You clearly don't know much about him do you. But if you must know I got to know him by his biology books, and of course I loved his God delusion.
I wrote my undergraduate thesis primarily on his book, "The Selfish Gene." I am very familiar with his work on evolutionary biology.
Quote:
Why is he not serious, how do you define serious?
I prefer someone like Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris to hear argue or debate God. I love to watch Hitchens simply for his wit and bulldogish ability to debate.
I actually prefer Dawkins to these chaps, although I find them all really, really boring.
Quote:
But obviously since I referenced these best sellers of recent years I'm a typical new atheist with no real deep understanding of what I'm talking about.
Go to the source, man! Even Dawkins views on human biology and society aren't revolutionary. He rips off Thomas Hobbes and the worst part, the most unserious part, is that he doesn't realize it!
I think one of the biggest fallacies of the "new atheists" is this idea that culture and God can be seperated once and for all with no negative effect.
I think you misunderstand what a lot of us feel, think more we see it evolving away from what it is today. I mean the greatest examples of what I think the future would look like is how nations like Sweden/Denmark have become very much atheist nations while still holding onto the cultural Christianity. You don't have to hold onto a belief in God to keep the positive cultural aspects, you can adapt and evolve what we today see as the religious.
Quote:
I'd actually be MORE comfortable with a God tied to tradition, rule and ceremony. We seem to have precisely the opposite now.
Ceremony I can agree on, some of these things are invariably nice and quite harmless. Traditions are important and culturally valuable. My problems arise with rules that hold back organized religion's followers that the word has been put out on issues that pertain to 2000yrs ago not how culture and society is today.
Quote:
Do you really think the Pope means Jim and Sally who are members of the British Humanist Association are as evil as the Nazis?
I think he believes that they are without the moral guidance of his God and will burn an eternity in hell for their blasphemy. But I'm sure they could sit down and have a lovely cup of tea.
You're right, let's look at what was actually said:
What if God meant "Good?"
Redefining a word up front in order to make an argument is a very poor way to start.. if he meant to talk about "Good", then he would have said "Good".
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
A representation of ideal justice and the illumination of a society's values and perception of the Good Life. The Nazis were godlessgoodless in the sense that they were nihilists; they destroyed merely to destroy with the false rationality that the destruction of the Jews would somehow validate the experience of the Nazis as the Aryan Master Race.
Agreed, except they weren't godless, god means good, so they were "goodless".
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Philosophically, following this argument, we can see that the Nazis weren't Christians of any kind, but were merely evil.
Sure, they weren't atheists of any kind either, in that their actions and values were not informed by their lack of belief in Zeus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
We can also see that liberal atheism does not have the intellectual heft or moral understanding to understand this issue appropriately.
Neither does theism then, because atheism and theism aren't world views, philosophies, or moral systems. If you mean something else by "liberal atheism" then use a better term, because while continental philosophy actually has meaning with regards to a common set of philosophical views, liberal atheism doesn't.. unless you just mean liberals, in which case why include a subset of liberals who don't believe there is a god?
And if that's the case, just because you say a group of people don't have the intellectual heft or moral understanding doesn't make it so... Sounds too much like "I disagree therefore you don't understand."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Dangerous behavior is lumped into a single category with little distinction as to why or how it functionalizes itself in human life.
Which is exactly what Christians/Jews/Muslims/Everythingelseists tell me all the time actually, the ills of society are a result of non-belief in their god(s).
Or how how the ills of society are because of scientism or reductionism.
Atheism doesn't hold the corner on what you describe, because it's a human trait. Issues are large and complex and difficult (or even impossible due to lack of good information) to understand, so most people simply believe. It's how the mind has evolved to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Thus, to atheists, religion is the cause of all irregular human behavior, Nazism was clearly irregular, and atheism is safe, generally tolerant behavior. Ergo, Nazism must have more in common with religion than it does with atheism.
"Thus, to theists, atheism is the cause of all irregular human behaviour, Nazism was clearly irregular, and theism is safe, generally tolerant behaviour."
So no, not "to atheists". SOME atheists take that tack, just like some theists, and I agree that it's flawed reasoning.
And that's why I think you've formed an opinion of what some people like Dawkins have written based on what others have said about what they've written, not what they've actually written. Because reading Dawkins' book he clearly does not take the position that religion is the cause of all irregular human behaviour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
The ethics of God-believing are far more important than the cheap refutation of God-believing. The predictable sneering of atheists at the mere mention of the Pope's name is ridiculous and frankly, it's not even original.
And the predictable sneering of theists at the mere mention of <insert atheist who's in the news' name> is also ridiculous and not original. And water is wet too.
And while the ethics might be more important, in this case that's what the problem is.. what are the ethics of misrepresenting history in order to equate atheists with Nazis?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
No, it's just simplistic, bourgeous outrage. Richard Dawkins is not a serious person.
Wikipedia tells me continental philosophy had its roots in German idealism, that sounds pretty Nazi to me.
So if I am a leader of arguably the most powerful political and religious entity in the past, what, 1500 years, would you protest if I talked about the sobering lessons that the radical philosophers of Nazi taught us about abandoning the values of analytical philosophy?
Of course not, because that's nonsense. Just like what the Pope said.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I wrote my undergraduate thesis primarily on his book, "The Selfish Gene." I am very familiar with his work on evolutionary biology.
I'd love to hear what your wrote, or even read it.
Quote:
I actually prefer Dawkins to these chaps, although I find them all really, really boring.
I cant say I run around screaming hooray when I hear them talk or read their works either. But when surrounded by a culture of religion just hearing open discussions of non belief is a gratifying feeling even if it doesn't hold much deep meaning other than "yay there are more like me."
