A Conversation Among the Four Horsemen

[_dartagnan]

I can't believe how many people here don't seem to get it, but I guess that's what happens when people jump in at the tail end of a week long discussion that has encompassed a half dozen threads.

What is refuted is Dawkins' nonsense about how religion is dangerous. That was the chant from JAK for a month now. This is what has been refuted. What has also been refuted are several hypotheticals Dawkins relies on to explain sociological and psychological phenomena.

There are several points of attack which are touched on by Dawkins.

1. God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge only comes from science.
3. Religion is inherently dangerous.
4. Beliefs are a result of mental disease.

Now after McGrath digs in and tackles the points, what is the verdict on all of these issues?

1. McGrath never even pretended that he could prove God exists. But Dawkins cannot disprove him either. Is that news?
2. This is a symptom of scientism and materialism, of which Dawkins is an adherent. Not all atheists agree with him and Dawkins has no basis for this assumption.
3. McGrath makes a compelling case that Dawkins is out of his league here. He has no background to make dogmatic assertions regarding history, sociology or psychology. This is really my biggest pet peeve with Dawkins. He proves himself to be a biased polemicist with an agenda, not a rational thinking scholar.
4. This is probably the most embarrassing argument of all. Atheists are turning on Dawkins for being so ridiculous about it. While Dawkins criticizes religionists for believing something not proved by science, Dawkins turns around and gives us the "meme", which is equally untenable by scientific standards.

So when I see people totally ignore all of the above and then throw out a challenge, "prove to me God exists", I'm just left scratching my head.

[_GoodK]

Here is another impressive response by Deepak Chopra which is in a seven part series responding to seven primary arguments in his book:
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006 ... sio_7.html

Wow, this was impressive. I'm going to take some time and read through all seven. Thanks for posting this, I love Deepak Chopra.

[Guest]

Is an atheist that contends that Christianity should be held solely responsible for the downfall of slavery:

a. Attacking Christianity / theism
b. A 'militant' atheist
c. An 'idiot'

I'm genuinely interested in what - in your view - counts as an 'attack'.

Well that would be a compliment not an attack. Did you mean to say solely responsible for slavery?

Not everyone is an idiot simply because they say things that are untrue. I give people the benefit of the doubt until they give me reason not to anymore.

I don't appreciate the characterization of Dawkins as some shrill God bigot, and people who agree with what he says as dogmatic tribemembers.

Seth, it is the same exact social construct we see in religion. Dawkins already has a loyal following, he preaches a doctrine of science (that is even pseudoscience at times), he has his creedal statements, he has already created a division between the loyal and the "other," he has made it clear that the "other" is a threat and they need his help, etc. These are the characteristics of any backwoods Bible-thumping moron who thinks non-Christians are in need of help, they represent a danger to society, they should be treated as diseased, etc.

It is the same exact phenomenon, only it is in a different social construct.

Dawkins doesn't even understand this. He doesn't understand he is essentially becoming the threat to society he assumes is unique to religion. I got a guy on this forum threatening my life due to a blind loyalty to Dawkins. Can you name any Christians here who have threatened your life?

[Guest]

I don't appreciate the characterization of Dawkins as some shrill God bigot, and people who agree with what he says as dogmatic tribemembers.

I think there are some that do repeat a mantra as if they're dogmatic tribemembers and they're evident on this board. They pop up and repeat one line ad nauseum and can't stick about and discuss their contention. It's simplistic and these persons are exactly like their TBM counterparts. They exist.

To quote Gad, "And while Christianity bugs me, ignorant atheism bugs me more."

Nuff said.

[_Ren]

Well that would be a compliment not an attack. Did you mean to say solely responsible for slavery?

Apologies - I wasn't clear.
I meant to say: "Is an atheist that contends against the idea that Christianity should be held solely responsible for the downfall of slavery:"

a. Attacking Christianity / theism
b. A 'militant' atheist
c. An 'idiot'

[_Moniker]

Well that would be a compliment not an attack. Did you mean to say solely responsible for slavery?

