A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_Sethbag]

The phrase "mind virus" is new and obviously metaphorical. "Mental disease", however, is not obviously metaphorical. At the very least, it smacks of "mental illness" which is a physical problem that people suffer from in real life. Do a Google search on the quoted phrase "mental disease" and you will see that at least the first page or so of links refer to sites treating that phrase as synonymous with "mental illness". Do the same Google search on "mind virus" and you will see that at least the first page or so of links refer to the metaphorical concept of idea transmission in viral fashion. In fact, the 2nd link returned in that search leads to www.memecentral.com under the title "Meme Central - Memes, Memetics, and Mind Virus Resource".

This is why I "split hairs" with you over your assertion that Dawkins said religious beliefs were held by people because they had a "mental disease", when in fact he has characterized religious beliefs as being like a "mind virus". These two things are not the same. One clearly refers to a helpful analogy clearly dealing with idea transmission, and the other deals with physical maladies, such as, for example, Alzheimers, or going crazy due to Syphillus, or whatever.

You still don't get Dawkins' point about God being more complex than humans. Dawkins believes that life started out very simple, and then grew more complex over time through a series of nearly infinitely many baby steps, the next level of complexity developing out of something already nearly as complex. See "Climbing Mount Improbable". Creationists like to counter evolution with the claim that human complexity can't "just happen" out of nothing, completely ignoring the long period of development from step to step, slowly increasing the complexity. Dawkins merely argues that if they require that human complexity have "just happened", and then proceed to assign some kind of astronomically low probability to the likelihood of such an event being possible, then how much more are they damned by the assertion that God "just happened", or "just is", or whatever - because a God capable of designing human beings in a knowing and deliberative sort of way must be significantly more complex. Dawkins allows that, if there is a God, it would invariably have evolved. The creationists won't allow that. No, humans can't have "just happened", but God did. Right.

What's kind of funny about your ranting is that you keep accusing Dawkins of supporting the idea of memes, and then you claim that this is completely insupportable by any scientific evidence. I'm not sure I agree with that assertion, however even granting it, it would at worst stand as evidence for Dawkins admitting useful knowledge outside the realm of science, which you attempt to castigate him for not doing. You've contradicted your own indictment of him by your own example.

And there is a world of difference between meme theory and, say, a given religion's explanation of "God did it" for creation of life as we know it. Meme theory is a very useful model for explaining patterns of idea transfer and propagation. What exactly is creationism a good and useful model of? Nothing. I have to chuckle at you, in outraged manner, arguing tooth and nail against the assertion that theological "knowledge" is nothing of the kind. Ok, well what do you say if you pull in ten different Christian theologists who can't agree on even a common understanding of some concept, and then add to that mix a Buddhist theologist, a Muslim theologist, a Zoroastrian theologist, a theologist from some tribe we just discovered in the Amazon who believe in the Juju on the Mountain, and whatever other proponents of various theologies. It should be obvious, and is to the rest of us, but apparently not you, that from amongst such a widely varying crowd of mutually-exclusive concepts, at least most of them must be simply wrong. What, then, is it exactly that Theologists "know"? Where is their "knowledge"? Where is the evidence that what they claim to "know" is in fact true?

Theology is nothing more than a bunch of individual opinions on what exactly is the mind and will of God, without having demonstrated that a God even exists, much less having demonstrated why it is that their own particular description of him is accurate and true. Kevin, please explain to me, from amongst a group containing a Catholic theologist, a Mormon theologist, a Muslim theologist, and a Buddhist theologist, whose theology is actually correct. And please explain to me, then, how you'd characterize the theology of those theologians you believe got it wrong - is it "knowledge" that they have? And also, please explain how it is that we should all be able to recognize and identify which theology, from amongst all the different theologians out there, is really true, and which aren't.

[_Sethbag]

One more thing. I'm curious which is more offensive, to explain that someone's religious views were propagated to that person by a mechanism like memetics, or to explain that Dawkins is just a bigoted, biased, arrogant polemicist. On the one hand, Dawkins is offering what many people, like me, agree is a pretty useful model. On the other, hmm, well, forget it - now that I think of it, Dawkins just being a bigoted, biased, arrogant polemicist really is something that passes for a "useful model" amongst many theists. Just like "he just wanted to sin", or "he lost the Spirit and was fooled by Satan" actually do pass for useful models within the Mormon worldview, for explaining apostates.

[_Some Schmo]

It's rather clear that dart is extremely insecure about his own views and the worth of his "knowledge"; otherwise, he would just drop this silly assertion he made and go on. But no, he's like DCP with a bone in his mouth; he won't let it go, even though it's filling his mouth with bone splinters and making him appear rabid. Mouth foam oozes from every post. He just can't admit that what he said is flat out wrong. His fragile ego won't allow it. He suffers from both a mind virus *and* a mental disease: syphilis of the reason.

