Dawkins Demolished

[John Skelton]

Fortunately we have the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science to host scholarly discussions like 'Top 5 Evil Religions'

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/509873-top-5-most-evil-religions

[amateur51]

Christians may well express similar puzzlement regarding those who claim that the universe and natural order emerged and evolved from nothing at all. Evolution itself has never been a particular sticking point for the Catholic Church at least. Historically, it generally has had an open mind on the question and tended to leave that issue and others to ongoing scientific study.

A bit of a gloss there scotty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...istianity.html

It's the original conjurer-like, magic 'look, it came from absolutely nowhere' trick that really baffles some of we thick-headed, non-scientific types,

I don't recall any scientist saying that although I do recall, in that programme about the search for the Higgs Boson that I recommended to you about a month ago, that some scientists were saying that they were closer than ever before to explaining theoretically how the world began.

rather than try and engage in proper debate some atheists obviously prefer to deflect such questions by conveniently banging on about shameful child-abuse in the Catholic Church, as if such irrelevant (to this issue) and repugnant practices were totally unheard of elsewhere.

Of course, that deflection works both ways, scotty I bang on just as much about the Cathoilic Church's denials, its cover-ups and its refusal to turn its miscreants over to the secular forces of the law as I do about the child abuse.

[jean]

Not to mention: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." (My emphasis.) This is before the bit about bowing down to the image. As far as I know, Islam is the only religion which has kept that commandment while Judaism and Christianity have quietly shelved it.

Quietly shelved it? You should have heard my (Nonconformist) parents going on about the idolatrous Catholics!

And there have been regular bouts of iconoclasm within Christianity - notably in the eighth century Byzantine church, and closer at hand during the Reformation and subsequently by Cromwell's men.


[Edit] I see your point - that there should be no images of anything at all, either within or outwith a specifically religious context.

You've emphasised the make, but perhaps it's the unto thee that should be emphasised - it's quite an odd phrase, echoing the Vulgate's Non facies tibi. I don't know the Hebrew.

I think the argument has usually been that this commandment should be taken in the specific context of golden calves and the like, which were a serious issue at the time.

[jean]

I don't think this story [the Good Samaritan] invalidates the fact that the moral codes underpinning Judaism & Christianity are designed for a specific group of people in a specific place & during a specific period.

I don't think anyone's suggesting it does. What it does invalidate, though, is the idea that the moral precepts outlined are only to be followed in regard to members of that group. In fact, it specifically exemplifies the inclusion of the outsider.

Some of it might be generally applicable, but even that isn't generally adhered to by Jews or Christians (the commandment against killing, for example?)

Justifications (that we may reject) have been made by Christian theologians in respect of judicial killings, and killings in war, but never merely on the grounds that the person to be killed is not a member of the group.

...in case someon'es hidden a link.

I am sorry you failed to find it, but I did not hide it.

[Richard Tarleton]

Without wishing to be facetious or disrepectful in turn, is God governed by and subject to the same laws of the universe as humans?

How can anyone including theologians answer such questions? If they tried to they would be claiming to know the 'mind' of God which is obviously absurd.

This rather illustrates how I feel about this sort of discourse as a whole. It's impossible to have a discussion where one side introduces terms of reference which are not recognosable or verifiable in any way by others.

[french frank]

It's a scholarly piece, not a polemic. Read Dawkins if you want polemic rather than scholarship

Perhaps I should have said 'a scholarly style' rather than a polemical style, in that it lays out its arguments and follows them up in a logical way? If you think he hasn't, some examples would serve better than a



Given that the purpose of the article was to critique Dawkins' reasoning (successfully or not you must judge for yourself), first attacking the same targets as Dawkins attacks, expressing his shared disgust and repulsion, might overshadow his subject which is something other. He admits the extent to which he thinks Dawkins to be correct and then moves on to the issues which he criticises. Impeccable!

[vinteuil]

This rather illustrates how I feel about this sort of discourse as a whole. It's impossible to have a discussion where one side introduces terms of reference which are not recognosable or verifiable in any way by others.

Yes. It always seems to me that the "Christianity" being attacked by Dawkins is one very specific (probably more to be found in North America than in Europe) kind of naive literalist Christianity, and which is (of course) absurd and easily attackable - but very far from the much more subtle, sophisticated, flexible, resonant, metaphysically interesting and thoughtful kind of understanding and approach which I find among the various Christians (Catholic and Anglican) whom I encounter.

[MrGongGong]

Yes. It always seems to me that the "Christianity" being attacked by Dawkins is one very specific (probably more to be found in North America than in Europe) kind of naive literalist Christianity, and which is (of course) absurd and easily attackable - but very far from the much more subtle, sophisticated, flexible, resonant, metaphysically interesting and thoughtful kind of understanding and approach which I find among the various Christians (Catholic and Anglican) whom I encounter.

hummm maybe
but he really does have a point when asking how many "self identified" Christians actually believe in what their religion states. How many of the folk who parrot the creed on Sunday actually believe in what they are saying ?

