Dawkins Demolished

[Flosshilde]

Flosshilde -

the quote is from Dawkins. It's the opening of the text linked inJohn's #88...

Thanks Vinteuil.

To go back to John's post, I think that it's probabl;y in accord with Dawkins' view of all & any religion. It wouldn't be acceptable if it was said (as it is) by people who think that Christianity is the greatest thing that has ever happened.

[gurnemanz]

It seems that it's OK to be Islamophobic if you do so in the name of Atheism, rather than 'Western values' or 'Christian values' or 'Europe' or the American way or whatever.

The use of "Atheism" with a capital letter suggests that it is a proper noun. To warrant that, it would need either to be a name or to be named after someone. It seems to me that is neither. Therefore it is an abstract noun, in this case denoting the quality of the absence of something, i.e. belief in a supernatural being. Since belief can only take place when human beings are present to do the believing, atheism would also describe the state of the universe before human beings existed and after they have become extinct.

[Beef Oven]

The use of "Atheism" with a capital letter suggests that it is a proper noun. To warrant that, it would need either to be a name or to be named after someone. It seems to me that is neither. Therefore it is an abstract noun, in this case denoting the quality of the absence of something, i.e. belief in a supernatural being. Since belief can only take place when human beings are present to do the believing, atheism would also describe the state of the universe before human beings existed and after they have become extinct.

Stop all this atheist stuff, you're spoiling my Parsifal!

[John Skelton]

Can't quite see why one should exempt Islam from criticism from an atheist pov, and have that criticism confused with Islamophobia as presented by Ms Phillips & co.

I'm not saying that Islam should be exempt from criticism from an atheist pov: I'm saying that there isn't (or I can't see) daylight between Dawkins' "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil" and Melanie Phillips and co.

[John Skelton]

The use of "Atheism" with a capital letter suggests that it is a proper noun.

I know. I'd suggest that's how Dawkins and his followers now use the word. As the name of a belief system. That's why I used the capital A.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not saying that Islam should be exempt from criticism from an atheist pov: I'm saying that there isn't (or I can't see) daylight between Dawkins' "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil" and Melanie Phillips and co.

Isn't, rather, the issue, that all religions - regardless of the Melianie Phillipses of this world - are susceptible by their very nature to the kinds of accusation Dawkins et al are able to level at them?

[jean]

A bit like the "Hitler was a vegetarian" type of argument ....

or even

I bet Harold Shipman went to sunday school

Unlikely, as he was Jewish.

A fact siezed upon by some of the vilest anti-Semites I've ever come across:

http://thekbh.org/evidence.htm

[MrGongGong]

Knowing MrGG as I assume I do, my guess is not. What evidence makes you suppose he is?

to make things a little clearer
I'm not a "follower" of anyone (well apart from Cage, Xenakis, Feldman and Alvin Lucier )


and


as others have stated
the point about christianity is that it's all based on ONE book
so it's a fair enough question to ask if its possible to be a christian and not know about that book !

[Serial_Apologist]

to make things a little clearer
I'm not a "follower" of anyone (well apart from Cage, Xenakis, Feldman and Alvin Lucier )


and


as others have stated
the point about christianity is that it's all based on ONE book
so it's a fair enough question to ask if its possible to be a christian and not know about that book !

Exactement

[Alison]

Dawkins asked whether those who could not name the first Book of the New Testament could categorise themselves as Christians - it's as straightforward as that.

Fair enough - but somehow folk aren't happy with Giles Fraser using exactly the same argument against Dawkins. Or so it seems.

[scottycelt]

I don't think it's a stupid question. And I haven't any idea what the rest of your reply is about .

Dawkins runs a campaign against Islam (and, indeed, supports an anti-Catholic rhetoric better known from sectarian discourse) and people who would react with hostility if it came from an obvious 'right-wing' source seem perfectly relaxed about it. As with Christopher Hitchens, who propagandised for war against an 'Islamic' 'threat' and who gets written about on his death by 'liberal' commentators as if it was all by the way.

It seems that it's OK to be Islamophobic if you do so in the name of Atheism, rather than 'Western values' or 'Christian values' or 'Europe' or the American way or whatever.

How true ...

[jean]

While looking for something else entirely, I happened on this:

The world's major religions espouse a moral code that includes injunctions against murder, theft, and lying - or so conventional 19th- and 20th-century Western wisdom would have it. Evidence put forth here argues that this convention is a conceit which does not apply to the West's own religious foundations. In particular, rules against murder, theft, and lying codified by the Ten Commandments were intended to apply only within a cooperating group for the purpose of enabling that group to compete successfully against other groups. In addition, this in-group morality has functioned, both historically and by express intent, to create adverse circumstances between groups by actively promoting murder, theft, and lying as tools of competition. Contemporary efforts to present Judeo-Christian in-group morality as universal morality defy the plain meaning of the texts upon which Judaism and Christianity are based. Accordingly, that effort is ultimately hopeless.

This was uncritically taken up by Dawkins. I would not want to claim that the whole of The God delusion is easily demolished, but this bit is:

Now a small but cheerful volume called Darwin's Angel (Profile Books, £9.99) has been published, demolishing The God Delusion. It is by John Cornwell, who runs the Science and Human Dimension Project at Jesus College, Cambridge.

One of the most alarming sections of his book deals with a claim by Professor Dawkins about "one particularly unpalatable aspect" of the Bible's ethical teaching.

"Christians seldom realise," Professor Dawkins declares, that "much of the moral consideration for others which is apparently promoted by both the Old and New Testament was originally intended to apply only to a narrowly defined in-group. 'Love they neighbour' didn't mean what we now think it means. It meant only 'Love another Jew'."...

[jean]

the point about christianity is that it's all based on ONE book
so it's a fair enough question to ask if its possible to be a christian and not know about that book !

A better question might have been to ask what was the book actually taught, rather than which bit of it came before which other bit (as I said elsewhere).

[Bryn]

Fair enough - but somehow folk aren't happy with Giles Fraser using exactly the same argument against Dawkins. Or so it seems.

Oh come on Alison. You surely cannot be arguing that evolutionary science is based solely on Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (which. by its sixth edition had lost its subtitle anyway)? What about Wallace's On The Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type, for a start, let alone the vast and expanding quantity of later work.

[french frank]

What about The Ditchkins Delusion? Any thoughts on Terry Eagleton's critique of Dawkins and Hitchens?