Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HelenM · 02-03-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by devnet:
In the summary of the Great Debate between theism and non-theism, the ultimate fight is one of salesmanship and merchandizing. I admire Dawkins for his forceful presentation of the case against theism, but he sometimes blunders with his pushiness. Also, he seems to have the same attitude as the late Carl Sagan in that he's virtually (not literally) organizing an inquisition against everything that seems nonsense to him. I know why he does that, it's a counter-reaction, but it could be dangerous.

I think it can only weaken his case, as I said. I'm so glad you see this, devnet - good for you!!!

Case in point: I hated every atheist ipso facto of being an atheist when I was a theist, and until fairly recently I hated every theist ipso facto of being a theist. A dichotomy which Dawkins try to present between "good atheism" and "evil theism" is as dangerous as the dichotomy in Christianity between "saved" and "unsaved" or in Islam between "Party of God" (Hizbullah) and "Party of Satan" (Hizbu sh-Shaytaan).

Yep

When you think binary, you think like a computer. Computers follow programs. They're programmed to do things without thinking. It isn't true, what people say about the evil of humans, that they act like beasts; beasts never commit the horrors we humans do. The greatest killings and tragedies of humanity happened when humans behaved like machines, programmed to execute blindly a plan of destruction, without mercy or remorse.

Exactly. It's when you can totally desensitize people that you can make them commit the worst atrocities. Even hate is less stable than being desensitized because hate is usually the flip-side of loving something else. I.e. you hate oppressors because you care about the oppressed (ok, maybe that's you, but still...

)

In 1984 Winston has his emotions totally taken over so he loves Big Brother but look at him at the end - he's a broken man, unable to do anything. He's not a fighting machine.

Lack of emotions is the most dangerous thing imo.

But I'm not sure how this part fits with Dawkins!

sullster, do you really ascribe to a "they something nasty so we can do it too" lowest common denominator system of ethics? I always hope that human beings will grow beyond that kind of ethical system and do what's right simply because it's right, even if others aren't doing it

love
Helen

Liquidrage · 02-03-2002, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franc28:
<strong>Theism *is* weak-minded. People are unenlightened because they lack the willpower to confront reality. This is not necessarily an insult - some people are just born that way and there's not much we can do about it. it is a simple fact.

</strong>

That is where I disagree.
It is not just born that way (ie. Her mind is naturally stronger then his mind).

But it is also in how you are raised.
The same *strong-minded* raised two ways could wind up a thesist and an atheist.

If you and I both had identical eggs and yours grew up to be a chicken and I threw my egg into a wall, does that mean your egg was better?

sullster · 02-03-2002, 01:54 PM

Dear Helen, Yes it would be great if human beings went beyond a lowest common denominator system, but it wouldn't be the real world. In area of evolution, the stakes are high, and I'd rather have Dawkins out there blackening some creationist eyes. The fundamentalists will use any tactics to advance their ideology. It is good to know he is out there, giving back what they dish out.

Do you think that by being a nice guy, Galileo did well? He should have torn down the Vatican proclaiming the absolute truth of the heliocentric system. I say no more Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to the advance of Science. Go Dawkins!

HelenM · 02-03-2002, 02:35 PM

Hi sullster,

Thanks for replying

I respect your opinion but regardless of one's beliefs I'd rather see them not use those tactics.

love
Helen

Francois Tremblay · 02-03-2002, 05:14 PM

"Nicety is considered a virtue, and because of this, the truth never arrives on time"

eowynn · 02-03-2002, 08:35 PM

Liquidrage, your egg analogy is interesting. I was raised in the Church (though a liberal one). I am now starting to question my beliefs, mainly because of a very Christian friend of mine. He was trying to help me strengthen my beliefs and, consequently, made me question them. In other words, I do not think that, JUST because someone is raised with a certain religion that they will remain that way forever. I am a case in point. When one starts to question one's religion and finds so many things that are inconsistent and require juggling... it becomes hard to keep that religion, no matter how one was raised.

whouprog · 02-03-2002, 08:54 PM

From what I've read, I'd say Dawkins presents his position about as diplomatically as is possible without being dishonest about the nature of it, that is: theism is childish, dangerous nonsense which has no place in the modern world.

