Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[Jester]

(1) Fortunately, science and religion don't have to conflict. (2) People are capable of being spiritual, and rational at the same time.

These are two different statements. Humans are complex, and can hold strange and contradictory sets of beliefs while maintaining harmony in their lives. Statement no. 2 is no doubt true.

Statement no. 1 is less certain. If we're talking about Non-Overlapping Magisteria, then perhaps not - they don't *have* to conflict, so long as religion sticks more or less to non-observable phenomena. (This is the point where I wonder why anyone cares about non-observable phenomena at all, but that's my personal belief.)

Aesthetics perhaps fall somewhere into this camp. Maybe one really believes that the similarity between the Rose Window and DNA seen from one particular angle "means" something. I think this is nothing more than pareidolia, but it's not testable, so I suppose that branch of spiritualism could coexist without conflict.

But the world's religions are not generally preaching NOMA. They make specific worldly claims that are definitely in conflict with science - and lots of them. They assert political pressure on governments that have very real scientific implications. They insist on the literal reality of religious phenomena, intruding into the other Magisterium. Telling scientists that, in some ideal case, this would not be happening, is not very reassuring.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Statement no. 1 is less certain. If we're talking about Non-Overlapping Magisteria, then perhaps not - they don't *have* to conflict, so long as religion sticks more or less to non-observable phenomena. (This is the point where I wonder why anyone cares about non-observable phenomena at all, but that's my personal beliefs.)

I think that Dawkins has the right of it (summarized in your link, under Criticisms; full text here). My problem with Dawkins is that he focuses too narrowly on Christianity in particular and mostly ignores religion in general. Too many of his specific points and examples can be answered with "Yes, but that isn't part of in ...ism." I think he does that partially out of ignorance of non-Christian religions and partially out of the desire to communicate with his audience which is chiefly of European descent and thus most likely familiar with Christian tenets. However, if one looks beyond the specifics, his general arguments seem to valid.

. . . pareidolia . . .

:DWow, thanks. A new word for me. It will come in very useful the next time I go to an exhibit of modern art. :P

But the world's religions are not generally preaching NOMA. They make specific worldly claims that are definitely conflict with science - and lots of them. They assert political pressure on governments that have very real scientific implications. They insist on the literal reality of religious phenomena, intruding into the other Magisterium. Telling scientists that, in some ideal case, this would not be happening, is not very reassuring.

Yes, exactly.

--Pete

[LavCat]

...
Aesthetics perhaps fall somewhere into this camp. Maybe one really believes that the similarity between the Rose Window and DNA seen from one particular angle "means" something. I think this is nothing more than pareidolia, but I it's not testable, so I suppose that branch of spiritualism could coexist without conflict.
-Jester

Having not much to do with religion, I see faces and little people in cracked and peeling paint all the time. It's so good to know I'm normal. I just want to know why are they watching me?

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just want to know why are they watching me?

Because there's nothing good on TV? :w00t:

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

I just want to know why are they watching me?

Face it, they know what you did. And they'll always be there, judging you. Damn you, incorporeal faces!

;)

take care
Tarabulus

[Occhidiangela]

As for the argument that the Church was politically powerful and the Pope was like a king, I don't see how that helps your case one whit. The Ayatollahs in Iran are politically powerful - does that mean we shouldn't consider it anti-scientific if they imprison or censor scientists whose views they find offensive?

-Jester

Why not simply admit your anti Christian bigotry, and have done with it, rather than play these word games?
You exhibit have the same problem as Dawkins. He's a good writer and a good scientist. But as was noted in the film Magnum Force, a man's got to know his limitations. He seems not to be self aware.

My problem with Dawkins is that he focuses too narrowly on Christianity in particular and mostly ignores religion in general

That is pretty much my problem with him, his blatant bigotry focused in a particular direction, possibly due to the old problem of familiarity leading to contempt.

Of course, here in Texas, a number of local and vocal Christians keep trying to influence the School Board, at the state level, to pretend that Intelligent Design and the general scientific approach emobied in Evolution are to be equally treated, which is pretty dim. There are plenty of blinders on fools in this world, all looking for a place to star.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

That is pretty much my problem with him, his blatant bigotry focused in a particular direction, possibly due to the old problem of familiarity leading to contempt.

Pretty much so. On the other hand, his debates, written and in person, have been principally with Christian authorities. Also, as a geneticist, he focuses almost entirely on the evolutionary questions, and these are mostly expressed by the Western, Christian, societies.

