51. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47424 by Benjamin Michael on June 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Re: Comment #47418 by james

Dianelos, you've got to be one of the most confusing people I've met...

What's your motive for arguing?...

people like me (sort of) want atheists to have faith and get "saved". But what about you?...

HUH? That's not a belief that's a hamburger chain slogan....

You see, theism inherently leads to conflict.

52. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47409 by Benjamin Michael on June 4, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Nothing new here, but as always it is masterfully written, straight to the point and right on the money.

53. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46757 by Benjamin Michael on June 1, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Quote from a letter to the NY Times (linked above by Gotterdammerung):

"we must.. recover the perennial wisdoms of.. theology to safeguard humanity from science-based ethical systems."

wtf?

lest a society condone reducing the suffering of pregnant women (abortion), homosexuals and people with diseases (stem cell research). no, no we wouldn't want that - we must safeguard humanity from helping humanity.

div!

54. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46464 by Benjamin Michael on May 31, 2007 at 11:11 am

David, forgive me not responding to everything you have said in my direction, but others have covered the field superbly and I do not want to waste space with an otiose post.

I will respond to one thing. You had said you rely on science in forming your belief that god(s) exist. My rebuttal included the notion that the staggeringly overwhelming majority of science and scientists runs contrary to this assertion. Your reply was: "You state this so confidently and almost as an article of faith, without any evidence". I state this confidently not because of faith but because it is observable. There is evidence that the overwhelming majority of science supports non existence of gods – through the observation of published scientific studies. You have either misunderstood what I was saying or have deliberately (and mischievously) obfuscated the issue by throwing the word "faith" at me for no intelligent reason. I have trust in the scientific method applied over time. But trust is not faith.

55. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46111 by Benjamin Michael on May 30, 2007 at 8:53 am

David: I am sorry that you think that my 10 reasons amount to nothing more than I have a hunch. I do not think that science, history, beauty, the Bible, Jesus, morality, etc are just a hunch.

David,

Thanks for your reply. I would have been too blasé to characterize your reasons for belief as being nothing more than a hunch, which is why I further clarified in the post you referenced that they appeared to based on 3 things: hunch, comfort, and poor explanatory power. You mention science, history, beauty, bible, jesus and morality.

Science. Whatever respected science does tend to support your beliefs, I am sure we all can plainly see that the overwhelming majority of respected science runs contrary. So science is clearly not on your side, not unless you cherry pick obscure science in deference to the staggeringly overwhelming majority. Given how the scientific method functions, it is irrational to use science as a reason for belief in god.

History. History is something of enormous value to study for the main reason that we learn from history. If an idea/concept has historical importance, it is not a factor in its propensity to be true (no need to mention flat earth theory, but I will). In any event, even if we do the unintelligent thing and look to history to validate the truth of an idea like the belief in god, we find from diligent inspection that it in fact does the opposite. The vast array of gods that have been invented (even you will admit the invention of all the other gods outside the trinity) and the significance of geography, from a historical perspective, supports (amongst many other factors) the non existence of any god(s). A staggeringly intelligent post was recently written by Steven Madding on this website (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1199,Sam-Harris-Strikes-Back,Sam-Harris-TruthDig#45825) whereby he correctly observes that the history of religion illustrates that the betterment of humankind was not as a result of monotheism arising out of atheism, but out of polytheism. The gradual rejection of god(s) has led, historically speaking, to the betterment of humanity. There is no denying that many great advances in humanity have coincided with the spread of monotheism, but it is not from the addition of god into humankind, it is from the subtraction of gods, and of superstitions in general. The real nexus is to be found historically between the betterment of humankind and humanity's understanding of the physical world/universe – in other words: science. This is abundantly clear in modern times.

Beauty. This was perfectly answered by Steve99. Dawkins himself speaks often of this. I know you read a lot of Dawkins so there is no need to elaborate, unless you specifically request I do.

