301. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18863 by Janus on January 23, 2007 at 9:41 am

I suppose this is a good thing... or it could be if the teacher's good.

What really worries me is, what is there to teach about ID that isn't grossly flawed, an outright lie, or a misrepresentation of what evolution is? What is there to say about ID beyond, "Well, some Christians, Muslims, and Jews are scientifically illiterate and thinkg Goddidit is a valid explanation"?

302. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18558 by Janus on January 21, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Sullivan has (finally) replied:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/taking_scriptur.html

As Andrew admits, many of Sam's points have been ignored, as has been his final question to Sullivan. Overall, it's pretty much what we expected, lots of obfuscation, dodging and fuzziness, mixed in with a few good points. Can't wait for Sam's reply.

303. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18405 by Janus on January 20, 2007 at 3:43 pm

This will be my last post here, so I won't bother switching to the 'real' forum.

The assumption here is that life should be rational in its totality. Or that life that includes unreason is inherently flawed or dangerous. I contend neither.

Again, your equation of sanity with reason seems to me premature, and a contradiction of a large portion of valuable human experience.

You presume that secular atheism means "more rational" which I do not grant you, and furthermore that the more rational, the better, which I also do not concede. We are humans, not Vulcans.

Like Atran and the other religious apologists at the Salk conference, you're using a flawed definition of 'rational'. Being 100% rational doesn't mean you're a cold, emotionless calculating machine, it means you have a solid justification for everything you believe. Atran and others seem to believe that an emotion, or a simple desire, isn't a good justification for doing something, but it can be. Subjective feelings and desires are our most basic premises, after all, and they need no justification (although they may need occasional re-evaluation).

For example, I think there's nothing irrational (per se) about buying an extremely expensive piece of jewelry for a woman I love, even though I only make 25k a year and I've got practically no savings. After all, who's to say that I'm wrong to put my love for this woman ahead of my personal welfare? It may be stupid from their point of view, but because my actions are based on my subjective feelings, the only point of view which is relevant is my own.
In fact, I'm not even certain that it can be said that rationality and irrationality have anything to do with a situation like this. I'm tempted to say that emotions are a-rational, as opposed to irrational.

Real irrationality, which is what Dawkins and Harris are fighting against, is a belief about reality which isn't the result of a sincere desire to know the truth. Already the difference between what I've called a-rationality and irrationality is apparent: The former has nothing to do with the truth, but the latter does. To use a slightly different example, an irrational belief would be to believe that the woman I've mentioned above is in love with me purely because I love her. In other words, wishful thinking, thinking that has no basis in reality. My love for her wouldn't be irrational in and of itself, but it could lead me to have irrational beliefs.

Therefore, to say that the world is fundamentally irrational, as Atran does, or that irrationality is a valuable part of the human experience, as you do, is simply nonsense. Emotions are fundamental and valuable to human beings, but unjustified and/or false beliefs are not. To eradicate (or minimize) the human tendency towards the latter isn't only a desirable and achievable objective, it's an objective without a single downside.

As for my equating sanity with reason, I think I'll stand by it. A delusion is an unjustified belief held in spite of a lack of evidence or in spite of the evidence. An irrational person is a deluded person.

Perhaps, but Harris and Dawkins use the word "debate" much like the creationists use the "teach the controversy" angle. The conjuring of a friendly collegial contest of ideas conceals a not-so-hidden agenda to, as you say, "deconvert." If you are out to deconvert, you've already made up your mind, and can't really be said to be "debating" anything.

Good point, debate isn't the right word. Nevertheless, although there are certainly pragmatic, real-world consequences to religion, the fact remains that Dawkins and Harris want to make people realize that what they think is true is actually false. A hostage negotiation is something completely different, as I've said in my previous post. A negotiation where every uttered word is a lie can (and often is, from what I've read) be more successful than one where the negotiator cares about telling the truth. And despite his protestations of "you have to be honest with them", I think Atran would agree with me on this one.

You'll notice, though, that Scandinavia did not arrive at its present secular condition by external persuasion, which is an important point. I'm not saying, and I don't see Atran saying, "let's keep the world's theological quotient just where it is!" I think change and conceptual evolution are essential.