Of course, here in Texas, a number of local and vocal Christians keep trying to influence the School Board, at the state level, to pretend that Intelligent Design and the general scientific approach emobied in Evolution are to be equally treated, which is pretty dim. There are plenty of blinders on fools in this world, all looking for a place to star.

I've often wondered what there is to teach in Creationism or Intelligent Design. Seems that, once you say "God did it all." there's nothing left to say. Makes the rest of the course pretty dull, but the final exam should be easy. :whistling:

And yes, there is no shortage of blinders, or fools, or attention whores. And a disproportionately large number of the intersection of those sets ends up in the media, in politics, or both.

BTW, what's the use of living in Texas if it's colder than Washington? :P

--Pete

[Jester]

Why not simply admit your anti Christian bigotry, and have done with it, rather than play these word games?

I, Jester, hereby declare that all my opinions on this topic emanate entirely from my deep reservoir of anti-Christian bigotry, and no other source. My opponents may consider this written permission to ignore my arguments entirely, and attack me personally, as I so richly deserve.

/sarcasm off

-Jester

[eppie]

That is pretty much my problem with him, his blatant bigotry focused in a particular direction, possibly due to the old problem of familiarity leading to contempt.
Occhi

Why don't you pretty much then once try to understand why he would do this?

What is the sense of verbally attacking the worshipping of the God of fruitbats which is common with the ungubungi tribe living around the south-western Amazon banks?
If you have an opinion like his it is very normal to attack the 'religion in charge'......the religion that is used by the powers of the world in order to keep the people stupid.
Why would he want to discuss with Jemenite tribes about genetics if these people still chop of hands of thieves and give women the same status as cattle? Even when he would I don't think he would sell many books there either.

So you can use big words to describe why you don't like Dawkins, but first, his opinions and choices are very logical, so 2nd the reason why you tell us you don't like him is silly, and 3rd for sure he also has problems with Islam and other religion as well as with the chinese goverment etc......but if everybody who writes a book needs to spell out his or her opinions on everything in order for you to like them.....they would use quite a lot of extra pages.....I think they would not find this worth the trouble.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why don't you pretty much then once try to understand why he would do this?

I think that both Occhi and I understand him quite well. The fact that we, coming from opposite viewpoints, both agree on what is wrong with his argument is rather telling.

What is the sense of verbally attacking the worshipping of the God of fruitbats which is common with the ungubungi tribe living around the south-western Amazon banks?

Well, first of all, this might very well be, of all the gods ever proposed, the one true god. So, focusing entirely on Christianity would be stupid, since that focus would be against a group that is wrong by definition and ignores the ungubungi and their truth. His argument is that god does not exist. He supports his argument by attacking Christianity. That is like arguing that equines do not exist because unicorns are mythical.

Second, attacking the worship of any god is a poor strategy. If a personal god exists and if that god demands worship, then it is correct to worship that god. And if a person believes that that god exists, it is that person's obligation to worship. To be effective, the argument should focus on the underlying causes of the behavior and not on the behavior itself. In his earlier work, Dawkins was less strident and more general and logical. I think years of banging his head on the wall of stupidity, ignorance, and superstition have made him too bitter.

Also, it is imperative to distinguish religion (especially as in 'organized religion') from worship. Worship is a private interaction between a person and his perceived god. Regardless of your opinion about that god's validity, it is the worshiper's right and privilege. Religion in these discussions is usually understood to mean 'organized religion' which are institution putatively formed for spiritual matters but most often (I know of no exceptions) devolve into the secular. It is the actions of organized religions in secular matters that gives rise to the whole argument about the desirability of religion.

If you have an opinion like his it is very normal to attack the 'religion in charge'......the religion that is used by the powers of the world in order to keep the people stupid.

While Christianity is (perhaps) the dominant religion of the world, it still only accounts for about a third of the population. If your claim (like Dawkins') is that religion itself is wrong, then you either need to show that for each case (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, . . ., and even "the worshipping of the God of fruitbats") or you need to show it in general without reference to any one religion.

Why would he want to discuss with Jemenite tribes about genetics if these people still chop of hands of thieves and give women the same status as cattle? Even when he would I don't think he would sell many books there either.

Total non sequitur. We're talking about his views on religion, not on genetics. He might very well want to talk to the Jemenite tribes about religion and what in their beliefs justifies their treatment of criminals and of women. And the results of those conversations might end up as anything from a footnote to a whole book devoted to comparative religions which, while it might not sell too well in the Congo basin, might well end up on the NY Times bestsellers list.