Bible. It always amazes me that people who have read the bible can use it as validation for the existence of god(s). Most do not read the bible and assume it is all wonderful, as that is the way it is described in sermons etc. But I am very confident that David has read the bible very thoroughly. I have to assume that he rationalizes away all the inconsistencies – finds ways to make them not be the inconsistencies they appear to be. If you tally up all these rationalizations you realize that it is unacceptably high. No other legitimate piece of literary work would be acceptable if it required that many rationalizations. The bible gets a pass for some reason. Perhaps this is due to other factors such as fear.

Jesus. A very strong case can be made that jesus did not in fact ever exist. A strong case can also be made that he did exist but bears little resemblance to the man portrayed in the bible. The weakest case of all is that he existed and was similar or precisely as described in the bible. As beautiful and important as the message attributed to jesus may be (in some cases; I recognize the many things attributed to jesus that are immoral) it speaks more to the literary skills of the authors than the veracity of jesus himself.

Morality. Also covered perfectly by Steve99 and by Dawkins and many others. If you do not see these explanations as holding merit, then nothing I can add will achieve anything.

So you are basically left with the "hunch", because comfort is not legitimate and better explanations trump poor ones. The feeling you have in your gut that what you believe is correct in spite of the evidence that gets shown to you. Certainly it is not rational. It may be compelling, but to bastardize a Solzhenitsyn quote (if I may), the mind is a rascal. Things are not always as our mind first interprets them. As intelligent humans we have to resist the urge to rely on perception and look for rational understanding. The unbiased quest for what *is* true, not what we hope is true, what we feel is true, or what someone or some book says is true.

56. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45796 by Benjamin Michael on May 29, 2007 at 10:03 am

I do not want to make out that I am an expert on all things Judaism. In fact, I was very lucky (I consider) to have a cynical and skeptical brain from my earliest days of using it, so I never accepted religion as anything more than pure poppycock. This was a cause for *much* friction growing up in a religious household, as many on here can more than imagine. So I tended not to listen too much when receiving my Jewish education at the Jewish school I went to. Most of the time I silently shook my head wondering how on Earth people could fall for this crap. So, this is my disclaimer for anything I may state inaccurately on the topic of Judaism.

NMcC: There is a saying in Judaism which comes paraphrased from Genesis, I think. It is "from dust to dust" meaning that humans are created from dust and we return to dust when we die. At Jewish funerals and in the memorial prayers of Synagogues this concept is spoken of (and chanted) at length. Conceptually, it is a rather valuable - that we are nothing more than the "substance" of the universe (or the Earth, for primitive minds) and we biodegrade back once we die. But Judaism (as all religions) divides the concept of corporeality with the soul or in Hebrew, the "Neshama". It is the Jewish Neshama which is viewed as eternal and which continues in the afterlife and is rewarded for the life we lived on Earth. I could be mistaken, but in line with that *wonderfully* exclusive element of Judaism, I think it is only Jewish souls that get this privilege. I don't think non-Jewish souls are accounted for: perhaps they just collect in the ozone layer.

Billy: As for a definitive concept of 'Hell', or for that matter, one of heaven, I am unaware of this in Judaism. I have to plead ignorance (or lack of paying attention in school). There is definitely a concept of Satan - a vague concept of an evil angel or a prosecuting angel that works in opposition to god or as prosecutor in the world to come (differing opinions on this). In fact, each Friday evening in the Synagogue prayers every Jew in attendence will chant: "Vehaser Satan Milfanecha..." which roughly means "god... please remove Satan from our presence..." or something like this. But I am fairly confident that a notion of Hell that is a "special" place in the afterlife as a punishment is entirely absent in Judaism. I think the afterlife is viewed abstractly as something which is unknown as to the details of but where we will be rewarded/not rewarded following judgment of our lives on Earth. It's all a bit silly really when you think about it. Amazing how few people ever actually do think about it.