Liquidrage · 02-03-2002, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eowynn:
<strong>Liquidrage, your egg analogy is interesting. I was raised in the Church (though a liberal one). I am now starting to question my beliefs, mainly because of a very Christian friend of mine. He was trying to help me strengthen my beliefs and, consequently, made me question them. In other words, I do not think that, JUST because someone is raised with a certain religion that they will remain that way forever. I am a case in point. When one starts to question one's religion and finds so many things that are inconsistent and require juggling... it becomes hard to keep that religion, no matter how one was raised.</strong>

I think that *self* is a byproduct of determinism.
I never said that one raised religious turns out religious. Sorry if that is what you got out of my comments.
I was raised a theist though due to enviornmental variables I turned out atheistic.

For example..
Say you and I are exact duplicates both raised in religious households.
Everything is the same until we are 7 years old to the day.
Then we both ask the question,
"Where does god come from?"
And we then, for the first time, get different answers.
We might turn out totally different with regards to religion even though we were both raised with religion.
Who knows? My views of *self* fall into the ficticious world of chaos theory more then any other science. We are a collection of *parts* smaller then the whole. In my opinion (and this is why I am agnostic as much as atheistic) any life form that is not the universe(everything) it self can not comprehend the universe completely.

lpetrich · 02-03-2002, 11:19 PM

Actually, Galileo himself had made lots of venomous and sarcastic comments about those who refused to accept his findings and conclusions.

Many academics and theologians refused to look through his telescope, and he commented that a recently-deceased one, Giulio Libri, will be able to see what he had seen on his way to heaven.

Another one, Martin Horky, claimed that astrologers had taken into account every celestial body; one of Galileo's supporters claimed that the recently-discovered celestial bodies served the purpose of tormenting the likes of Mr. Horky.

Another one, the eminent Christopher Clavius, claimed that Jupiter's moons were some sort of telescope artifact, to which Galileo responded with an offer of a big reward for a telescope that would make moons around one planet and not others.

A certain Ludovico delle Colombe acknowledged that there were mountains on the Moon, but claimed that they were enclosed in something spherical but invisible, thus insuring that the Moon is truly spherical. Galileo responded that there could just as well be invisible mountains 10 times taller than the observed ones.

A certain Francesco Sizi / Sizzi offered this "disproof" of the existence of Jupiter's moons:
There are seven windows in the head, two nostrils, two ears, two eyes and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From which and many other similar phenomena Of nature such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.... Besides, the Jews and other ancient nations, as well as modern Europeans, have adopted the division of the week into seven days, and have named them from the seven planets: now if we increase the number of planets, this whole system falls to the ground.... Moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist.

However, I have been unable to find Galileo's response to that argument. Maybe his sarcasm was an understandable outcome of enduring such comments.

And on religion, he believed in a form of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) -- the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. His views might seem typical modernist/liberal by our standards, but the Church insisted on a more fundamentalist approach -- and Galileo was unwilling to appease the Church by calling heliocentrism only a provisional hypothesis with no pretensions to Truth.

However, NOMA may seem to many of us a fancy way of (metaphorically) leaving one's brains at the church door.

ksagnostic · 02-04-2002, 04:18 AM

One of the problems with Dawkins, as has been stated, is that as he writes about evolution he also slams theism (the other is that two of his analogies, "selfish genes" and especially "memes", are taken way to literally by some IMO). As Michael Shermer points out in his current editorial in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, if most Americans are confronted with a binary choice of believing in god=creationism and evolution, they'll believe in god=creationism. It's not the fundamentalists we need to worry about. It is instead allowing fundamentalists to make inroads to the believing majority who nevertheless are not otherwise inclined to reject natural science. Here in Kansas, science education was threatened by a group of politically active fundamentalists who had stealthed their way onto the schoolboard. Most of the people who voted them out were theists. Dawkins is free to say what he wants, and he is an interesting and provocative thinker. However, politically active creationists are only too happy to use the words of Dawkins to support their contention that belief in god and evolution is an either-or choice. The point needs to be made that it is not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2002, 01:54 PM	#13
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	Dear Helen, Yes it would be great if human beings went beyond a lowest common denominator system, but it wouldn't be the real world. In area of evolution, the stakes are high, and I'd rather have Dawkins out there blackening some creationist eyes. The fundamentalists will use any tactics to advance their ideology. It is good to know he is out there, giving back what they dish out. Do you think that by being a nice guy, Galileo did well? He should have torn down the Vatican proclaiming the absolute truth of the heliocentric system. I say no more Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to the advance of Science. Go Dawkins!

