The Intellectual Crudity of Non-Theist Apologists

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I found a pdf version of the interview for you:

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/_media/ar ... Harris.pdf
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

---I thought this might come up...I don't know how I can get around those sorts of generalizations. In my experience, that generalization is valid. I acknowledge that not all atheists/non-theists say the same sorts of things


Just exactly what is "your experience"? How many atheists have you discussed this in detail with? And how detailed were these discussions?

I participated for several years on a board just for atheists. While there were a few more strident atheists who would have liked to abolish religion, the majority were much more benign in their view.

--I understand that; but comments made by the most prominent atheists are often regurgitated by everyday folks...and my point is that I find many of those comments flawed.


Often equals how many times, more or less? Since Dawkin's book has been published, I've seen mainly theists quoting from the book in outrage.

---Well, in part you are correct, but at the same time, I've chatted with loads of people about religious things, and I tend to hear the same sorts of arguments by both theists and atheists, including the ones I've listed here.


Can you be somewhat more specific than "loads" of people? Enough to provide a valid survey?

--Beastie - I wish then that more atheists would tell Richard Dawkins to go back to the drawing board with his dumb comments on religion. Thomas Hobbes was MILES ahead of him four centuries ago. But as it is, there's a horrible fawning all over the guy.

Don't believe me? Want specifics? Here you go.

Michael Shermer - who, incidentally, I am a big fan of - sounds about as sycophantic as some Relief Society president introducing an apostle at stake conference talking about Dawkins in "Skeptic" magazine (Vol. 13, No. 2). Listen to this:

"The prize ceremony was followed by a brilliant acceptance speech by Richard, who never fails to deliver in his role as a public intellectual (the number ONE public intellectual in England, according to "Prospect" magazine) and spokesperson for the public understanding of science. This is not what impressed me most about Richard, however, since any professional would be expected to shine in a public forum...It was during the two full days of round-table discussions, breakout sessions, fishbowl debates, and (most interestingly) coffee-break chats, where Richard stood out head-and-shoulders above this august crowd. Despite his reputation as a massive egotist, Richard is, in fact, somewhat shy and quiet, a man who listens carefully, thinks through what he wants to say, and then says it with an economy of words that is a model for any would-be opinion editorialist".

(...)

"As an intellectual social movement with which I am involved, skepticism is subject to the same hierarchical social forces. As such, we scientists and skeptics look up to and model ourselves after our alpha leaders. (Dawkins and others) are candles in the darkness of our demon-haunted world...Thank the fates and his hearty DNA that we still have Richard, who stands as a beacon of scientific skepticism and a hero to skeptics around the world.......Here we see almost no limits to the breadth of Richard's interests..."Richard turned to me and said, 'All of this makes me so proud of our species that it almost brings me to tears'. I can only echo the same sentiment about the works and words of Richard Dawkins". (!)

If atheists aren't bound by anything more than non-belief in God, then why don't more of them talk about how ludicrous Dawkins's view of religion is? I don't know of any prominent atheists other than LSE philosopher John Gray talking about how daft Dawkins sounds on religion.

Where, pray tell, are all these "independent atheist thinkers"?


Oh, stop the presses. Shermer actually kissed up to Dawkins.

The same Shermer who, by the way, has also criticized Dawkins.

Although an atheist, Shermer has voiced critism of another leading atheist writer, Richard Dawkins. In Science Magazine, he praised Alister McGrath's book, Dawkin's God while commenting that Dawkin's views of religion are "overly simplistic and selective." [10]


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

How long have atheists put up with insulting and slanderous generalizations propagated by believers? Lord have mercy, a couple of vocal atheists publish books (with their particular viewpoint) within a span of a couple years and some believers act like the sky is falling.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_marg

Post by _marg »

Tal Bachman wrote: If atheists aren't bound by anything more than non-belief in God, then why don't more of them talk about how ludicrous Dawkins's view of religion is? I don't know of any prominent atheists other than LSE philosopher John Gray talking about how daft Dawkins sounds on religion.

Where, pray tell, are all these "independent atheist thinkers"?


What does he say that is so daft? I've only read a bit of the God Delusion, haven't found anything daft in it, though. My problem with not finishing it is I don't personally find it all that interesting, because most of what is in there that I've seen, I've heard before or am aware of or I even think similarly.

