judge any book by its cover, or by its page count. But temptation has gotten the better of me. I fished around the 'Net, and noticed that McGrath's book comes to a whopping 96 pages. And Wilson's "Christian Response to 'The God Delusion'"? Seven chapters, 112 pages.

Either these books are models of concision, or just pathetically slender retorts. Is 100 pages—give or take—the best that they can do to rebut the substance of an argument that spans nearly 400 pages?

Even more telling, what if a sizable portion of those 100-odd pages is devoted to chapter-and-verse quotations of scripture?

As for Robertson...his tome doesn't arrive until April, but until then we can wonder whether he wants to retain, or dispose of, the apostrophe, and see whether he settles on "myth" or "myths" as the final word in its title. (Check out his website; even he hasn't gotten it straight.) The residue of Robertson's work has been plastered all over this site already, and judging from some of the ranting I've seen in a couple of these letters, I wonder why anyone would bother on his account.

36. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22113 by Gordon Brown on February 12, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Was it just me, or did the two women really mop the floor with that pompous reverend?

Where CNN in general is concerned, it's too bad that atheists have to "take it to the gutter" to get their opinions heard. Any network that fawns over a 12-year-old girl who paints unctuously derivative canvases of Christian icons is just woeful and anemic.

37. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21183 by Gordon Brown on February 7, 2007 at 10:58 pm

"Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?"

Sheez. There is a simple reason why adults would not start to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy whereas they might take up belief in God. Adults do not maintain much of an emotional investment in the prospect of finding a quarter under their pillows in exchange for a loose tooth, nor do they invest emotionally in the idea that someone would mysteriously bestow gifts at Christmastime. But you can bet that many adults will invest heavily in the prospect of their own annihilations. Surely this they will do to a far greater extent than children do, for children do not readily comprehend the proximity of their own deaths.

That said, none of this changes the epistemological status of God in relation to that of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. They are all fictions; the difference is that the conception of God has been adapted to suit a correspondingly more complex need of many adults: that of assuaging the fear of annihilation.

The real shame of Mr. McGrath's rejoinder is that he purports to be a professor at Oxford University. OXFORD! His critical-thinking skills would not even pass muster in the courses that I taught at the community college level for many years.