151. My God Problem

Comment #7294 by Jared on November 18, 2006 at 5:59 am

Re: #64 maryhelena (comment #7270)

"Political democracy cannot exist as an ideology without christian theology."

I very much fail to see how this is the case, considering that the ideas of democracy were invented in Greece when people still thought about Zeus and Apollo.

"It's fundamental premise of equality (a premise that seeks to challenge reality) can only be made sustainable by a policy of sacrifice."

There seems to be a bit of an assumption here. I think trying to MAKE everyone equal is a bit of a Communist idea, not democratic. That is unnatural. The democratic idea is that everyone has a voice and a vote, not that everyone is equal. Everyone is protected equally under the law (in theory), but there is no forced equality and I see why no one needs to sacrifice anything for either principle at any rate.

"Sacrifice, it goes without saying, is primarily a theological idea, particularly a christian idea."

That certainly does NOT go without saying! I don't believe that sacrifice, even were it relevant to democracy, needs to have anything to do with theology OR Christianity. Amongst nearly ALL animals, parents sacrifice an amount of nourishment in order to raise their children. They sacrifice an amount of safety in order to go out and hunt, and more energy to do so beyound their own means to hunt for the family group. Elephants sacrifice their safety by positioning themselves on the outside to protect the young, weak, or elderly elephants from attack.

I think it would be folly to assume that altruism, which is what you're really talking about, and sacrifice need to be considered the same thing. Just as I think it's folly to say that they need to be christian/theological in their nature. Science may not entirely agree on the nature of altruism, but there are plenty of likely ideas out there and none of them are religious.

Lets even assume the "ultimate" sacrifice: Death. Honeybees die after stinging, which they do to protect their hive and the young therein. Are honeybees Christian? Seems a bit silly to me.

"Sacrifice, as the face of supreme moral value is primarily a Christian phenomenon."

Again, I fail to see how this is relevant to democracy. I don't think a single politician would say "Sacrifice is the supreme moral value." The "fact" that Jesus sacrificed himself is at the root of Christianity, yes. But as we've already shown, sacrifice is involved in a number of other areas as well and none of those necessarily has to do with democracy, equality, or theology.

Cheers!

152. My God Problem

Comment #7225 by Jared on November 17, 2006 at 7:05 pm

Re: Steve, #51 (comment #7214)

Optimistic? I suppose. I thought it was dismissive and in ill temper. But I like yours...sounds more pleasant :)

153. My God Problem

Comment #7189 by Jared on November 17, 2006 at 3:14 pm

re #51 (comment #7187)

As much as I'd really like to address all of your extremely original points, Anonymous, I've just come to the point where I'd rather not regurgitate the same rebuttals that get brought up in every single other thread on this site whenever someone thinks they've cracked the atheist case.

Honestly, please go read any of the other threads (or maybe a book) and learn a little bit about atheism and science before you slander them both.

154. My God Problem

Comment #7176 by Jared on November 17, 2006 at 1:39 pm

Hmm. ThePacifier. Quite an ironic name for a troll. My sides are splitting. No, really. They are.

/Done feeding the troll.

155. My God Problem

Comment #7159 by Jared on November 17, 2006 at 12:08 pm

Very funny article...a couple of Douglas Adamsesque lines in there. Far funnier than I anything I could write.

Speaking of...

More thin books:

Skeptical Catholic Saints
The Real Science of Scientology
The Atheist Prayerbook and Hymnal

156. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6830 by Jared on November 15, 2006 at 6:19 pm

I really love the whole "point-by-point" thing. Apparently in this case he meant "just that one point." Unless, of course, he plans on writing up one of these each week like David Robertson. Between those two (not to say they are at ALL equal or interested in the same things), we'd have no free time at all on this board!

"They all go together as subjective experiences, and it's a straw man to set God up as the delusion. If he is, then so is truth itself or beauty itself."

Buh...wha??? This is one of the least logical statements I've ever heard in my life. I can't even think of which fallacy it is he's committing...some kind of fallacy of definition, perhaps, or just non-sequitur?

Beauty, truth, love and God are subjective experiences.
If God is a delusion, then all subjective experiences must be delusions.
Therefore, God is not a delusion.