Actually, I don't think I've ever heard (or read) Atran saying that less religion would be a good thing. And most importantly, I've certainly never heard him say how we should proceed to "advance reason in an inherently unreasonable world", which is hilarious (or vomit-inducing, depending on my mood) considering his repeated declarations that Dawkins and Harris are so badly mistaken when it comes to their approach.

304. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18342 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 11:09 pm

You leave out the second part of the quote, where he re-states his idea: "that is, there are no logical or empirical criteria for judging whether such utterances are true or not." I think this renders your interpretation questionable. The point is not that religious people don't "really" believe their myths, or that they don't "literally" believe them, but that they aren't contestable the way scientific truth claims are. (Yes, you have people pointing to Mount Ararat and the Shroud of Turin, but that's just sensationalism. It runs against the current of the majority of religious thought and experience.

I would point out that more than half of American Christians (and certainly the vast majority of Muslims worldwide) are creationists, and creationism makes several testable claims, but this would be beside the point of this post, which is to show that Atran isn't a reliable authority.

The point that Atran originally made at the Salk conference was that religious believers aren't really that irrational (or at least, not more than someone who's in love), and the argument about religious beliefs being comparable to poetic metaphors was invoked to defend that point, which is why I interpreted the citation as I did.

Anyway, either I'm right and Atran is completely wrong, or you're right and the argument does nothing to support Atran's point. After all, that some claims can't be falsified empirically or logically doesn't mean that making such claims is justified and rational. I may not be able to show that immaterial, invisible imps don't exist, but I can certainly demonstrate logically that belief in these imps is insane.

It wasn't a geometric proof for pete's sake, it was an concrete application of the idea that people don't take kindly to being mocked or dimsissed, and in fact it tends to make them more entrenched than when you started. Wouldn't you agree? Have you never found yourself becoming more attached to an idea because of pride? Even if you haven't, surely you've encountered it in others.

The point is that it is naive to demand that other people get with the program, and expect to have good results. It's not about the relative virtue of honesty or dishonesty, it's about basic human relations.

The point is that Atran keeps using his example of hostage negotiation over and over again to support his opinion. Dawkins and Harris advocate brutal honesty in the West, in conferences, articles, books, etc, so as to promote secularism, science, and reason.
And the only example Atran can come up with is a situation where the religious believers are so nutty they're willing to kidnap people, in countries that often are theocracies, and where the secularist's purpose has nothing at all to do with promoting secularism or reason or science, but with saving people's lives. Whatever else you think Atran believes about this subject, I don't see how you can deny that you can't conclude anything from this particular case. As I said, it's the textbook example of a non sequitur.

To speak for myself, no, I think I'm much more likely to be convinced if my interlocutor speaks his mind without trying to soften the blows. I think part of the reason I like Richard Dawkins is that I'm incredibly tired of the sugary, placid approach used by many intellectuals.

I also need to point out that Dawkins' and Harris' objective isn't only to deconvert believers, it's also to destroy the taboo that keeps us from attacking religion freely and openly.

But I disagree that it's not a representative case. Dialogue is better than war, if you have any cards to play at all (and we do), whether it's a hostage negotiation, or a so-called "Clash of Civiliations."

Good thing no one's arguing for a war then, eh?
And as I've already said, hostage negotiations and the theism VS atheism 'debate' have nothing in common. It's rather obvious if you think about it; a debate is about truth, a negotiation is only concerned with truth if it happens to be a useful tool to achieve your goal.

It wasn't a refutation, it was merely an observation that the notion of progress is far from patent.

Hey, I think Dawkins' zeitgeist theory is BS, but once again my intent was only to show that Atran is using a non sequitur. The shifting moral zeitgeist is about change in the overall moral beliefs of a civilization's population. Atran's argument is about as relevant as pointing out that the murder rate has increased in the last 100 years, which is to say not at all. A relevant argument would have been to say that the population's concept of what is 'horrible' and 'cruel' in war has changed for the worse in the last century (which obviously isn't the case).

But what really bugged me is that Atran began his little speech by calling Dawkins' theory "quasi-theological", at which point everyone was holding their breaths, expecting him to tell us WHY... and the only argument he has is this one.

