451. Book answers the atheists' prayers

Comment #12045 by Jack Rawlinson on December 9, 2006 at 2:47 pm

Like professor Dawkins, when I was first exposed to Anselm's ridiculous "argument" I was basically stunned into a state of intellectual shock. Not because it was any good; on the contrary, because I could scarcely believe someone was proposing such a silly thing as a serious argument for the existence of God.

There's so much that's absurd about it it's sometimes hard to know where to begin. For me, the most ridiculous thing is not the totally unjustified premise that the quality of existence is a necessary element of perfection (does a perfect circle necessarily exist somewhere? Are we back to Platonic forms, then?) but the crazy suggestion that it is, in any meaningful or complete sense, possible for a human being to hold the idea of an "absolutely perfect" entity in his or her head. What does that mean? If this argument were to have any weight at all it would have to involve a sort of mental checking off of every single element that contributes to making this entity perfect. Which, of course, a human mind simply cannot do. So it isn't true to say that a person can "hold the idea" of absolute perfection in his or her head! No: what people who buy this argument are holding in their head is merely a thought akin to, "I reckon I can accept the idea that there's something absolutely perfect. Whatever that involves. Oh yes, I definitely can. Honest."

Crazy. It's possible to satirise this sort of woolly-mindedness in all sorts of ways, some of which Dawkins mentioned in the book. I sometimes ask the person what they think the physical incarnation of the perfect idea looks like, since such a thing must obviously exist. When they ask why such a thing must exist I say, "well, because I can hold the idea of the most perfect idea in my head. But as Anselm says, actual physical existence is a necessary element of absolute perfection, so my perfect idea must exist in a physical sense, right? What do you think it looks like? Is it big? Egg-shaped? Slimy? Hmmm?"

If they try to wriggle out of this at all they usually try one of two tacks. One is to say that I can't insist that physical existence must be an attribute of an idea, since ideas are by definition non-physical. To which I reply, "so what if God is just an idea....?" The other tack is when they look hopeful and declare that my idea must look like God! To which, of course, I say "So you're saying that God is - by definition - just an idea?"

There are lots of similar ways to play with the inherently irrational aspects of the argument.

452. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11842 by Jack Rawlinson on December 7, 2006 at 4:02 pm

I didn't read any further than the point at which this ignoramus described Dawkins' knowledge of evolutionary theory as, "a simple and touching faith in the scientific creed of Darwinism". That was more than enough to tell me what sort of ignorant dolt we're dealing with here.

453. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11520 by Jack Rawlinson on December 5, 2006 at 8:13 am

David Matthews writes:

"Atheists resort to the same shortcuts, prejudices, bigotry and emotional non-arguments as the Theists"

I've been browsing a few of your posts, David, and I have to say you are extremely fond of tossing out unsupported declarations and opinions as if they were facts. I'm afraid this serves no useful purpose: it certainly convinces no one of anything. Your latest such declaration needs supporting evidence if you expect it to be taken seriously. I would say that the evidence - on this site and elsewhere - does not support your declaration. Most active atheists are extremely interested in defending their position with logic, reason and evidence. Sure, we all make offhand observations here and there but when challenged, we will nearly always argue our case and defend or amend such observations. You can see that in the Dawkins and Harris books and you can see it here too if you look honestly.

As for atheists being more intelligent than religious believers, well, it's debatable of course but there is some evidence to support it.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

"Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious"

454. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11516 by Jack Rawlinson on December 5, 2006 at 7:37 am

I'd be interested to read Richard's take on this.

I suspect that the sort of symbiotic relationship described here is actually not all that surprising from an evolutionary standpoint. I think there are lots of similar cases where a particular set of environmental conjunctions survive long enough for this sort of relationship to evolve. The fact that such conjunctions may consist of several crucial individual elements doesn't mean that they won't coexist for a long time.

Perhaps many such relationships were able to develop before man's recent, huge technological advances and hyperbolic population explosion caused such environmental upheavals. The side effects of this have caused all sorts of fragile interdependencies to be broken and many extinctions have resulted.