[Serial_Apologist]

hummm maybe
but he really does have a point when asking how many "self identified" Christians actually believe in what their religion states. How many of the folk who parrot the creed on Sunday actually believe in what they are saying ?

Which ineluctably raises a related question.

What does one as a non-believer "do" at wedding, funeral services and the like? Stand like a stuffed dummy? Join in, "insincerely" singing words in which one does not believe? Or sing with enthusiasm, treating the words Cage-style as "pure sound"?

[jean]

Having sung many an evensong in the company of non-believers, I can confirm that they normally sing any confessional words if set to music, but do not articulate any that are spoken.

Though how anyone whatever their beliefs can resist the orotundities of the General Confession, or the temptation to refer to oneself as a miserable sinner, is beyond me.

[aeolium]

Perhaps I should have said 'a scholarly style' rather than a polemical style, in that it lays out its arguments and follows them up in a logical way? If you think he hasn't, some examples would serve better than a

It wasn't really a scholarly text, or written in a scholarly style, though, was it? There were no quotations to support the arguments he was deploying, there were platform descriptions like 'smug, bourgeois secularists', there were inaccuracies, such as the claim that those who turned out were merely Ditchkin-type secularists, 'an embattled minority defending science, enlightenment and liberal values'. The representation of the protest march as a 'knowingly vacuous performance', a 'Theatre of the Absurd' might in itself be somewhat condescending to those on the march who had actually been victims of clerical abuse, like Sue Cox, mentioned in this report, and the Irish families who had been affected by the issue might be surprised by the suggestion that such protest was 'about representing those who do not partake of the relative wealth and stability of the Anglophone imperial core as tribal-minded, bloodthirsty, backward idiots.'

Sorry, it seemed to me like just the sort of polemical piece that Dawkins is routinely attacked for.

[scottycelt]

A bit of a gloss there scotty http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...istianity.html

Doesn't that rather illustrate the point I made ...?

I don't recall any scientist saying that although I do recall, in that programme about the search for the Higgs Boson that I recommended to you about a month ago, that some scientists were saying that they were closer than ever before to explaining theoretically how the world began.

I note the sensible use of the word 'theoretically' ... I'm sure there are already quite a number of theories. Oh, if only it were the world instead of a possibly infinite universe we had to consider, Ams ...

Of course, that deflection works both ways, scotty I bang on just as much about the Catholic Church's denials, its cover-ups and its refusal to turn its miscreants over to the secular forces of the law as I do about the child abuse.

'Denials, ' 'Cover-Ups' and downright impossible 'Refusals' are the stuff of Murdoch Press headlines, my dear Ams, as you well know.

Anyway, we are now supposed to be discussing Professor Dawkins and I have no wish to deflect you or other valued members from that ...

[amateur51]

Perhaps I should have said 'a scholarly style' rather than a polemical style, in that it lays out its arguments and follows them up in a logical way? If you think he hasn't, some examples would serve better than a



Given that the purpose of the article was to critique Dawkins' reasoning (successfully or not you must judge for yourself), first attacking the same targets as Dawkins attacks, expressing his shared disgust and repulsion, might overshadow his subject which is something other. He admits the extent to which he thinks Dawkins to be correct and then moves on to the issues which he criticises. Impeccable!

My was in response to your original french frank

Do I still have to do detention now?!

[amateur51]

Doesn't that rather illustrate the point I made ...?






I note the sensible use of the word 'theoretically' ... I'm sure there are already quite a number of theories. Oh, if only it were the world instead of a possibly infinite universe we had to consider, Ams ...





'Denials, ' 'Cover-Ups' and downright impossible 'Refusals' are the stuff of Murdoch Press headlines, my dear Ams, as you well know.

Anyway, we are now supposed to be discussing Professor Dawkins and I have no wish to deflect you or other valued members from that ...

No, the Daily Telegraph article is refutation of what you asserted, scotty

My use of 'theoretically' was a reference to the scientific method outlined in that programme and in other posts in this thread, scotty.

You know as well as I do that the recent history of Cardinal Ratzinger's response to the child abuse scandal was initially a series of denials, attempted cover-ups and then refusals to turn priests over the secular law officers, scotty.

As to this being a diversion, I'm sorry that it doesn't suit your book scotty

[John Skelton]

Well I'm still waiting to learn what the difference is between Dawkins "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil ...." ("Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?") http://richarddawkins.net/discussion...-africa-no-but

and Melanie Phillips on Islam (unless the difference is that Phillips is more circumspect?). The closest I can see to an explanation of the difference offered is that Dawkins thinks all religions are malign and Phillips thinks one religion is malign. But Dawkins is happy to rank religions according to malignity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYus6TiGEE

As for racism, it's strongly implied in Dawkins and picked up by contributors on the website of his foundation, that in some quasi-evolutionary sense certain populations (Protestant, European / North American) are more ready for atheism than others.