At first glance it's not a non sequitur, because the conclusion is placed before the argument, but it's a non sequitur nevertheless.
You've noticed that I inserted 'therefores' in my paraphrasing of Atran. I felt it was necessary to dispel the effect created by the kind of clever wording described above.

The point is not that religion has "nothing" to do with it, but rather it has been presented as the sole causative influence, when in fact there are a complex set of social factors involved, such as kinship bonds.

Ahh, this is without a doubt the religious apology which was most often used at Salk, and not only by Scott Atran. Too bad it's a complete misrepresentation. Dawkins and Harris have said again and again and again, both in their books and at the conference, that they don't think religion is the "root of all evil", and that they acknowledge the existence of non-believing suicide bombers such as the Tamil Tigers.

The thing about religion, however, is that despite what Scott Atran believes, it can be fought and eradicated relatively easily. People like you and I are clear evidence of that, as are countries like Sweden. I say "relatively easily", because while eradicating religion will be very, very difficult, it will be much easier to eradicate than the basic human tendency to divide the world into Us and Them, which unlike religion is probably an intrinsic part of human nature.

So while, as Dawkins and Harris admit, religion is only one of the problems that we're faced with, it's a very big problem, and most importantly it's a problem that can (at least in principle) be dealt with.

By the way, I'm sure that you've noticed that this is yet another point that Atran has gotten completely wrong: He believes that, like romantic love and false hope, religion is part of human nature, and to try to get rid of it is irrational. Isn't it obvious that if a sizeable part of humanity is rational and atheistic, it's at least theoretically possible for all (or almost all) of humanity to become rational and atheistic? Does Atran think that countries like Sweden are anomalies, that it's just an accident that so many atheists live over there?

Scott Atran is a perfect example of someone who, to use Dan Dennett's phrase, "believes in belief", despite being an atheist.

305. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18328 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 6:54 pm

The first is just nonsense. How is is something like, "The creator of the universe sent his son to Earth to die for our sins" literally senseless in that it altogether lacks truth conditions? Yes, it's stupid, but no Christian except perhaps a handful of theologians and bishops thinks of it as a poetic metaphor. Anyone who's spent a few hours talking with a few Abrahamic believers knows their beliefs are statements about objective reality, regardless of how certain they are of them.

As for the second, Atran's reasoning could be reworded like this: "In a hostage negotiation with Muslim fundamentalists, explaining how preposterous Islam is will get you and your hostage killed, therefore brutal honesty isn't a good way to deal with religious irrationality."

Pretty much a textbook example of non sequitur: the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

I remember that Atran made this argument at the Salk conference when he was engaged in a mini-debate with Richard Dawkins, to support his assertion that honesty isn't a good way to advance the secularist cause. IIRC, Dawkins pointed out that a hostage negotiation isn't a very representative case. Atran just ignored him and kept talking.

If you've watched the Salk videos, you might remember a few more of Atran's non sequiturs:
- Wars get progressively more horrible as time goes on, therefore Dawkins' theory of the shifting moral zeitgeist is wrong.

- Muslim suicide bombers have usually formed a sort of family-like bond between them, which seems to strengthen their desire to martyr themselves, therefore the doctrines of jihad, martyrdom, and eternal bliss for the families of martyrs contained in Islam have nothing to do with suicide bombings.

(after Dawkins points out that the bombers themselves admitted they were motivated by the promise of paradise and the ideal of martyrdom...)

- The concept of paradise ties with the love and affection these people have for each other, therefore Islam has nothing to do with suicide bombings.

306. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18316 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 3:53 pm

I must say I'm baffled that some people are giving any credence to Atran when it comes to religion and the danger it represents. Like most people I haven't read his book, but I've watched the Salk videos and read every article Atran has written in response to the conference, and practically everything he's said or written is riddled with logical fallacies, especially non sequiturs. Granted, they're not all easy to spot, but how can you not laugh out loud when you hear nonsense like:


"core religious beliefs, like poetic metaphors, are literally senseless in that they altogether lack truth conditions."


or read a blatant non sequitur like:

[on the subject of how to deal with religious irrationality in general]
"(for example, in negotiations with Hamas and Israel to stop Qassam missile attacks, or in field investigations of beheadings in Azad Kahsmir – efforts reported in the last two issues of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).
If I employed Harris's recommendation for dealing with irrationality in such cases, by lambasting the conflicting parties with how preposterous are their core beliefs, I would probably be kicked out or killed (and in misjudging the ways reason is best advanced, I have on a few occasions been very nearly killed)."

307. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18282 by Janus on January 19, 2007 at 9:49 am

"Where is Andrew's reply? Does he need some more time to think about this?"

Not to think, to pray.








*snicker*

308. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #17989 by Janus on January 17, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Simply brilliant, Mr. Harris! (How long until we can call you Doctor Harris, by the way?) ;)

The only weakness I can find is this sentence:
"They also perpetuate the myth that a person must believe things on insufficient evidence in order to have an ethical and spiritual life."

Andrew Sullivan will most likely call you out on this one, since I don't think most religious moderates believe that only religious people can live an ethical life. I'd just drop this assertion, if I were you.

309. A deadly certitude

Comment #17944 by Janus on January 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Well, Weinberg is absolutely right. The question that remains is, what do we do about it? Even those of us who have few means to advance the 'cause' of secularism and defend against religious superstition can at least do _something_ to influence Christians we meet in our lives, or on the internet. But what can we do to make a difference (no matter how small) in isolated, technologically-backwards Muslim countries?

310. Sam Harris at Idea City '05

Comment #17939 by Janus on January 17, 2007 at 4:11 pm

I've seen this one a while ago, it's the vid that's made me a Sam Harris fan, despite the misgivings I had (and still have) about his less than rigorous stance towards reincarnation and psychics.

311. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16406 by Janus on January 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Galactic Lord Xenu is right on the money.

312. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15300 by Janus on December 30, 2006 at 8:13 am

Post-modernist stupidity at its finest. "Never mind what _IS_, reality is what you WANT IT to be."

It's so child-like and, frankly, pathetic, it makes me want to puke.

313. The problem with secularism

Comment #14386 by Janus on December 22, 2006 at 8:24 am

*giggles uncontrollably*

314. Preaching to the converted

Comment #13288 by Janus on December 16, 2006 at 8:35 pm

I'm sure some religious nut on some message board somewhere on the internet is looking for a way to post that quote as I'm typing these very words.


Anyway, good article, but goddamn, is this silly tendency to use religious language in relation to Dawkins, Harris, and other 'militant' atheists EVER going to die out? It's so cliché and overused.

315. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12145 by Janus on December 10, 2006 at 7:11 pm

Actually, I think it's quite possible, and even easy, to go from atheist to theist. After all, atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, there's nothing about atheism that makes it unlikely the person will believe nonsense.

However, I think most of us who post on this site, and on sites like Internet Infidels, share the ideologies of naturalism, rationalism, empiricism, skepticism, etc. And THAT makes it very unlikely any of us will ever become theists.

In other words, let's not assume that 'atheist' means 'reasonable person'.

316. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12133 by Janus on December 10, 2006 at 5:55 pm

Jakob, I agree, but I think the real problem is that most people _pretend_ to be more interested in the truth than they actually are. Well, it could be argued that everybody is like that, but some people are worse than others, and religious people tend to be among these.

317. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11977 by Janus on December 8, 2006 at 8:53 pm

Brilliant!

Someone needs to post this on a Christian message board, _without_ telling them what it's really about.

318. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11689 by Janus on December 6, 2006 at 2:34 pm

Whoa, my avatar is messing up the layout. Is this normal?

319. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11688 by Janus on December 6, 2006 at 2:33 pm

Good to see _Is God Shit?_ is beating _Is Richard Dawkins Shit?

320. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11199 by Janus on December 3, 2006 at 4:42 pm

That was way too condescending. All but the dumbest theist would get the point after the Mormon story.

321. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9275 by Janus on November 24, 2006 at 9:57 am

As I was reading this article, I kept waiting and waiting for the author to provide us with a good reason why belief without evidence deserves the same respect or tolerance as do other beliefs. It never came.

322. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #8640 by Janus on November 21, 2006 at 9:48 pm

Is there any writer, any journalist, any blogger, any _anything_ that is capable of criticizing Dawkins WITHOUT deforming what Dawkins has said and written beyond all recognition?