455. O Come All Ye Unfaithful

Comment #11156 by Jack Rawlinson on December 3, 2006 at 11:49 am

Very odd. In all the videos I've seen of Richard's tour he comes across as pretty unfailingly collected, patient and polite. I'm not in the least surprised he might have been a bit impatient offstage, by this point in the tour: it was quite clear that he'd had to spend hours and hours answering the same questions - many of them deeply silly - over and over again. That'd try the patience of a saint, never mind a rationalist!

456. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11151 by Jack Rawlinson on December 3, 2006 at 11:39 am

Oh yes, wouldn't you just love it if atheists stayed nice and quiet and polite and stopped being so... well, mean by challenging your stupid, world-damaging beliefs? Wouldn't you like that so very, very much? Wouldn't that make things so much easier for you?

Tough.

457. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7338 by Jack Rawlinson on November 18, 2006 at 9:12 am

Some dude: what? You think it's funny that scientists try to explain as much as they can? Wow. You must think it pretty hilarious that it's thanks to science you can tell so many people about it, eh? And I have no doubt that when one of your loved ones gets cured of a serious illness of injury you'll have a good old laugh at those funny scientists who made that possible, right?

As for "no one can explains how babies are born or what defines their genetics"... well, I'm just speechless in the face of a remark like that. Did you actually go to school?

458. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #6906 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2006 at 6:37 am

Richard's right - I think teaching about religion is very valuable. The first part of the petition might give the impression that it's seeking total abolition of religious teaching: "...prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology". The qualification provided later is better: "Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact..."

Still, I've signed it because I do think faith schools should be abolished.

459. Neanderthal DNA secrets unlocked

Comment #6904 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2006 at 6:28 am

McGlashan, thanks for the wonderful memory... damn, "Absolutely" used to be hilarious. Must go see if I can find any Frank Hovis...

460. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6903 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2006 at 6:18 am

Melisande: what's wrong with calling a fallacy by the correct name? The vast majority of the critics of The God Delusion have scattered so many... uhhh.... hay hombres about it's hard to avoid commenting on the fact.

461. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6793 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 3:28 pm

A typically empty-headed "rebuttal" by one of our most infamous peddlers of spiritual snake oil. I won't waste any more time on this than Chopra evidently did actually reading Dawkins.

Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge.

Straw man, Dawkins didn't make this claim.

Nothing about God is needed to explain the world.

Correct, have a cracker. However, the choice of words - "nothing about God" - suggests the existence of god is a given, which has not been established. Shoddy logic.

Eventually science will uncover all mysteries.

Straw man, Dawkins didn't make this claim.

Those that it can't explain don't exist.

Straw man, Dawkins didn't make this claim.

Bring on the next shamelessly distorting religious idiot.

462. Is Apple Computer Insulting Islam?

Comment #6626 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 6:46 am

MEMRI is a Zionist propaganda machine. They cherry-pick their sources to a quite disgraceful degree. Actually, it isn't so much cherry-picking as turd-picking. As someone else says, pretty much anything they pump out can be ignored.

463. Science vs religion

Comment #6624 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 6:41 am

I am convinced that most of you have come to the conclusions that you have because you are trying to be cool and cosmopolitan in this so called "post modern age.

You say that like you think being cool and cosmopolitan is a bad thing!

464. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6621 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 6:38 am

"We must be prepared to give an answer. Don't be quiet about your faith."

Yep. Bring it on! :-)

465. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5649 by Jack Rawlinson on November 10, 2006 at 8:59 am

I don't think it is productive to refer to such people as stupid.

I agree. It isn't "productive" at all. Sadly, I also think it happens to be true, though. The sheer inability of people like this to comprehend simple explanations and basic logic does, I'm afraid, lead me to conclude they're a bit lacking in the old noddle. Productive? What could we possibly achieve with someone who thinks that they know something simply because they feel it really, really strongly? I've spent something like 35 years arguing and discussing religion with people like this and I think I've become very good at spotting the tell-tale signs of the hopeless case. And unlike you, I think Charlene is such. I would dearly love to be proved wrong, but that ain't the way I'll be betting, I'm afraid.

I think that where a person approaches for looking for an open dialogue on the subject of religion then it is not right to disparage them in this manner.

