Dawkins Demolished

[jean]

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

I've only read reviews.

I find it interesting that Eagleton is looking more kindly on the Catholicism of his youth as he gets older...

[MrGongGong]

So what you are actually saying is that even Dawkins is not really quite sure ... so therefore he's a bit of a fraud as he then logically can't be a true atheist?

Do you happen to know if anyone voted 'possibly' or, even 'I'm sorry, I haven't a clue' ... ?

Clutching at straws again scotty

[Flosshilde]

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

As I understand it Richard Dawkins isn't arguing specifically about evolution - that is just one of the issues in the wider argument about the non-existence of god. So not remembering exactly the full title of Darwin's book ('On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life') doesn't in any way invalidate his arguments. If someone calls themself a Christian, however, it does seem reasonable that they have a reasonable knowledge of the book which is the 'guidebook' to what they believe in.

[scottycelt]

Clutching at straws again scotty

Or somewhat timidly grasping the nettle, Mr GG ... ?

[Flosshilde]

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, where did your first quote come from (it's always useful in this sort of discussion to cite your sources), & how is it 'easily demolished'? It seems to be factually accurate. Or are you accusing Dawkins of plagiarism?

[jean]

Jean, where did your first quote come from (it's always useful in this sort of discussion to cite your sources)...

Thank you for the admonishment. But I knew that already. You will find you only have to click on the extract I quoted to see it in context.

...& how is it 'easily demolished'? It seems to be factually accurate.

I can do no better than quote

So where does that leave the Parable of the Good Samaritan, one wonders?

Or are you accusing Dawkins of plagiarism?

Of course not! He fully acknowledges Hartung's work, as you'll see if you click on my second extract.

I think he accepts it too uncritically; that's what I said.

[Lateralthinking1]

One thing I do know is that my vague spirituality deepens the more my faith in mankind plummets. This doesn't feel irrational.

[scottycelt]

As I understand it Richard Dawkins isn't arguing specifically about evolution - that is just one of the issues in the wider argument about the non-existence of god. So not remembering exactly the full title of Darwin's book ('On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life') doesn't in any way invalidate his arguments. If someone calls themself a Christian, however, it does seem reasonable that they have a reasonable knowledge of the book which is the 'guidebook' to what they believe in.

Not necessarily ... though a deeper knowledge of one's beliefs is certainly to be encouraged.

Not everyone can be a biblical scholar and many of the essential Christian tenets we learn from teachers and from others' example. At it's basic level, a knowledge and a serious attempt at obeying (if sometimes far from successfully) the Ten Commandments will surely do for starters. The rest depends on many things not least individual circumstances.

Christ championed the poor and underprivileged, not comfortably-seated religious bookworms.

[Flosshilde]

Thank you for the admonishment. But I knew that already. You will find you only have to click on the extract I quoted to see it in context.

OK, but it's more helpful if you give the citation/website url - with people using coloured text it's not always clear that it contains a link.

[MrGongGong]

Christ championed the poor and underprivileged, not comfortably-seated religious bookworms.

indeed
there are Christians who practice this , and all credit to them
but that doesn't seem to be what most do

[Serial_Apologist]

One thing I do know is that my vague spirituality deepens the more my faith in mankind plummets. This doesn't feel irrational.

Assuming then that you do not trust your own nature, how then is it possible to trust in your own mistrust? To mistrust ones own nature would be tantamount to mistrusting the organism constituting the seat of mistrust - unless "you", in some realm other than conceptual, are somehow separate from that organism, and the brain that is at the centre of asking of itself.

In the end, one has no alternative but to trust.

[Lateralthinking1]

Assuming then that you do not trust your own nature, how then is it possible to trust in your own mistrust? To mistrust ones own nature would be tantamount to mistrusting the organism constituting the seat of mistrust - unless "you", in some realm other than conceptual, are somehow separate from that organism, and the brain that is at the centre of asking of itself. In the end, one has no alternative but to trust.