He's like charity; he thinks his arguments are compelling in the face of several people all thinking he's a blind lunatic. And this is why I refer to him as a sad little creature (panda - since pandas often appeal to very small, immature children). I pity him, really, but there's no way I can take anything he has to say seriously. (I admire you guys’ attempts to reason with him; I can’t be bothered to exert the effort on a lost cause). I'm especially amused when he attempts to insult me. I sometimes can't help but laugh at children having a temper tantrum; so much anger coming from such a small package. I’ve started reading his posts in the same way I read coggins: laugh off the uncomfortable, embarrassing ranting and raving of the crazy person in their padded room, and just be grateful they’re safely behind thick, metal-reinforced glass.

*shrugs*

[_EAllusion]

This doesn't strike me as an accurate representation of McGrath. Do you have a citation in mind?

Have you read the Twilight of Atheism? He argues that atheism expected to find a world mechanical and random and instead science discovered one suggesting design and thus the philosophical grounds on which atheism rest are becoming untenable. He also argues that belief in God is a matter of faith beyond any rational justification. He also argues that atheists and theists have equally faith based positions and dismisses argument that a raw assumption of God rather than simple unbelief is more economic metaphyiscally. I'm not accusing him of consistency here. When dealing with the point in detail he generally argues that atheism is based on the case of evolution, therefore God does not exist. Since this is not the case, bye bye atheism. This is - um - ridiculous and we have is a situation where he's going after a misguided definition of the word atheist with a strawman argument at that, but that's not quite the point I'm addressing. I suppose I can pull out the book latter and cobble some quotes up. His main case is more in attempting to associate atheism with the Soviet Union and going after Dawkins - who does overreach from time to time. He doesn't spend much of any time actually attempting to demonstrate, as he claims, the intellectual case for atheism is vanishing - largely because he doesn't seem to be aware of it. But there are some efforts there.

[_EAllusion]

These analogies are simply horrid and are clearly designed to insult and ridicule. The existence of God explains everything science can't, yet the existence of a tea pot explains nothing and raises more questions than it answers. There is no reason to believe a tea pot is orbiting our planet. No argument there. There is ample reason to believe God exists. The fact that these silly analogies are used, only tells me that the argument against God needs all the help it can get.

The whole point of the analogy rests on there not being ample reason to believe God exists. The analogy is used to argue specifically against a situation where someone argues existential claims that have no reasonable basis should not be ignored and/or disbelieved. It's an analogy used either to rebut specific arguments used against atheism or, on occasion, to make a case for strong atheism.

And no, the existence of God does not explain everything science can't. The existence of God doesn't meaningfully explain anything, actually. That's kinda the problem Kevin.

[_Sethbag]

"God did it" doesn't explain anything at all. On the contrary, "God did it, God is a mystery, and we will simply never know exactly how God did it until after we die and he tells us" essentially shuts down further inquiry into how things happened.

[_Some Schmo]

"God did it" doesn't explain anything at all. On the contrary, "God did it, God is a mystery, and we will simply never know exactly how God did it until after we die and he tells us" essentially shuts down further inquiry into how things happened.

True. It's a childish explanation that could only satisfy a childish mind.

Saying "god did it" is like, when asked where a shipment of foreign goods came from, saying, "a boat..." as though that's supposed to be an adequate explanation. God is just this magical black box that's supposed to explain all manner of unknowns... right up until those unknowns are knocked off, one by one, by rational scientific explanations. God's power and necessity just keep getting smaller and smaller in direct proportion to known reality getting larger and larger.

[_Moniker]

"God did it" doesn't explain anything at all. On the contrary, "God did it, God is a mystery, and we will simply never know exactly how God did it until after we die and he tells us" essentially shuts down further inquiry into how things happened.

True. It's a childish explanation that could only satisfy a childish mind.

Saying "god did it" is like, when asked where a shipment of foreign goods came from, saying, "a boat..." as though that's supposed to be an adequate explanation. God is just this magical black box that's supposed to explain all manner of unknowns... right up until those unknowns are knocked off, one by one, by rational scientific explanations. God's power and necessity just keep getting smaller and smaller in direct proportion to known reality getting larger and larger.

Might want to explain to the evolutionary biologists that are theists how their minds are childish.

http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/

I'd rather not considering they far outweigh my childish mind in matters of science.

[_Some Schmo]

"God did it" doesn't explain anything at all. On the contrary, "God did it, God is a mystery, and we will simply never know exactly how God did it until after we die and he tells us" essentially shuts down further inquiry into how things happened.

True. It's a childish explanation that could only satisfy a childish mind.

Saying "god did it" is like, when asked where a shipment of foreign goods came from, saying, "a boat..." as though that's supposed to be an adequate explanation. God is just this magical black box that's supposed to explain all manner of unknowns... right up until those unknowns are knocked off, one by one, by rational scientific explanations. God's power and necessity just keep getting smaller and smaller in direct proportion to known reality getting larger and larger.

Might want to explain to the evolutionary biologists that are theists how their minds are childish.

I just did (if they happen to be reading).

[_Moniker]

I just did (if they happen to be reading).

I'd wager they're not.