Charlene entered this thread with a pair of totally false statements about atheism which not only illustrate a profound depth of ignorance but also that she hasn't even bothered to read either RD's book or much of anything on this site. Such behaviour does not predispose me towards patience. Further, I don't agree that a person who makes statements such as the following is too interested in open dialogue:

" I have said all there is to say."

"I know God exists. My life has completely changed because of Him and the personal relationship I have with Him. That is the evidence. "

"If you don't really care wether He exists or not then I guess you are blindly rejecting Him."

As for disparaging such people, I agree with RD. Respect where it's due: nowhere else. If someone says stupid things, I say so.

466. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5647 by Jack Rawlinson on November 10, 2006 at 8:56 am

I don't think it is productive to refer to such people as stupid.

I agree. It isn't "productive" at all. Sadly, I also think it happens to be true, though. The sheer inability of people like this to comprehend simple explanations and basic logic does, I'm afraid, lead me to conclude they're a bit lacking in the old noddle. Productive? What could we possibly achieve with someone who thinks that they know something simply because they feel it really, really strongly? I've spent something like 35 years arguing and discussing religion with all sorts of people and I think I've become very good at spotting the tell-tale signs of the hopeless case. And unlike you, I think Charlene is such. I would dearly love to be proved wrong, but that ain't the way I'll be betting, I'm afraid.

I think that where a person approaches for looking for an open dialogue on the subject of religion then it is not right to disparage them in this manner.

Charlene entered this thread with a pair of totally false statements about atheism which not only illustrate a profound depth of ignorance but also that she hasn't even bothered to read either RD's book or much of anything on this site. Such behaviour does not predispose me towards patience. Further, I don't agree that a person who makes statements such as the following is too interested in open dialogue:

" I have said all there is to say."

"I know God exists. My life has completely changed because of Him and the personal relationship I have with Him. That is the evidence. "

"If you don't really care wether He exists or not then I guess you are blindly rejecting Him."

As for disparaging such people, I agree with RD. Respect where it's due: nowhere else. If someone says stupid things, I say so.

467. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5632 by Jack Rawlinson on November 10, 2006 at 7:01 am

"Atheism requires faith that God does not exist."

This, folks, is the level of obdurate, thick-headed stupidity we're up against. They just cannot seem to get it.

468. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5466 by Jack Rawlinson on November 9, 2006 at 3:25 pm

Oh god. Another inattentive dolt who is more interested in beating straw men than the arguments Dawkins actually advances in the book. Nowhere does Dawkins say that eliminating religion would eliminate violence, social tension or discrimination. In fact he openly concedes that religion is not the only source of such things.

As for "transcendentalizing alternatives", this is a red herring of McGrath's own shameless devising. Had he paid attention to Dawkins' position - not only in "The God Delusion" but throughout his written works and speeches - it would be quite clear that RD is every bit as much against such wider forms of irrationality as he is the specific irrationality of religion. Dawkins is not simply saying "scrap religion". He's saying "scrap irrationality, especially the particularly appalling and widespread irrationality of religion". But he means all irrationality - in fact he also goes after "New Age" nonsense, pseudo-religious political movements such as extreme communism and so on.

Professor of Historical Theology? Hysterical Theology, more like. As if there's any other kind.

469. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5292 by Jack Rawlinson on November 8, 2006 at 4:39 pm

"He hears and answers prayers - even athiests."

Scott: prove it. Oh. You can't. What a total surprise. Now run along.

470. Religions don't deserve special treatment

Comment #5214 by Jack Rawlinson on November 8, 2006 at 4:45 am

Good old Grayling; spot on, as he so often is. If there's to be one overriding characteristic of the so-called "New Atheism" I hope it's this: that we ditch this thoroughly bogus "respect" that the religious feel should be their right. Respect has to be earned, especially in matters of ideas and beliefs. Most religious beliefs are so patently mad that they deserve to be disrespected. I never allow a public expression of religious faith to go by without a challenge. None of us should.

It has always been quite clear to me that one of the reasons the religious demand that their insane beliefs be granted automatic deference and respect is that they know - even if only subconsciously - just how deserving of mockery they really are. So they try to build shields around them. Sometimes even with laws (blasphemy, anti-religious "hatred") but more insidiously with social conventions.

Break 'em down. The emperor has no clothes, and we need to keep saying so.

471. Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors

Comment #4987 by Jack Rawlinson on November 7, 2006 at 5:42 am

Sounds like just the job for a Pisces or Libra. I'm surprised they didn't specify that as a preference.

472. The New Unbelievers

Comment #4897 by Jack Rawlinson on November 6, 2006 at 8:07 pm

Better than some of the articles on the "New" atheism (there's nothing at all new about it where I come from) but I take particular issue with a couple of points:

Philosophical arguments for or against God are more sophisticated than one might learn from Dawkins, who sometimes comes close to confirming Francis Bacon's adage that a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."

As someone else has observed, this - which we might start calling the Eagleton defence - is simply not true. Well, it's true that in The God Delusion Dawkins does not spend much time on his criticism of arguments for belief, and I concede that this was probably a mistake (although I understand the frustration with sheer bad thinking which probably prompted it). However, speaking as someone who has studied these allegedly "sophisticated" arguments I can say categorically that they are all, without fail, riddled with the same flaws Dawkins casually refers to and dismisses, and a whole bunch more besides.

The trick these god-favouring philosophers and theologists use is sheer smokescreening sophistry. They dress the same old arguments (first cause, prime mover, ontological argument, revelation, order and design, etc etc) in needless verbosity, shameless obfuscation and unnecessarily tortuous logical contortions and... they hope you'll be impressed by the verbal fireworks, and not notice that the nub of the argument is fundamentally the same.

My other point is about this statement:

"Nationalism, he points out, can also produce monsters."

Yes indeed, and I am as vehemently against nationalism as I am against religion. Furthermore, attempting to deflect the heat from one thing by pointing out that some other, unrelated thing is also bad is the most elementary of fallacies. So... your point is?

473. Charlottesville, VA Event Photos: Batch 2

Comment #4689 by Jack Rawlinson on November 5, 2006 at 11:15 am

Good to see all these pics. I wish Richard could find the time and energy to update the tour diary, I enjoy reading his impressions of how things are going. But looking at his schedule I can understand he must be very busy and very tired. I'm also struck by how he basically has to repeat himself at every signing, every radio show, every public event he attends yet in every clip I see he's maintaining his customary patience and clarity.

Maybe he'll get time to jot a few words down on the plane back to blighty...

474. THANK GOODNESS!

Comment #4685 by Jack Rawlinson on November 5, 2006 at 11:09 am

Get well soon, Dan. And thanks for the piece. Religious people need to know that some of us can face fear and death without retreating into superstition. Thank goodness, indeed....

475. Atheist Evangelist

Comment #4556 by Jack Rawlinson on November 4, 2006 at 1:17 pm

By discounting all religion the way he does, that’s basically like saying, ‘All of you are idiots.’

Err... and your point is?

476. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4423 by Jack Rawlinson on November 3, 2006 at 8:19 pm

I'm quite happy to call myself a militant atheist. By that I mean no more than what Douglas Adams meant when he called himself a radical atheist. I'm an atheist who actively and vocally opposes religion. Sure, atheism alone means nothing more than a lack of belief in god. But militant atheism means actively opposing those who do believe in god. That's me. I think we need that, now.

477. Dawkins' delusion is that science can determine the existence of God

Comment #4367 by Jack Rawlinson on November 3, 2006 at 2:23 pm

What an ignorant dolt this person is. Once again: clearly hasn't read the book with any attention.

The comment about it being ironic that an atheist book sells well for Christmas is plain stupid, since it assumes that the majority of people who celebrate Christmas are doing so for religious - specifically Christian reasons. And even if that were true, what of it? Would it be blasphemous if a book on Islam happened to be a popular Christmas gift? To say so would be just as stupid.

"What puzzles me is that Dawkins takes such delight in the wonder of nature, and has delved into its complexity with enthusiasm, but presents a model of God which possesses the depth and integrity of, well, Santa Claus."

RD makes it perfectly clear that he is primarily attacking the Abrahamic god(s), which is the one most widely believed in. He also deals with gods in a more general sense and, as someone else has observed, makes it quite clear he is not just assuming god is the man in the sky with a beard. Shoddy reviewing.

The reviewer quotes Eagleton, repeats his fatuous statement on Dawkins' theological knowledge and, just like Eagleton, fails to provide a single example of such knowledge to challenge RD's arguments by actual counter-argument. Revealing, as always; tiresome, as always.