Actually, never mind the above question. I'm being unfair to the authors of the various other articles that have been posted on this website. _This_ article is filled with so many outright LIES that it makes the rest of them look like paragons of intellectual honesty.

323. Beyond belief: In place of God

Comment #8586 by Janus on November 21, 2006 at 6:54 pm

It's not just you. Journalist bias?

324. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6837 by Janus on November 15, 2006 at 7:21 pm

"1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist."

You're off to a pretty bad start when your summary of Dawkins' "bedrock" is a silly strawman.

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

Comment #6520 by Janus on November 14, 2006 at 4:44 pm

I should clarify the above comment (6516):

The article is much more accurate than I thought it would be, _considering it's from AnswersInGenesis_.


- Janus

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

Comment #6516 by Janus on November 14, 2006 at 4:28 pm

Hmmmm, that's actually much more accurate than I thought it would be.

Regarding what they call our arguments, #1 is the usual lie, #2 and #4 are exaggerations, #3 sounds about right.

And of course, the following paragraph,
"In America today, with a population of 300 million, there are only 2,500 members of "American Atheists." Richard Dawkins, on his current tour, hopes to boost that number by a significant margin."

... is nonsense, as American Atheists is only one minor atheist organization, one that, I think, most of us want nothing to do with. Prof. Dawkins certainly never said he wanted to increase _their_ ranks, but rather those of all atheists, with a small 'a'.

327. Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

Comment #5522 by Janus on November 9, 2006 at 8:26 pm

Godless is, unfortunately, completely and absolutely right.

By the way, I need to point out that Prof. Dawkins' lecture in Montreal wasn't about The God Delusion or atheism as such, it was about 'the strangeness of science'. I thought it was weird at the time, since all other lectures and Q&A sessions were about TGD, but I just shrugged and forgot about it. Now I wonder, was it entirely Dawkins' choice?

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

Comment #5489 by Janus on November 9, 2006 at 5:08 pm

Ah, I've seen this argument before. The tactic is to convince the reader that ideologies (religions included) don't have any influence on the way people behave. Ideologies are morally neutral (or morally good), it's _people_ who twist them to further their evil ends.

That's obviously nonsense that not even McGrath himself truly believes. The whole POINT of ideologies is to alter the way people think. Is McGrath saying that had Nazi youths not been raised in the National Socialist ideology, they would have been just as evil? Puh-leez.

Of course, no one's saying that ideologies control EVERYTHING their followers think and do. That's precisely Dawkins' point in chapter 7 (or is it 8?), where he argues that even fundamentalists cherry-pick the 'nice' parts of their scripture. But does that mean that these fundamentalists would have been just as homophobic, and just as hateful if they hadn't been indoctrinated in Christianity or Islam? Obviously not.

One needs only look at Christianity's core beliefs to see that...
1) It elevates faith as a virtue, which strongly discourages intellectual freedom.
2) It states that the Christian God is THE only source of morality in the universe, which strongly discourages moral freedom.
3) It condemns all other religions as misguided (at best), which strongly discourages religious freedom.

An ideology may not represent the totality of its followers' beliefs, but it certainly is a significant part of it. It's a fact that faced with certain moral dilemnas, the average Christian will behave very differently than the average secular humanist.

As for the rest of the article, as people have pointed out, it's just one huge strawman of Dawkins' stance. Professor Dawkins needs to stop being so damn respectful of those he calls 'sophisticated theologians'. Their beliefs may not be as crude as those of fundamentalists, and they may not hold beliefs that are as morally repugnant, but they're just as intellectually dishonest. Actually, scratch that, in my experience theologians are usually much MORE dishonest than the average fundy. McGrath and his ilk are a disgrace to the intellectual community.

329. Controversial Religious Summer Camp Closed

Comment #5306 by Janus on November 8, 2006 at 7:44 pm

One down... how many to go?

330. Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors

Comment #4899 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 8:25 pm

*chuckle*

331. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4869 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 4:33 pm

Manfred's right, but there is also positive evidence that the mind is exclusively a physical process. The simple fact that it's possible to _completely_ alter a person's personality, to utterly change the very essence of who a person is by removing or damaging part of the brain is evidence strong enough to convince even the most ignorant layman, but there's much more if you care to read a book on neurobiology.