So you can use big words to describe why you don't like Dawkins, but first, his opinions and choices are very logical, . . .

In genetics, most definitely. As regards to religion, not really. He might be right in his opinions (I think he is) but he does not do a logical job of expressing them for the reasons already pointed out in this post. The problem with Dawkins is that he generates too much heat and not enough light. Yes, he is a hero to those of us who think like he does because he is outspoken and willing to take on the establishment. But he is a hero who, in some ways, may be doing more damage than good by his incompletely conceived arguments. "Christianity is wrong, therefore there is no god" is not a valid argument. Even if the premise is right, the conclusion still does not follow, and while saying it cleverly, loudly, and often may impress or even convince many with weaker minds, those on whom Jedi mind tricks do not work see through the arguments.

. . . so 2nd the reason why you tell us you don't like him is silly, . . .

Only on a shallow examination. Just because you don't understand the reasoning does not make it wrong.

. . . and 3rd for sure he also has problems with Islam and other religion as well as with the chinese goverment etc......but if everybody who writes a book needs to spell out his or her opinions on everything in order for you to like them.....they would use quite a lot of extra pages.....I think they would not find this worth the trouble.

What BS. First of all, how long a book should be is simple: as long as it needs to be to cover the subject and no longer. Second, not "opinions on everything", but if a person is expressing opinions on religion then I want to hear what he thinks about other religions, not just Christianity.

Intellectual honesty requires that you apply the same rules to your supporters as you do to your opponents. Anything else is bigotry.

--Pete

[Zenda]

if a person is expressing opinions on religion then I want to hear what he thinks about other religions, not just Christianity.

But what if that person wasn't talking about religion in general?

Dawkins begins 'The God Delusion' by making it clear that the God he talks about is the Abrahamic concept of a personal god as the creator of everything. Not the God of Christianity alone, but the presumed deity that is central to Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Not the God of Fruitbats, because it's followers never claimed it created the universe.

As a side note, isn't it sad that the 3 most related religions also show the most conflict between it's followers? All because their difference in acknowledging later prophets resulted in a different set of 'holy scriptures' to dictate man's thoughts.

Abrahamic religions

"The three great faiths called Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were born of an event that each remembers as a moment in history, when the One True God appeared to an Iron Age sheik named Abram and bound him in a covenant forever. Abram is the later Abraham, the father of all believers and the linchpin of the faith, and indeed the theology, from which the three communities of that God's worshipers emerged. The history of monotheism had begun."

[--Pete]

Hi,

But what if that person wasn't talking about religion in general?

Dawkins begins 'The God Delusion' by making it clear that the God he talks about is the Abrahamic concept of a personal god as the creator of everything. Not the God of Christianity alone, but the presumed deity that is central to Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Not the God of Fruitbats, because it's followers never claimed it created the universe.

Well, this takes a two part answer. If he was only interested in rebutting the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, then to some extent he hit the mark. However, if that were true, then I'd still have to say that he had selected a poor mark to aim for. Dawkins is a proponent of atheism. To support atheism, it is necessary, but not sufficient, to deny the existence of the God of Abraham. One must go further and deny the existence of all the supernatural.

The second part of the answer is that I don't think he was limiting himself to the God of Abraham. He was using that god as an example of what he was trying to address -- a personal god who created the universe. This includes any god or set of gods with those properties. If the worshipers of the God of Fruitbats believe their god created the universe (whatever they perceive the universe to be) and that he pays attention to their lives, then the God of Fruitbats is included in what Dawkins addresses. While I recommend a careful reading of The God Delusion to anyone seriously interested in this topic, the Wiki article is pretty well in line with my understanding of the book.

As a side note, isn't it sad that the 3 most related religions also show the most conflict between it's followers? All because their difference in acknowledging later prophets resulted in a different set of 'holy scriptures' to dictate man's thoughts.

It is very true that the religions springing from Abraham have had many conflicts amongst them. They've also had many conflicts, each, internally -- some bloodier than others. But "most conflicts" may be overstating the case Consider the case of the Hindus and Muslims in India. Consider the methods used to convert the Slavs, the natives of the Americas, etc. That whole history of religious warfare extends beyond the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world and extends back in time to long before Abraham.

--Pete

[Zenda]

One must go further and deny the existence of all the supernatural.

Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, but not all such claims are religious. Atheism isn't the denial of everything supernatural, it's simply the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual. However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic."