"It's one thing to be agnostic and conclude God is unknowable; it is altogether another to declare that He/She/It does not exist and the instinct to believe otherwise is categorically bad."

And again, RD covers the distinctions between agnosticism and atheism, freely admits god cannot be absolutely disproved, and backs up his declaration that religion is bad with argument. Which is more than this indolent buffoon does.

"Declaring anything good or bad is to make a moral statement, and this cannot be based purely on scientific investigation."

And in no way does RD suggest otherwise. He suggests that scientific investigation can be used to winnow fact from fantasy and that distinction is invaluable in making moral judgements. Far more so than basing them on dogma or "revelation", etc.

And then the tired old crap about "atheist regimes". READ THE BOOK, you impertinent oaf. God... these empty-headed people just keep illustrating Dawkins' points, don't they?

478. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4125 by Jack Rawlinson on November 2, 2006 at 10:54 am

"atheism has never spoken to the human condition."

Neither has 1+1 = 2. It's still true though, isn't it?

What the hell does "spoken to the human condition" mean, anyway? What a tenuous phrase. Do you mean "contained useful insights into the human condition", perhaps? Pure atheism may not have done this since pure atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a particular belief (why do we have to keep saying this?) However, the sort of atheism which insists on analysing and tackling the widespread irrationalities of religious believers most certainly has provided useful insights into the human condition: not least the insight of how tragically prone humanity is to believing demonstrably arrant nonsense in the face of all reason and evidence.

As for the absurd suggestion that the idea of God is self-evident, well, no it isn't. And simply declaring that it is - whether that declaration comes from you, Augustine or the Pope doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. Once again, if you wish to make a claim about something being true, or something existing, you cannot do so with any clout whatsoever unless you provide hard evidence and reasoned argument for it. In the absence of such, there isn't the slightest good reason to shift from the default position of not believing.

Why do god-botherers find it so very difficult to get their heads around this blindingly obvious bit of elementary logic?

479. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4045 by Jack Rawlinson on November 2, 2006 at 6:13 am

Like others here, I had to read this mealy-mouthed tosh more than once before I could form an opinion about where the author was coming from. I think I can safely say that where the author is coming from is that thin-blooded, gutless place where yesterday's appeasing atheists wring their impotent hands and whine, "Oh why can't we all just get along?", seemingly oblivious to the fact that the words and actions of the religious have made it perfectly clear why.

Sorry Ollie, you've had your day. It's time for atheists to stop tolerating the nonsense which blights lives. You're going to have to stand aside, mate.

480. Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist

Comment #3861 by Jack Rawlinson on November 1, 2006 at 6:32 am

On the naming thing... I think good old "rationalist" works. But all labels run the risk of being restrictive.

481. Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist

Comment #3784 by Jack Rawlinson on October 31, 2006 at 3:11 pm

Way to go, Muriel! This is what we need more of - total refusal to play the Emperor's New Clothes game. It's funny how much stick RD gets for his really rather restrained "disrespecting" of religion, but this is the full-on stuff which really tells it like it is. It's NONSENSE, period. And it's a sheer bloody outrage that we're not only asked to respect it, but that it influences our lives in so many ways.

And the likes of Eagleton can dress up the nonsense with BS sophistry and fallacious appeals to authority as much as they like, it's still the same old rank, irrational idiocy no matter how many empty, airy concepts you try to dress it in. Articles like this are like a breath of fresh air.

482. Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists

Comment #2542 by Jack Rawlinson on October 21, 2006 at 6:45 pm

"Nothing in history suggests such a thing"

No, and neither does Professor Dawkins.

Has anyone else noticed how hardly any of the critics of the book actually show much sign of having read the thing attentively? Revealing, that, isn't it?

483. Atheists' delusions about God

Comment #2541 by Jack Rawlinson on October 21, 2006 at 6:42 pm

Fraser does exactly what Professor Dawkins identifies and numbers in his book: tries to dodge the all-encompassing criticism of *faith* by simply claiming that Fraser's *particular* conception of "god" hasn't been accurately and fully considered, therefore the criticism is void.

Try again, Fraser. But hey - read the book and pay attention, this time.