02-03-2002, 02:35 PM	#14
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Hi sullster, Thanks for replying I respect your opinion but regardless of one's beliefs I'd rather see them not use those tactics. love Helen

02-03-2002, 05:14 PM	#15
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	"Nicety is considered a virtue, and because of this, the truth never arrives on time"

02-03-2002, 08:35 PM	#16
eowynn Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 58	Liquidrage, your egg analogy is interesting. I was raised in the Church (though a liberal one). I am now starting to question my beliefs, mainly because of a very Christian friend of mine. He was trying to help me strengthen my beliefs and, consequently, made me question them. In other words, I do not think that, JUST because someone is raised with a certain religion that they will remain that way forever. I am a case in point. When one starts to question one's religion and finds so many things that are inconsistent and require juggling... it becomes hard to keep that religion, no matter how one was raised.

02-03-2002, 08:54 PM	#17
whouprog Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 45	From what I've read, I'd say Dawkins presents his position about as diplomatically as is possible without being dishonest about the nature of it, that is: theism is childish, dangerous nonsense which has no place in the modern world.

02-03-2002, 11:19 PM	#19
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Actually, Galileo himself had made lots of venomous and sarcastic comments about those who refused to accept his findings and conclusions. Many academics and theologians refused to look through his telescope, and he commented that a recently-deceased one, Giulio Libri, will be able to see what he had seen on his way to heaven. Another one, Martin Horky, claimed that astrologers had taken into account every celestial body; one of Galileo's supporters claimed that the recently-discovered celestial bodies served the purpose of tormenting the likes of Mr. Horky. Another one, the eminent Christopher Clavius, claimed that Jupiter's moons were some sort of telescope artifact, to which Galileo responded with an offer of a big reward for a telescope that would make moons around one planet and not others. A certain Ludovico delle Colombe acknowledged that there were mountains on the Moon, but claimed that they were enclosed in something spherical but invisible, thus insuring that the Moon is truly spherical. Galileo responded that there could just as well be invisible mountains 10 times taller than the observed ones. A certain Francesco Sizi / Sizzi offered this "disproof" of the existence of Jupiter's moons: There are seven windows in the head, two nostrils, two ears, two eyes and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From which and many other similar phenomena Of nature such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven.... Besides, the Jews and other ancient nations, as well as modern Europeans, have adopted the division of the week into seven days, and have named them from the seven planets: now if we increase the number of planets, this whole system falls to the ground.... Moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist. However, I have been unable to find Galileo's response to that argument. Maybe his sarcasm was an understandable outcome of enduring such comments. And on religion, he believed in a form of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) -- the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go. His views might seem typical modernist/liberal by our standards, but the Church insisted on a more fundamentalist approach -- and Galileo was unwilling to appease the Church by calling heliocentrism only a provisional hypothesis with no pretensions to Truth. However, NOMA may seem to many of us a fancy way of (metaphorically) leaving one's brains at the church door.

02-04-2002, 04:18 AM	#20
ksagnostic Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 2,514	One of the problems with Dawkins, as has been stated, is that as he writes about evolution he also slams theism (the other is that two of his analogies, "selfish genes" and especially "memes", are taken way to literally by some IMO). As Michael Shermer points out in his current editorial in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, if most Americans are confronted with a binary choice of believing in god=creationism and evolution, they'll believe in god=creationism. It's not the fundamentalists we need to worry about. It is instead allowing fundamentalists to make inroads to the believing majority who nevertheless are not otherwise inclined to reject natural science. Here in Kansas, science education was threatened by a group of politically active fundamentalists who had stealthed their way onto the schoolboard. Most of the people who voted them out were theists. Dawkins is free to say what he wants, and he is an interesting and provocative thinker. However, politically active creationists are only too happy to use the words of Dawkins to support their contention that belief in god and evolution is an either-or choice. The point needs to be made that it is not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.