The second part of the answer is that I don't think he was limiting himself to the God of Abraham. He was using that god as an example of what he was trying to address

Yes, it was about the concept itself, and the God of Abraham is just a nice example. Is there anything wrong with that? Does that make it bigotry, or intellectual dishonest?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, but not all such claims are religious. Atheism isn't the denial of everything supernatural, it's simply the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

There are probably as many definitions of 'atheist' as there are atheists. I'd give a link, but yours suffices.

Yes, it was about the concept itself, and the God of Abraham is just a nice example. Is there anything wrong with that? Does that make it bigotry, or intellectual dishonest?

Go back, re-read the thread to this point. If you still don't understand, then you are either willfully blind, stupid, or trolling. I suspect the third, with maybe a large admixture of the second.

If and when you are interested in and willing to partake of intelligent, rational conversation, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

First, I would like to make the claim that perhaps my cat is God, and if she is, she is more like the "War God of the Hebrews" in the Old Testament. She appreciates worship, but if you rub her the wrong way you will taste her wrath.

These are two different statements. Humans are complex, and can hold strange and contradictory sets of beliefs while maintaining harmony in their lives.

For a moment let's define christianity with a small 'c' as what the rabbi named Jesus actually taught. Set aside the Judeo-Christian god, and our rabbi's alleged paternity. The 2nd primary rule of this basic philosophy is one of treating each person you meet in your life with the love you'd have for a literal brother or sister. Would you let your brother starve? If your sister needs your help, would you help? Would you take advantage of your sibling's weakness? As a social fabric, I can think of nothing as unifying than acknowledging our common inheritance and interdependence.

Statement no. 1 is less certain. If we're talking about Non-Overlapping Magisteria, then perhaps not - they don't *have* to conflict, so long as religion sticks more or less to non-observable phenomena. (This is the point where I wonder why anyone cares about non-observable phenomena at all, but that's my personal belief.)

I don't think that religion needs to stay on its side, but rather, needs to acknowledge the "truth" of reality defined by our observation (ie. Science). Science, and the scientific method are better tools for ferreting out the truth of the observable world. Science still has trouble with moral questions like, when should we pull the plug on a person in a coma, or when does that embryo become a US citizen. So, while intellect is good, there are times when we also need our best social wisdom. I think many of the big religion conflicts involve life or death decisions. Science can bring us the atomic bomb, but only our wisdom can prevent us from using it. So, before Pete gets in a twist, you don't need religion to resolve these morally tough questions. But, I contend that religion as a social fabric of commonly held values and mores provides a pretty good meter for determining an acceptable resolution. The rub for the non-Christian minority in a Judeo-Christian society is that the majority writes the rules (and sometimes the rules are more stupid and archaic than the rule writers). It is this same principle that brings me in conflict with moralists who believe I should be forced to pay for other peoples benefits. Common law, Magna Carta, or US Constitution (prior to perversion) ultimately gives us the freedoms and rights of torts and contracts. In other words, the government should exist to protect us from people who would do harm, to us, our families, or property, and to enforce the promises made by bound contract.

Aesthetics perhaps fall somewhere into this camp. Maybe one really believes that the similarity between the Rose Window and DNA seen from one particular angle "means" something. I think this is nothing more than pareidolia, but it's not testable, so I suppose that branch of spiritualism could coexist without conflict.

Rose windows and DNA on its head are a bit of a red herring I think. You are getting closer with aesthetics, or beauty, or perfection, or purity of mathematics. If a geneticist looks at DNA and sees a divine perfection or a divine complexity then so be it(for them), however, as you know it does not prove anything spiritual. How that scientist describes that DNA in a scientific setting can be different than their spiritual expression.

But the world's religions are not generally preaching NOMA. They make specific worldly claims that are definitely in conflict with science - and lots of them. They assert political pressure on governments that have very real scientific implications. They insist on the literal reality of religious phenomena, intruding into the other Magisterium. Telling scientists that, in some ideal case, this would not be happening, is not very reassuring.

Some people ("they") are making specific worldly claims in conflict with science. The understanding of God and the universe by someone like Roger Penrose, or C.S. Lewis is very different than that of someone like Jim Bakker. The latter type being the ones who garner the spot light through conflict. Not just conflict with science, but conflict within Christianity, Islam, Judaism or the secular world. We both have a problem with the likes of them, although we'd define that problem differently, and I'd say deep down we'd resolve that difference to be that abrasive, cantankerous quality that tends to define what we find distasteful about any religion (i.e. "I'm right, and the rest of you are all wrong.")