Of course, you can claim that the mind and soul are completely different things, but this (at the very least) makes the soul completely superfluous. You might as well believe in invisible, immaterial imps whose job is to pull all objects and people towards more massive objects to simulate the force we know as 'gravity'.

Sure, it's _possible_, but immaterial gravity-imps are not only unsupported by evidence, they're also a _superfluous_ explanation since Einstein's discoveries.

332. The New Unbelievers

Comment #4854 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Agreed, N.A. That's certainly been my experience.

333. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4838 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Err, the above is a reply to message #22 by Truth Seeker.

334. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4836 by Janus on November 6, 2006 at 1:18 pm

So? Reality is what it is, and wishing it were otherwise won't make it so. You're not much of a truthseeker if you believe something because you _want it_ to be true.

335. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4727 by Janus on November 5, 2006 at 3:44 pm

A resounding victory for Dawkins. Any scientifically literate person should easily spot the weaknesses in Collins' arguments.

Of course, most people aren't scientifically literate, and will prefer Collins' arguments only because they sound more 'moderate'.

336. Atheist Evangelist

Comment #4597 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 5:19 pm

Anonymous (post #13), you're absolutely right.
It makes perfect sense of practically every single negative review of The God Delusion that's been posted here. You should expound on that, put it in the form of a short article, and send it to the website administrator for all to read.

I'm serious, do it!

337. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #4592 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 4:47 pm

Riley, Christmas and Halloween are now completely secular holidays, really. But even if they weren't, there is nothing in them that inherently promotes or supports the religious indoctrination of children. You can't say the same about baptism.

I don't think any of us believes that sprinkling water on a baby's head and muttering a few prayers actually harms anyone, but it's usually a prelude to indoctrination. If we're going to begin raising consciousness about the labelling of children as Catholic, Muslism, etc, refusing to attend a baptism (and explaining why, of course) is a good starting point.

What I wouldn't advocate is something like a manifestation against baptism. Just like manifs against Christmas, it would look pedantic and, as you said, asinine.

Btw guys, I really enjoyed the discussion, well done.

338. Atheist Evangelist

Comment #4547 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 12:36 pm

These articles on Dawkins and Harris are getting strangely repetitive. It's as if they're all written by the same person.

339. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4491 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 6:59 am

Faith is a fragile thing. Why do you think fundamentalist parents are so obsessed with keeping their children away from anyone or anything that might show them that other viewpoints exist?

340. BBC Profile - Richard Dawkins

Comment #4476 by Janus on November 4, 2006 at 4:33 am

The reporter's an idiot. You'd think he could keep his misunderstandings and fuzzy-headed religious zeal out of a profile of Richard Dawkins. I'm refering to the last 5 minutes of the 3rd part, mainly.

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

Comment #4349 by Janus on November 3, 2006 at 1:45 pm

There are many problems with this review. The first is th*SNORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE*

342. Review of The God Delusion

Comment #3817 by Janus on October 31, 2006 at 9:02 pm

Well, that was boring.

343. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3243 by Janus on October 26, 2006 at 6:41 pm

Vega:
"Love how Richard adapts his style to the type of interview: "What really pisses me off..." haha"

Hah, you're right, that took me by surprise.

344. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3234 by Janus on October 26, 2006 at 5:45 pm

That was great, most of the questions were new, original, and very interesting (even if not always relevant to The God Delusion).

Yet another excellent performance by Prof. Dawkins. And btw, I beg to differ, you are _extremely_ eloquent.

345. Lynchburg, VA Photos : Batch 2

Comment #3133 by Janus on October 25, 2006 at 9:07 pm

Shame you're married, eh Dick?

:D

346. Beyond Belief

Comment #3100 by Janus on October 25, 2006 at 2:07 pm

David,

the argument from improbability isn't a scientific argument, it's a logical one.

Intelligence is organized complexity by definition, and organized complexity is too improbable to simply _exist_, it can only arise from simpler things via a complexity-generating process of some kind. Saying that a complex entity is eternal, or outside of our universe, or uncaused, or transdimensional, doesn't affect this argument at all. Timelessness may explain existence itself, but it doesn't explain complexity.

347. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2547 by Janus on October 21, 2006 at 7:38 pm

This might be my memory playing tricks with me, but I feel like I've already read this review. Like, a week ago or more.

348. Atheists' delusions about God

Comment #2530 by Janus on October 21, 2006 at 5:26 pm

"The root of the problem is that too many modern atheists adopt a position that is a photographic negative of a sort of Christianity believed only by the most conservative. God is X, says the modern atheist, giving a short definition that allegedly captures what all believers believe. This means that the God they reject doesn’t look anything like the God that most of us meet in our prayers."

The reverend is apparently under the delusion, common amongst 'sophisticated' believers living in their ivory towers, that their nebulous, undefinable deity is a popular one. It is not.
The god believed in by the vast, vast majority of Abrahamic religionists can indeed be defined in a single sentence, "the supernatural, personal, sentient creator of the universe". Actually, I'm sure I could add a dozen more adjectives and still have a definition general enough to encapsulate the beliefs of more than 80% of believers worldwide. I don't need to, because this definition is more than sufficient to serve as basis for a critique of Abrahamic religion such as The God Delusion.

"Yet the one thing that we learn from the Hebrew scriptures is that there is no X that can articulate the infinite mystery of the divine. Again and again, the Bible puts us off trying to achieve definitions. What else is "I am what I am" but a very Hebraic way of refusing to allow God to be put in a box?"

Indeed, obscurantism is the religionist's greatest weapon. Without it the number of books and articles written by theologians would no doubt be so small as to fit in two or three bookshelves. It's already easy enough to wax poetic about something no one knows anything about, not even if it exists, but that's nothing compared to the vastness of the field that opens itself to you if you refuse to even define that which you want to speculate about.

"What they share is a worry at the dogmatism creeping into so many areas of public life. Unfortunately, public discussion no longer involves enough people who are prepared to say: "I don’t know.""

Welcome the ranks of negative atheists, reverend!
Oh. Ohhh. I see. You don't know, but you believe anyway.
Perhaps you should have looked up the meaning of 'delusion' in a dictionary before writing this article.

"This is not a problem just because it lacks modesty. What is wrong is the attempt to force the unknown into declaring itself in the terms of our own limited imaginations."

You're quite right. But then why do you insist on believing and defending something you know nothing about? Why do you insist on believing the written words of primitive, superstitious tribesmen about the unknown? Why do you assume the unknown will forever remain unknown? Will call the unknown God? Why worship the unknown? Why let the unknown affect your life and the lives of others?

It is precisely because you and your ilk presume to do all these things that we rationalists can attack your unsupported beliefs. If you truly believed your own words, you would never pray again.

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

Comment #2441 by Janus on October 21, 2006 at 9:18 am

Hurray for double-standards! When believers do good, they do good _because_ of religion. But when believers commit evil, religion is being 'used'.

Nonsense. Religion, like all ideologies, is part of a believer's _identity_ if he or she truly believes in it. There's no such thing as 'using' one's religion to do anything, unless you're not a believer in the first place.
True, some ideologies are better than others. Secular humanism, for instance, is vastly superior to any Abrahamic religion.

The rest of this article is mostly nonsense as well.

- If the rabbi had read The God Delusion, he would know that Dawkins doesn't come anywhere close to claiming that getting rid of religion would get rid of all evil (or even the majority of it!).

- No ten commandments? And how is that a bad thing? The commandments are either so completely obvious they're not needed at all, or they're plainly outdated morality by modern standards.

- Using Nietzsche to construct a strawman of atheists as a whole. Puh-leez.

-The supreme virtue of Christianity and Judaism is humility? Only if you look superficially. At the basis of the Abrahamic religions is the belief that the creator of the universe himself actually _cares_ about humans, to the degree that the entire universe is merely a tool to give rise to humanity (at best), or an amusement park (at worst). Judaism is probably the worst offender, as it claims that God went as far as to pick one tiny tribe of desertmen as his Chosen People! The belief is excusable if you lived 4000 years ago, but that any modern adult could not instantly see the sheer arrogance, the incredible simple-mindedness of such a belief is truly staggering (and very depressing).

350. Rachel Maddow Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2223 by Janus on October 19, 2006 at 8:56 pm

That was interesting, different from the interviews we've heard lately.