Your argument appears to be that religious belief of God makes mankind no less a critical thinker than one without God beliefs. And I believe Dawkins would agree with you..despite my little reading of him. The problem is not a belief in a God, bu in how that God belief ends up being translated by the individual and used by religious organizations. And what religious organizations do is to teach fallacious thinking generally (when given the opportunity) from cradle up, to the poorly educated such as;

-Unquestioning reliance on an authority which has not been subjected to objective critical evalution. Authority via written texts, leaders, doctrine.

-Promotion of faith rather than critical skepticism. And skepticism does not mean an outright rejection. It means an attitude of always being open to new information. To never assuming absolute knowledge but instead appreciating that one's beliefs might change with new information.

-Acceptance of extraordinary claims based upon faith...(because obviously there is no evidence available and no means to test the extraordinary claims), to the point that religions glorify faith and are critical of skeptical reasoning.

- Discouragement of a skeptical attitude

Now this doesn't mean that every religious person is a poor critical thinker or thinks poorly in all aspects of their lives, it doesn't mean an atheist is a good critical thinker. The attack against religion and I assume Dawkins is aggressive in this, is against religious organizations or the systems which perpetuate an attitude which discourages critical thinking by encouraging blind acceptance of their authority. And which is effective in what it does by starting with the young who are in no position to fight back, to question.

As far as what makes a good critical thinker that is complex. There is innate intelligence, varying knowledge levels, an attitude of skepticism no matter what the authority, ability to be objective, good memory, experience level, education. It is multifactorial. Certainly atheism does not make one a good critical thinker, but it can be argued that religious upbringing can make one a poor critical thinker.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

What does he say that is so daft?


Virtually everything he has said about Christian history. His mischaracterization of religion and his preferred concept of faith were pretty daft.

Every attempt he makes to make biological science answer sociological and psychological questions. It strikes sociologists and psychologists as daft, as it should.

His silly meme hypothesis, where memes "leap from brain to brain," is pretty daft as well.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_marg

Post by _marg »

dartagnan wrote:
What does he say that is so daft?


Virtually everything he has said about Christian history. His mischaracterization of religion and his preferred concept of faith were pretty daft.

Every attempt he makes to make biological science answer sociological and psychological questions. It strikes sociologists and psychologists as daft, as it should.

His silly meme hypothesis, where memes "leap from brain to brain," is pretty daft as well.


I don't assume to understand fully what is being proposed by the meme theory but I certainly don't accept your understanding of it. I think at this point it is conceptual rather than scientific, there are no memes which exists for studying. However, as a conceptual theory it helps to explain why certain religious ideas tend to be common from culture to culture. It appears that mankind's brain has a propensity to accept certain beliefs easily with little questioning such as supernatural entities of Gods, angels, devils, afterlife. If you read the Tipping Point, the author discusses the notion of some ideas have a stickiness factor, they are easily spread, easily remembered. I do tend to think that biblical stories which were first spread orally were exaggerated into supernatural claims because they held more interest to any listener, more easily remembered. Mundane stories limited to natural events were uninteresting, discarded in favor of the ones with the supernatural included.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I don't assume to understand fully what is being proposed by the meme theory but I certainly don't accept your understanding of it

This is essentially saying, "I don't know what X is all about, but I know you don't either." If you already admit ignorance, you're in no position to judge whether my understanding is right or wrong.
I think at this point it is conceptual rather than scientific

Um, yea. That has been established several times on the other threads when atheists like sethbag conceded that point.
there are no memes which exists for studying.

Which was the point I made a couple of times. Dawkins relies on faith here. He cannot see, perceive, measure or test memes, but he insists they exist because for him, it explains why religion is like a virus. I mean that's just gotta be true, right? So let's have faith in it.
However, as a conceptual theory it helps to explain why certain religious ideas tend to be common from culture to culture.