In the same way, I don't have a problem with many Muslims. I'd say about 90% are not the radical variety that condone terrorist violence. Of that 90%, there are many that have a similar view about human rights that you or I might. For Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, the media, and the attention is paid to the most outrageous ones. Again, if it bleeds, it leads. You didn't hear about that incident where a well off couple fully paid for a young unwed mother to get her undergraduate degree and pay for her child care. Or, that youth group that runs an inner city soup kitchen. Yeah, stuff like that happens every day, but hardly gets noticed.

[Zenda]

There are probably as many definitions of 'atheist' as there are atheists.

Well, that makes yours one of the many. Then why do you expect Dawkins to comply with your definition? Maybe he has one of his own.

blind, stupid, or trolling

Ah, personal attacks and the old trusted 'troll' argument again. I almost missed those;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ah, personal attacks and the old trusted 'troll' argument again. I almost missed those;)

When you read, think, and stop using things out of context to generate "when did you stop beating your wife?' type arguments, then I'll give you respect and will gladly discuss things with you. As long as you continue to misinterpret and misrepresent things just to stir up the pot, then I'll have to continue considering you either dim-witted or a troll.

It's not an ad hominem attack when one calls a fool a fool, or a troll a troll. It's just a statement of fact.

--Pete

I'm going to add this edit to clarify what I'm speaking about on the slim chance you really don't know:

At the end of a post discussing why I have problems with Dawkins, I said: "Intellectual honesty requires that you apply the same rules to your supporters as you do to your opponents. Anything else is bigotry." which is what *I* was doing in that post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then you started a different dialog in part with: "Dawkins begins 'The God Delusion' by making it clear that the God he talks about is the Abrahamic concept of a personal god as the creator of everything."

To which my reply, in part, was: "The second part of the answer is that I don't think he was limiting himself to the God of Abraham. He was using that god as an example of what he was trying to address."

And finally your reply: "Yes, it was about the concept itself, and the God of Abraham is just a nice example. Is there anything wrong with that? Does that make it bigotry, or intellectual dishonest?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, note that you imply that I consider using the God of Abraham as an example bigotry or intellectual dishonesty. You've pulled together bits and pieces of unrelated material to put words in my mouth. Words that are stupid and opposed to my plain intentions. Thus you are either as dumb as a fence post and cannot follow an argument, or clever in creating chaos. I think you're a lot of both, thus a fool and a troll.

[Zenda]

It's not an ad hominem attack when one calls a fool a fool, or a troll a troll.

I see. It all depends on your opinion on who is a fool or not. Isn't that what bigotry is about?

Anyway, I find little need to continue the current discussion about Dawkins being a bigot or not. This one much better supplied with facts (don't forget to read the comments);)

[Jester]

I'm not quite sure what to distill from this. On one hand, you seem to be arguing for a kind of social majoritarianism, with religious agreement at its base, but on the other, you are acknowledging the importance of liberty, protecting individuals from exactly that "social cohesion." Just because a solution to a social problem could be found by just legislating peoples' religious prejudices, doesn't mean it should be. Indeed, the most admirable part of the US Constitution, to my mind, is in rejecting exactly that method.

I can't say I find it even slightly true that Christianity makes for coherent, peaceful societies. The evidence just doesn't stack up. Religious countries are not less violent than non-religious ones. Non-religious people are not less generous - there are atheists in soup kitchens just the same as everyone else. Wars between Christian nations, even ones that share a denomination, are legion throughout history. Bitter civil conflicts over religious interpretation have torn whole societies apart. To give just one example, Ireland has had its share of treating each other like "brothers" - when the whole society descended into decades of fratricide.

Meanwhile, the collapse of religious belief has not led to any particularly negative consequences - those societies who believe least are among the most equal, prosperous, peaceful and coherent societies in the world. If religion is the best solution, then why aren't Japan, Sweden, or Uruguay descending into a morass of amorality? Why are super-religious Nigeria or Brazil very violent countries, when they should be able to lean on religion to help out? I know my answer - it doesn't work. Social coherence comes from elsewhere.

Any religion composed of two billion people is going to be complicated, and you're right, it's not fair to simply look at the negative side of it, when there are also positives. But you equally can't throw the negatives overboard by simply defining them out of the argument. If Christians (as a whole, not necessarily individually) fail to live up to their supposed obligations, time and time again, then how reasonable is it to make the argument that Christianity is this wonderful creed that causes peace, goodwill and social cohesion? That's just an idealized fantasy, from where I sit.

-Jester

[--Pete]

I see. It all depends on your opinion on who is a fool or not. Isn't that what bigotry is about?

Asked and answered.