Apologies - not very clear.
I meant to say: "Is an atheist that contends against the idea that Christianity should be held solely responsible for the downfall of slavery:"

I think dart was on a JAK rampage that week and you got caught in the mix. ;)

[_dartagnan]

Apologies - I wasn't clear.
I meant to say: "Is an atheist that contends against the idea that Christianity should be held solely responsible for the downfall of slavery:"

a. Attacking Christianity / theism
b. A 'militant' atheist
c. An 'idiot'

None of the above. I'm not sure I agree with the claim that Christianity was "solely" responsible for the downfall. But to deny it was instrumental is to be ignorant of the relevant history.

[Guest]

I'm not sure I agree with the claim that Christianity was "solely" responsible for the downfall.

OK. Well, I'll put it down to what Moniker has said, plus me not being clear enough. (Plus, I'll admit that I went in 'a little hot' to start with...)

Because you did call me 'an idiot' for holding that opinion.

I tried to be VERY clear on the word 'solely'... I wrote it in caps and everything ;)
I don't deny that Christianity had a central role in what happened.

[_Sethbag]

All I can say is that you don't seem to be reading the same Dawkins materials as I have. I just don't see him setting himself up in the way you are claiming.

There are several points of attack which are touched on by Dawkins.

1. God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge only comes from science.
3. Religion is inherently dangerous.
4. Beliefs are a result of mental disease.

Now after McGrath digs in and tackles the points, what is the verdict on all of these issues?

1. McGrath never even pretended that he could prove God exists. But Dawkins cannot disprove him either. Is that news?

And Dawkins doesn't claim to have disproved God. In fact, Dawkins rates himself a 2 on the scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is "there is certainly no God" and 7 is "there certainly is a God". He says there is almost certainly no God, and admits he cannot prove it. But that's not his point. It's why he brings up Russel's celestial teapot so often. He agrees that one cannot prove that there is no such celestial teapot. However, there's no good reason to believe that there is one, and you don't get a good reason to believe this just by asserting that it's non-existence hasn't been proven.

2. This is a symptom of scientism and materialism, of which Dawkins is an adherent. Not all atheists agree with him and Dawkins has no basis for this assumption.

I don't agree that Dawkins asserts that knowledge only comes from science. What Dawkins does do from time to time is point out that the "knowledge" provided by the theologians is utterly unreliable. On what basis do the theologians assert to "know" anything at all with respect to the origins and purpose of the universe? Or "why" we humans are here? Or what will become of our consciousness after death? It's all smoke and mirrors, hand-waving exercises, and blind assertion and faith. Science, on the other hand, at the very least attempts to back up the thinks it believes to "know" with evidence. I very much disagree that Dawkins asserts that all knowledge must come through science, but agree thoroughly with him that there is no good reason to believe that the "knowledge" from the theologians is anything of the kind.

3. McGrath makes a compelling case that Dawkins is out of his league here. He has no background to make dogmatic assertions regarding history, sociology or psychology. This is really my biggest pet peeve with Dawkins. He proves himself to be a biased polemicist with an agenda, not a rational thinking scholar.

I think you, and probably quite a few others, have this problem called "we're so used to biased, polemical, agenda-driven people that we start seeing them everywhere". When your only tool is a hammer, I suppose it's natural that every problem should appear to you rather like a nail. Dawkins is an intensely rational, deeply thinking scholar. If one spents any time trying to actually to understand his points, and see what it is that he's really trying to say, rather than just scanning his words looking for one's next point of attack, one would recognize this.

4. This is probably the most embarrassing argument of all. Atheists are turning on Dawkins for being so ridiculous about it. While Dawkins criticizes religionists for believing something not proved by science, Dawkins turns around and gives us the "meme", which is equally untenable by scientific standards.

Dawkins doesn't say that belief in religion is the result of mental disease. He calls religion a "mind virus", but if you read that and interpret that as a an physical, disease-causing pathogen, then you're betraying the fact that you never really understood what he was saying. His use of the word "virus" is just an analogy. And it does relate to his ideas on memes. He is drawing a comparison between the ability of an actual, physical virus to infiltrate and infect someone's cells, hijack the normal functioning of the cell to get it to reproduce the virus, and thus perpetuate itself, and the ability of some kinds of ideas to "infect" peoples' minds in a way which results in those ideas being similarly perpetuated. He is in no way saying that an actual mental illness causes religious belief, but that religious belief itself is a self-perpetuating, self-defending meme which reproduces itself by the means of "infected" believers convincing others and "infecting" them with the same beliefs.