A bold claim for someone who admits having little understanding on the subject. There are already perfectly sound and validated sociological models that explain this already. Dawkins doesn't like those explanations apparently, so he tries to reinvent the wheel by presuming to be able to offer biological answers for sociological issues. That is only one reason why he is daft.
It appears that mankind's brain has a propensity to accept certain beliefs easily with little questioning such as supernatural entities of Gods, angels, devils, afterlife

Dawkins demonstrates none of this, and his meme concept doesn't do anything to explain how this is so. In any event, his use and misuse of Christian history has proven his daftness and agenda too many times.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_marg

Post by _marg »

dartagnan wrote: A bold claim for someone who admits having little understanding on the subject. There are already perfectly sound and validated sociological models that explain this already. Dawkins doesn't like those explanations apparently, so he tries to reinvent the wheel by presuming to be able to offer biological answers for sociological issues. That is only one reason why he is daft.


Well if it appears man's brain is predisposed to rapid spreading of certain types of ideas from person to person, and down to other generations, to remembering certain types of ideas much more easily than others, to accepting certain ideas and holding them as true beliefs easily..then it would seem there may well be a biological factor involved with how people come to accept certain ideas over others and one day a scientific theory perhaps even using the term memes may be presented. At this point it is a conceptual idea which compares the spread and survival of ideas to the spread and survival of genes in populations.

"A trend, belief, fashion or phrase that is passed from generation to generation through imitation and behavioral replication. Coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene," memes and memetics are the cultural counterpart to the biological study of genes and genetics. Using the evolution analogy, Dawkins observed that human cultures evolve via "contagious" communications in a manner similar to the gene pool of populations over time." -(wiki or answers.com)

What I find interesting here ..is that this meme idea appears to be a much better "meme" in and of itself, than sociological theories you suggest already explain the evolution of religion. Notice we aren't discussing these theories and this meme idea is rather catchy, has a stickiness factor.

kevin wrote:
It appears that mankind's brain has a propensity to accept certain beliefs easily with little questioning such as supernatural entities of Gods, angels, devils, afterlife

Dawkins demonstrates none of this, and his meme concept doesn't do anything to explain how this is so. In any event, his use and misuse of Christian history has proven his daftness and agenda too many times.


Some things are so obvious Kevin they don't need to be demonstrated. I agree with you, as far as the meme theory doesn't explain "why"or "how". It really appears to me to be just conceptual.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

It is a concept designed to spark controversy, sell books, and insult the majority of the planet.

That makes it even less credible.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

dartagnan wrote:I found a pdf version of the interview for you:

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/_media/ar ... Harris.pdf


Thank you.

I like it better already:


Saltman: Isn’t religion a natural outgrowth of human nature?

Harris: It almost certainly is. But every- thing we do is a natural outgrowth of human nature. Genocide is. Rape is. No one would ever think of arguing that this makes genocide or rape a necessary feature of a civilized society. Even if you had a detailed story about the essential purpose religion has served for the past fifty thousand years, even if you could
prove that humanity would not have survived without believing in a creator God, that would not mean that it’s a good idea to believe in a creator God now, in a twenty-first-century world that has been shattered into separate moral communities on the basis of religious ideas....

Saltman: Your analogy between organized religion and
rape is pretty inflammatory. Is that intentional?

Harris: I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.

_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

GoodK wrote:
dartagnan wrote:I found a pdf version of the interview for you:

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/_media/ar ... Harris.pdf


Thank you.

I like it better already:


Saltman: Isn’t religion a natural outgrowth of human nature?

Harris: It almost certainly is. But every- thing we do is a natural outgrowth of human nature. Genocide is. Rape is. No one would ever think of arguing that this makes genocide or rape a necessary feature of a civilized society. Even if you had a detailed story about the essential purpose religion has served for the past fifty thousand years, even if you could
prove that humanity would not have survived without believing in a creator God, that would not mean that it’s a good idea to believe in a creator God now, in a twenty-first-century world that has been shattered into separate moral communities on the basis of religious ideas....

Saltman: Your analogy between organized religion and
rape is pretty inflammatory. Is that intentional?

Harris: I can be even more inflammatory than that. If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion. I think more people are dying as a result of our religious myths than as a result of any other ideology.



Wow. Imagine that. Context.

Anyway. I don't understand the desire to hold onto the Santa Claus myth. It's silly in most cases, and catastrophically dangerous in some... Which can have consequences for most. After perusing this thread I don't really see anyone make a strong case that non-belief in deity has a causal relationship with murder, rape, etc... However, it can be clearly demonstrated the causality between many attrocities and religion. Where one has no direct correlation, the other does. I don't understand an adult's desire to be an apologlist for the latter.
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
Post Reply