Erm, I don't know how to answer this s-a. I have the capability for trust. Once I was very trusting and trusted too much. Without wishing to sound weird - I don't think I am at all - I am often removed from myself. Always have been. The "I" is what I am but I'm also perhaps more me when listening to music and walking in the sunshine. I am often less me in a crowd. I don't necessarily find that all other organisms reinforce sense of self. Sarkozy and Santorum, for example, could be from another planet. A zebra would feel more organically similar.

This is a very poor response I know, for which I apologize genuinely.

[Serial_Apologist]

Erm, I don't know how to answer this s-a. I have the capability for trust. Once I was very trusting and trusted too much. Without wishing to sound weird - I don't think I am at all - I am often removed from myself. Always have been. The "I" is what I am but I'm also perhaps more me when listening to music and walking in the sunshine. I am often less me in a crowd. I don't necessarily find that all other organisms reinforce sense of self. Sarkozy and Santorum, for example, could be from another planet. A zebra would feel more organically similar.

This is a very poor response I know, for which I apologize genuinely.

Probably because I didn't put it clearly enough.

Spiritual traditions of the Far East like Buddhism and Taoism do not have the hangups about human nature" peculiar to religions in the western Judaeo-Christian lineage, in which I would include Islam.

Once one gets past the point of recognising the impossibility of mistrusting in ones own nature, rather like chewing off ones own teeth, it follows sensibly that one trusts in the deeper natures of ones fellows.

In one of his books, Alan Watts suggested that one explanation for all the cruelties humankind has inflicted on itself and the rest of life might subconsciously be a revolt against the dualistic view and the split self(-image) that results; undoubtedly the coincidence of the isolated human soul with just a single line connection to a saviour god, and the simultaneous rise - admittedly taking a few centuries to materialise to maturity - of the exemplary competitive individual and capitalist model as final ideal, are, ahem, more than coincidental, one might think.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks for the clarification which I follow to an extent. My feeling is that a very earth harnessed duality can arise in the gaps between personal background and wider experience. Those gaps are created by distinctions which can be both actual and perception based. Where it seems that the gaps are narrow, there is a greater likelihood of internal and external integration. Such integration is also more likely to occur where identification with wider experience is believed to be in the greatest personal interest.

Wider experience can be very individualistic experience believed to be remote from background. More usually, it refers to societal structure and values. Individualistic experience can shape the outlook against the latter but not necessarily. Survival instincts are largely based on the need to happily integrate. I would say that for many years I showed capabilities for integration that were arguably beyond the norm but they were selectively applied and done far less comfortably than many would ever have thought.

For a long time, although I didn't see it like this, I was getting ever nearer to bouncing out of it all. The structures and the values were becoming increasingly remote. They began to make both positive personal background and negative individualistic experience more relevant again. In fact, they now symbolize the latter. What appeared to be a literal lifeline of personal development suddenly looked like it had been drawn inside a circle of societal baseness. I saw that the latter had been a requirement and rejected it. Frankly, it pushed me out and I was walking away from it - it had all of the force on my mind of a repelling magnetic force and that would be an understatement - so while I didn't like the first part of the dynamic, it was a relief to be somewhere else.

It seems to me that the 16 year old who gives birth will have offspring who are more readily adaptable to the underbelly inherent in society's structures. The challenge is whether they can find enough polish to succeed for that is needed too. I was born to a 32 year old who in turn was born to a 40 year old. This can make a difference in accommodating rapid change. Our kind are, I think, more likely to uphold values but we will dig in our heels when it seems that they are being chucked down a drain. We become what for some is ridiculous, self-defeating and unfathomable. Actually, they go from feeling slightly superior to being wary.

Quite where religion dovetails I don't know but I think we agree it is in the gaps between individuals and society's norms. Everyone needs a bit of fresh air. It is difficult to find it in a political, business and cultural framework that is so tawdry it suffocates. Knowledge of poverty in the family past also has a lot of bad connotations whatever the thankfulness of being from that family. The fight against illness and squalour. Having escaped, you don't want to work for it when it is in those who have no justifiable reason. It literally sickens as it projects back from all the money bagged charlatans. There's a need to find another realm.

[Flosshilde]

I can do no better than quote

Originally Posted by PhilipT
So where does that leave the Parable of the Good Samaritan, one wonders?

How is that a rebuttal?