Well, I'm sold. I just don't know WHAT I was thinking. Where can I buy Mr. Chopra's books? I have a raging headache I'd like for him to meditate on and cure for me :-P

157. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6026 by Jared on November 12, 2006 at 8:55 am

Mr. Robertson:

I'd like to thank you for taking my advice and largely changing both the logical structure and tone of your comments. That's a lot more than I can say for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. Being an American, I do have to admit that my own experience has been that most of the people on the 'faith' side of the issue are less willing to do so, but that's not a measure of people of the faith on the whole, just of my experience. So, well done.

The best thing about toning down the vitriol and adding amounts of logic is that discussion becomes much easier. I still disagree with your position, and I'll warrant that you still disagree with mine...but in logical debate there is no harm in disagreement.

While the amount of evidence or logic it would take for either one of us to switch to the other's side would be, if you'll pardon my use of the word, miraculous, at least we can discuss the issue and better understand one another as people in this light.

Cheers!

158. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5861 by Jared on November 11, 2006 at 12:34 pm

David Robertson: "The very thing that you accuse me of is what Dawkins does. By implication, if not explicitly he states that religious people only remain in their religion out of fear and ignorance. Once they attain higher consiousness (and that is the alleged purpose of his book) they will be set free."

See, again, this is simplifying the issue. I believe Dawkins argues that he is writing his book neither to people who are already disbelievers, nor to people who are fully immersed in belief. As I recall, he says he is writing to that sort of person who considers him/herself religious but doesn't think about it very much. I don't believe that he calls this group of people necessarily ignorant or even fearful. I think he is just trying to show these people who are 'religious' mostly only by tradition that there are other points of view that, perhaps, they have not considered very strongly.

I am not in a position, at the moment, to determine whether there are many straw men lurking in Dawkins's book. My guess is that there may be a few ('faith-heads' springs to mind). It is difficult to argue, at times, without them, even though they make an argument sort of collapse in on itself regardless of how good its conclusions may be.

The reason that I think any straw men he may or may not make are somewhat forgivable is that he has written an entire book dedicated to this issue. There are segments dealing with various proofs for God's existence, explanations for the prevalence of religious behavior from the evolutionary and sociobiological spheres, and many quotations from the bible which he uses to demonstrate his points (or at least the specific point that, if we get our morality from the bible, but pick and choose bits and pieces of it, then there must be some other factor than the bible which determines our morality -- a fair, logical argument.)

Most of these arguments pay specific attention to the other side and, if he were simply reducing them to the straw man of 'faith heads' all along, he would not need to spend so much time and text on the matter. I'd wager that most of his points are not guilty of major logical fallacies.

While I would agree with you that, at times, his tone is a bit strong and even, perhaps, arrogant, I still submit that this does nothing to change the logical strength or weakness of his argument. I have taken pains, since my first two knee-jerk reactions to your letter, to not make the same mistake towards you and your occasionally arrogant-seeming tone.

The fact is that, in some cases, I can't blame you for reacting the way you have to these comments. But you claim to be an educated man (I am not insulting you by saying 'claim to be': I don't know whether you are or not since I have no idea about your studies, so I'll accept your claim at face value). Given your intelligence, I have to assume that you realize that 'like breeds like' in these situations. In other words, responding to comments of whose tone you are critical in an equally desultory and provocative tone (eg "I'm sure Dawkins would be embarrassed to be defended by such disciples.") is only sure to result in more such comments rolling in. Not to mention that you label all of us as 'disciples,' when there are a whole range of personalities present, each of whom agrees and/or disagrees with Dr. Dawkins on a range of things. I have not found anyone with whose opinion I completely agree, either on this site or in the person of Dr Dawkins himself, and resent being called a disciple when I am none.

One thing I do share with Dr. Dawkins is an admiration of the clergy (yes, he does admit fondness for Anglican vicars and even some bishops!) Your job is surely a demanding one, and not an easy living (having made less money than that in my prior occupation, I can surely understand that side of things). But, when it comes to a rational, logical debate, I do not pull my punches, whether my opponent be priest, Doctor, or village idiot, because such things don't matter when logic, and not men, are up for debate. The difference is that neither will I treat my opponent with arrogance, regardless of their occupation, faith, or tone of argument. Nor will I deviate from according them the same respect I accord all people.

Cheers!

159. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5794 by Jared on November 11, 2006 at 5:08 am

Rev. Robertson,

You state that "Name calling and shouting does not really constitute rational argument"

I could not agree with you more. Many of the posts here do not consist of rational arguments and, if we are to keep this discussion on the level of reasoned debate, must be left out.

However, rational arguments must also be free from fallacy, if said arguments are to be considered a sound way to reach conclusions. As such, perhaps we can discuss fallacies.

From your letter:

"[...] imprisoned in the snare of their own religion until the good knight, Sir Richard Dawkins, rides to their rescue and sets them free?! " - Straw Man (making Dawkins's desire to convince people of his position look ridiculous)

"Most of the arguments are of sixth form school boy variety" - Style over substance (Assumes that arguments presented in 'sixth form school boy' style must needs be faulty arguments, also pejorative labeling of the argument's tone without disproving its logic.)

"Do you really think that people are that stupid? Do most people not already know that is perfectly possible to leave a religion and not suffer any significant social consequences – at least in non-Islamic countries? I was brought up in a religious home and knew from a very young age that not only was it possible to leave, but that for many people it would be considered normal" - Hasty generalization (One person's experience is not a wide enough sample to make inferences about a larger population)

"And of course you have stated that you do not discuss with 'fundamentalists' or those who would be stupid enough to disagree with you." - Straw Man (Simplifying Dawkins's reasons for limiting his arguments into an easily attackable form)

"This is rather obvious even from the people who write the blurb on the jacket cover, admittedly not normally unbiased objective judges" - Begging the question (That blurbs on book jackets are or should be objective and/or balanced)

"[...]but then they would wouldn't they? Each of them being convinced atheists already and fairly desperate to have their particular belief system endorsed. " - Faulty Generalization (All atheists agree)

"[...] unlike the cowards and the lazy who want to deny its existence, you admit that there is such a thing as truth. " - Ad Hominem (All people who disbelieve in objective truth are cowards or lazy, ignoring any arguments they may have)

Please bear in mind that these are a representative sample, but by no means all of the fallacious statements contained within the article. Also note that I am not implying that your conclusions are unsound, merely that the steps you took to get there (and, therefore, the steps by which you wish to convince readers of the truth of your conclusions) are unsound.

Perhaps, in your subsequent letters, you can focus on attacking the arguments without resorting to fallacious means. It will not affect the truth value of your statements, but it might make them more convincing. Cheers!

160. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5695 by Jared on November 10, 2006 at 1:58 pm

OK. I made it a little bit further in this time! Maybe by the end of the weekend I'll finish the article before I get overcome by frustration and have to divert my attention elsewhere.

But, re: this piece -- WOW. And people accuse Dawkins of being arrogant and vicious? Geez.

I can summarize what I've read to this point in two words: Ad hominem.

Oh, and I do wish people would stop mentioning the Tamil Tigers. Yes, they may be a secularist group. The point is, they aren't killing to spread atheism or even in the NAME of atheism. They fall under the same heading as Stalin in the group of people who pursue an ideology with the same sort of blind faith as others pursue religion.

161. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5685 by Jared on November 10, 2006 at 1:29 pm

I couldn't even make it past the first paragraph. There is honestly no need to respond in any greater detail than that.

162. The New Unbelievers

Comment #4896 by Jared on November 6, 2006 at 8:05 pm

"We restrain ourselves from saying bad things about religion, from talking about it at the dinner table..."

Yes, good point. I have some sand here for you, would you care to dig a hole and put your head in it for a while?

Why NOT talk about it? If two people in a family follow different sports teams, for instance, isn't a little good-natured ribbing to be expected around the table? And, in my experience, that ribbing (usually) gives way to civil argument, comparison of statistics, discussion, and both sides conceding one or two things even without changing minds. Why should this not also apply to religion?

I am interpreting his use of "dinner table" as a metaphor for "in public." But isn't it by "saying bad things" in public that progress gets fostered? I can hardly imagine, say, the civil rights movement taking place if its proponents refrained from listing the wrongs of the opposition in public.

I get so tired of the conciliatory nature of all of these articles about the "New Atheists." The rarity with which anyone writing about the topic just comes out and says "I agree," in so many words, is rare. They always end (as No More Hornets points out above) with that little disclaimer. If that isn't indicative of the sort of anti-atheist bias prevalent in the US, I don't know what is.