Quote:
Go to the source, man! Even Dawkins views on human biology and society aren't revolutionary. He rips off Thomas Hobbes and the worst part, the most unserious part, is that he doesn't realize it!
I don't think he's revolutionary, most science is off the backs of others and since I haven't read Hobbes I can't comment on his ripping him off. Certainly wouldn't surprise me, its not that uncommon in science circles, after all science is a competitive en-devour.
Redefining a word up front in order to make an argument is a very poor way to start.. if he meant to talk about "Good", then he would have said "Good".
Agreed, except they weren't godless, god means good, so they were "goodless".
The word, although not literally, generally means the same thing. Western Judeo-Christian conceptions of the good derive from Plato and St. Augustine's reconceptialization of Plato's thought into Christian thinking. So it has historical precedence.
Quote:
Sure, they weren't atheists of any kind either, in that their actions and values were not informed by their lack of belief in Zeus.
Agreed. Although, if we seperate any human being from a revelatory conception of the good, how can we say that they believe anything at all. The Nazis, upon close demonstration, clearly didn't believe anything. Liberal atheists are really just one step away and although, clearly not nihilists in the brutalist sense they way the Nazis were, they do hold generally lukewarm conceptions of reality which as I said earlier, don't really say or mean much.
As an example, I'd bring in the current debate regarding gay rights. The bourgeous conception of a "right" is really just a permission granted to homosexuals by the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals that dominate power structures in the United States. Granting them the permission to get married will not change the way that homosexuals are treated culturally in the United States. This weak dogma paraded as a staunchly moral position is really just moralism.
Quote:
Neither does theism then, because atheism and theism aren't world views, philosophies, or moral systems. If you mean something else by "liberal atheism" then use a better term, because while continental philosophy actually has meaning with regards to a common set of philosophical views, liberal atheism doesn't.. unless you just mean liberals, in which case why include a subset of liberals who don't believe there is a god?
You're right, but as I stated earlier, most atheists, especially the loud bleating kinds, like Richard Dawkins, clearly draw, whether consciously or unconsciously, their atheism from early liberal thinkers. Philosophically, liberalism started as a clean break from earlier theological arguments regarding humanity to a materialist and secular view of humanity. Liberalism is modern atheism at its heart, except since most moderns are unaware of their roots in fairly strong philosophical arguments for atheism, especially by John Locke, they can only repeat the distorted reflections of those views that they gain through the popular media and appropriate atheist spokespeople.
Quote:
And if that's the case, just because you say a group of people don't have the intellectual heft or moral understanding doesn't make it so... Sounds too much like "I disagree therefore you don't understand."
Which is exactly what Christians/Jews/Muslims/Everythingelseists tell me all the time actually, the ills of society are a result of non-belief in their god(s).
Or how how the ills of society are because of scientism or reductionism.
I think what I've subtly tried to say time and time again is that a disbelief in God or theology or divine revelation isn't stupid, just that it's something that must be considered carefully with an awareness of what can be lost if we throw away God. Remember Nietzsche's lamentation, "God is dead and we have slain him."
Quote:
Atheism doesn't hold the corner on what you describe, because it's a human trait. Issues are large and complex and difficult (or even impossible due to lack of good information) to understand, so most people simply believe. It's how the mind has evolved to work.
One of the biggest myths of any human political perspetive on ideology is it's claim to functionalism. That is, it's non-artificial nature.
Quote:
And while the ethics might be more important, in this case that's what the problem is.. what are the ethics of misrepresenting history in order to equate atheists with Nazis?
It doesn't work that way because I argue that the Pope isn't misrepresenting history. What he is probably doing is misrepresenting the Church's role in resisting the Nazis within Germany and I agree, it's silly.
I'd love to hear what your wrote, or even read it.
It's not worth reading, trust me. But I did learn something writing it.
Quote:
I cant say I run around screaming hooray when I hear them talk or read their works either. But when surrounded by a culture of religion just hearing open discussions of non belief is a gratifying feeling even if it doesn't hold much deep meaning other than "yay there are more like me."
I agree. Hey, I like it when Hitchens gets all bristley about something religious too, but look at his targets. I mean it's almost predictable what the outcome will be when he debates Al Sharpton.
What I've noticed is that theists are invariably well-read on theology, and can intelligently articulate the arguments for belief in God without exception. It's only atheists that have no real grasp on why they think as they do; it's quite perplexing to me how this could be so. Seriously, have you ever met a theist who couldn't explain an example of an ontological argument for God? I know I haven't.
oops, sorry, I coughed while trying to say you were full of S***.
Sorry I cannot understand you because of your multiple use of crutch words. Anger is the easiest emotion to feel which is why those with low intelligence resort to low brow swearing or angry rhetoric.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Am I a theist? No, I'm not.
I think you're a theistheist; someone who believes in the benefits of theism without subscribing to the actual reality of a god or gods. You don't argue to convince us, you argue to convince yourself.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Anger is the easiest emotion to feelwhich is why those with low intelligence resort to low brow swearing or angry rhetoric.
How do you substantiate your claim that anger is the easiest emotion to feel? How do you measure "ease of feeling"?
As Stephen Hawking once said, "those who brag about their IQs are losers." I suspect you're just trolling anyway. What test did you take, and what was the standard deviation it used?
Sorry I cannot understand you because of your multiple use of crutch words. Anger is the easiest emotion to feel which is why those with low intelligence resort to low brow swearing or angry rhetoric.
No way, swearing is awesome. Thor posted a great Stephen Fry interview awhile back nobly defending the use of curse words.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
I think you're a theistheist; someone who believes in the benefits of theism without subscribing to the actual reality of a god or gods. You don't argue to convince us, you argue to convince yourself.
Another red herring trucked out constantly. Those who defend religion from its most silly detractors are closet atheists trying to fight their way back into the closet.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