Remy: I am inclined to agree with you. Silliness ought to be ridiculed. I first thought David may have something valuable to say which can really benefit the general debate. Having read his website more thoroughly, I am disappointed. I had hoped for something to challenge the intellect, not just appeal to the human flaws of fear and lack of universal perspective. Speaking of which, any fans of HHGTTG here? (total perspective vortex) I know how close Richard and Douglas Adams were. I think DA is a *huge* factor in my athiesm, having read his books more times than I can count as a young boy. Actually, some of my fondest memories are as a boy of perhaps 8 or 9 listening to cassette tapes of the Hitchhikers radio show late at night with my friend and marvelling at the simple truths revealed by the inanity.

57. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45783 by Benjamin Michael on May 29, 2007 at 8:34 am

This is one of my very rare posts on this site, although I read this site daily and "religiously" (pun intended).

I was going to post that we should be more fair with our responses to David and that engaging him in honest debate is a wonderful thing for both sides. I was going to write that he did not appear to me to be unethically pushing his book and that he gave the appearance of sincerely seeking to engage in honest discourse. Well, although I do think (from reading his many posts on many topics) that he has some honest intentions here and that he has a lot of good things to say (logically and rationally flawed most of the time, but good starting points for debate for others to read) I read his 10 point list for 'why he believes' that was linked above and... well... it is hopelessly devoid of anything challenging whatsoever. I don't want to be mean to David (as others who may have more emotionally invested in their discussions with him clearly do) but come on David! - those 10 points are nothing more than "I have a hunch":

1. I look at the stars and I feel awe
2. Human's have consciousness and feel that they are special
3. How does life come out of non-life?
4. Good -v- Evil?
5. Religion is everywhere
6. I "feel" god exists (experience)
7. The history of man is special
8. Churches do good things
9. The bible is convincing
10. Jesus, the idea and his words, are lovely and make my life happier...

These are all either "hunches", comforts, or concepts that have been shown time and time again to be either flat-out wrong (eg. bible) or to be better explained by alternatives (eg 'churches do good things' does not make the existence of god a greater or lesser likelihood - better explained through the study of humankind). Studying how life comes from non-life is better explained by theories with explanatory power, not the hunch that god heads some infinitely regressed causal chain, or worse yet, that god gets a free pass on infinity, a free pass that is not as courteously extended to the universe or greater-universe/multiverse what-have-you.

What is lacking from David's responses on here (that I have read, and I think I have read most of them over the months) is the willingness to go beyond the surface of each issue. To actually flesh out an argument for or against whatever the specific proposition is. It is like he hits "reboot" everytime the argument goes more than one layer deep, and the same starting points are arrived at, again and again. Now we get accused of the same thing - giving the same tired arguments - but honest debating needs to be recognized: The theist argument was first proposed, the non theist rebuttal was given, and the theist must then honestly give a rebuttal in turn - which means new information must be given. It is insufficient intellectually to repeat the first proposition in an attempt to wear down the opponent. And it is intellectually dishonest to accuse non theists of doing the same, until such time as a rebuttal that actually *furthers* the debate is offered by theists.

Rant over.

On a side issue, it was earlier offered that Jews do not have a concept of Heaven and Hell. As a cultural Jew (clearly, not a practising or believing Jew) whose father is a Rabbi I can assure you that there is a concept of Heaven in Judaism, although not as complex as in Christianity. "Olam Habah" which translates to roughly "the world to come" is woven throughout the fabric of Judaism. The rewards for "Mitzvot" or "good deeds" in this lifetime are found in the Olam Habah. This life is very much viewed as the mere prelude to the world to come. From my understanding, however, the concept is completely abstract, and I am not aware of it being fleshed out to any great extent, as Christianity has... you know, pearly gates and all that.

58. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32250 by Benjamin Michael on April 16, 2007 at 12:22 pm

On the subject of violence, todays massacre in the US:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3045574&page=1

I would be shocked if this does not have something to do with religion.

59. John Paul Sainthood Nun 'Gentle, Simple'

Comment #28508 by Benjamin Michael on March 29, 2007 at 1:25 pm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A