And this cannot rationally be denied. One simply cannot, with a straight face, deny that most strongly believing orthodox Jews believe the way they do for any reason other than that those were the ideas taught to them when they were young, impressionable children. Ditto with strongly-believing muslims, Christians, Hindus, and what have you. Do you honestly believe that very many people would be susceptible, as adults, to the notion that some blue-colored god with four arms actually exists? Yet millions of people strongly believe in Vishnu today because they were taught this belief as children, and it was reinforced in their minds. Then they grow up, have their own children, and pass down those same ridiculous beliefs to the next generation. And so it goes with pretty much every religion out there, except maybe Scientology, which simply hasn't been around long enough to get a sort of generational hand-down going strongly yet.

If one really reads Dawkins with an eye toward understanding what it is he's trying to say, it's perfectly clear that religious ideas do in fact work in ways remarkably analogous to infection through viruses. Religious beliefs are, in essence, a sort of "mind virus". But that's an analogy, a concept, a metaphor, and not a claim that someone's brain was actually physically damaged in some way, and religious beliefs were the result.

And I totally agree with him on this. I know, not quite without a shadow of a doubt, but close, that I would never have been a strongly-believing Mormon if I hadn't been born to strongly-believing Mormon parents. I also believe very strongly that the only reason most religious Indians are Hindu, most religious folk from the Middle East are Muslim, and most religious people in the United States are Christian, is because those are the ideas that were fed into our minds by our parents, who likewise received them from their parents, etc. But that by adulthood, those who remain believers in these religions do so with a complete conviction, "knowing" that they're right, etc. The infection is complete. They're "carriers" of the mental virus of religion, just waiting to pass it on to the next generation.

[_Chap]

This, taken from a post that I agree with pretty well in its entirety, really does deserve an encore:

Sethbag:

One simply cannot, with a straight face, deny that most strongly believing orthodox Jews believe the way they do for any reason other than that those were the ideas taught to them when they were young, impressionable children. Ditto with strongly-believing muslims, Christians, Hindus, and what have you. Do you honestly believe that very many people would be susceptible, as adults, to the notion that some blue-colored god with four arms actually exists? Yet millions of people strongly believe in Vishnu today because they were taught this belief as children, and it was reinforced in their minds. Then they grow up, have their own children, and pass down those same ridiculous beliefs to the next generation. And so it goes with pretty much every religion out there, except maybe Scientology, which simply hasn't been around long enough to get a sort of generational hand-down going strongly yet.

If one really reads Dawkins with an eye toward understanding what it is he's trying to say, it's perfectly clear that religious ideas do in fact work in ways remarkably analogous to infection through viruses. Religious beliefs are, in essence, a sort of "mind virus". But that's an analogy, a concept, a metaphor, and not a claim that someone's brain was actually physically damaged in some way, and religious beliefs were the result.

And I totally agree with him on this. I know, not quite without a shadow of a doubt, but close, that I would never have been a strongly-believing Mormon if I hadn't been born to strongly-believing Mormon parents. I also believe very strongly that the only reason most religious Indians are Hindu, most religious folk from the Middle East are Muslim, and most religious people in the United States are Christian, is because those are the ideas that were fed into our minds by our parents, who likewise received them from their parents, etc. But that by adulthood, those who remain believers in these religions do so with a complete conviction, "knowing" that they're right, etc. The infection is complete. They're "carriers" of the mental virus of religion, just waiting to pass it on to the next generation.

Dartagnan "knows" that the deity commonly accepted in his natal culture exists. If we were to perform the cruel experiment of bringing up a baby in a group of people who all pretended to believe in the mock religion of Pastafarianism, it seems likely that he or she might end up professing "knowledge" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Such a thought experiment really does, it seems to me, point up the "special" nature of the kind of "knowledge" involved in religious claims. Especially in a religion-saturated country like the USA, the public and disrespectful dismissal of such claims does not strike me as a bad thing to happen from time to time.