It reminds me of how infrequently a horror or sci-fi movie will let whatever terrors it enacts reside solely within someone's mind...there's always that little bit at the end where the filmmaker "winks" at the audience, as if to say "And it was all in her head...OR WAS IT??" It's silly there, and even more silly here in the real world.

(If this posts twice, I apologize...seems to be some kind of problem)

163. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4395 by Jared on November 3, 2006 at 5:15 pm

I'm glad that awareness of the atheist perspective is finally reaching the mainstream. It's good that the religious are beginning to admit that rationalism is something to be reckoned with rather than just brushing it off as if it were the uninformed perspective of an errant child.

Hopefully some of the journalists and reviewers who disagree with Dawkins' tone will at least concede that his vehemence is getting the word out there and encouraging debate.

(Personally I'll only be happy when I hear an American politician say something nice about atheists or [heaven forbid!] admit to BEING one... which will never happen.)

164. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #3617 by Jared on October 30, 2006 at 6:52 pm

As this thread is quite old now, I can't say I've read all of the comments. But in searching for one key term, I can see that few people have discussed the question of how Eagleton's Marxism informs his review.

I find it quite humorous that Eagleton seems to think it is OK to pull Dawkins' middle-class, "North Oxford" foundation out of context and use it to invalidate certain perceived inadequacies in Dawkins' arguments.

Humorous, I say, because one could just as easily make a straw man (or is it an ad hominem attack; it seems to straddle the line) out of Eagleton by tarring him with the brush of Marxism and say that HIS bias makes his own points inadequate.

Were that a logical and acceptable form of debate as, by his even MENTIONING Dawkins' class and assumed beliefs Eagleton seems to think it is, Eagleton's arguments would evaporate as well.

Thankfully, it is not. I will attempt to discuss how this method of argument is flawed without weighing the comparative merits of Marxist vs. Non-Marxist perspectives. In terms of my argument, it doesn't matter whether one or the other is "right," which hopefully keeps me from repeating Eagleton's error. You can be the judge of my success or failure in this regard. Furthermore, my analysis holds only for the portions of the review from which I pull my quotes. As to the rest of his points, although I do disagree with them, I am refraining from comment on them here as they are at least free from the particular errors I am arguing against. This, also, should keep me from making Eagleton's mistakes, and you can again be the judge of whether I have succeeded.

In my own reading, I frequently encounter theorists who seem to hold their particular theoretical stance as a sort of "trump card" above and beyond any debates. When someone questions, say, the necessity of viewing a particular issue in the light of “X” Theory, they play the “'X' Theorist card" as a way of saying, "Well, the fact that you argue this exposes you as infected by the anti-“X” culture in which you were raised." I am paraphrasing (and admittedly simplifying) actual arguments I have encountered, as I have none near to hand at the moment from which to quote. Regardless, I think you see what I am getting at. This sort of argument is contemptuous, it dodges the question, and, when boiled down, it says "You cannot debate my views unless you already share them." It is this viewpoint, and not a particular theory (such as Marxism), which is flawed when applied to an argument.

I am not insinuating that this is precisely what Eagleton does, though one does get a sense of a similar sort of sneering contempt when reading the portions of the review dedicated to all but calling Dawkins bourgeois. His string of attacks on the "readily identifiable kind of English middle-class liberal rationalist” perspective of Dawkins smacks of nothing but contempt and bears the unstated major premise that something in being a "middle-class liberal rationalist" is inherently flawed.

Precisely what is flawed is revealed further down in the review, when Eagleton says that Dawkins' "anti-religious diatribes have never been matched in his work by a critique of the global capitalism that generates the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed fundamentalism." Well, of course Dawkins hasn't made this critique! It is a Marxist (or at the very least Anti-capitalist) perspective, and Dawkins is neither! But Eagleton is, and, therefore, any non-Marxist evaluations of global issues are seemingly, to him, invalid by default. I can scarcely think of a more contemptuous way to brush off another person's views

Contempt in and of itself isn't a bad thing. However, when you are critiquing someone else for their lack of "respect" for alternate viewpoints, contempt might just be the wrong tone in which to phrase your arguments.