12/19/08

Richard Dawkins and His Amen Chorus of Adherents

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , ,

35 comments:

  1. MartinDecember 20, 2008 at 12:16 AM

    "This is not only a non-answer but a diversion."

    Millions of Muslims think you're going to Hell because you don't pray facing Mecca five times a day. Think about that. Really think about that. For them, it's absolute, 100%, factual reality that you will burn in Hell for denying Muhammed. Are you thinking about it? Got that concept ready to go? That millions of people are certain you will go to Hell when you die? What do you think about that? Are you scared of their Hell? Does it concern you in the slightest, tiniest bit? No? What if you're wrong? Still not worried?

    Now...

    The way you feel about Muslim Hell is exactly how I feel about Christian Hell. The reason you're not the slightest bit concerned about Muslim Hell is the same reason I'm not the slightest bit concerned about Christian Hell.

    "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born...Is this supposed to mean something? It appears to be nothing but a glorification of atheism’s dismal view of life’s ultimate insignificance."

    Reality is not determined by how dismal or not an idea is. Same goes for the insignificance of life. Whether you feel that way or not has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

    Many atheists do not believe in disembodied immortality, and the Mark Twain quote is a way of coming to terms with death as the END. That death is not a big black nothingness to be afraid of. Death is simply the state of not existing, as you already have experience with for the past few billion years. It's nothing new, and nothing to fear. No need for immortality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. NeuroskepticDecember 20, 2008 at 2:34 AM

    Atheists, human, and subject to human weaknesses??? Whoever would have thought it!

    The exact same could be said for Christians, Muslims, or, in fact, every group that has ever or will ever exist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. zilchDecember 20, 2008 at 4:13 AM

    What Martin and Neuroskeptic said. About the third point: I have to side with Dawkins too. Given that the possibilities are a) the Universe had a beginning, and b) the Universe did not have a beginning, it's not particularly impressive that the Bible got it right.

    This is especially so, when you consider how much of Genesis is simply wrong, on things that could also have easily been expressed correctly, supposing God to have inspired them: the order of the Creation, for instance, starting with the Earth, and light, having been created before the Sun.

    Yes, Dawkins is human and fallible: he's sometimes blunt and rude. But I will still join the chorus here and say "amen!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. BrianDecember 20, 2008 at 5:16 AM

    I agree, Mariano. A grab bag of one-liners and rhetoric can be simply a smoke-screen to dismiss the bigger issues. On the same token, it can show ignorance of the depth of the issues, especially from those who applaud such hand-waving quips.

    ReplyDelete
  5. zilchDecember 20, 2008 at 6:50 AM

    Brian: I agree- a bag of one-liners is no substitute for in-depth consideration of the issues. But during question and answer discussions, that's often what happens, and Christians are just as guilty of this as atheists.

    Mariano- Se me olvidó mentionar mi admiración por tus locuciones linguisticas en una lingua non nativa: Bravo, y complimentos sinceros de zilch en Vienna.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BrianDecember 20, 2008 at 6:57 AM

    zilch:
    I totally concur. To me, one classic example of this was the debate between Barker and D'Souza.

    It seems that the whole setup of the debate is just two rhetoricians slugging it out to see who can get the most one-liners in during the 60 seconds. This can be somewhat entertaining and may have some merit here and there. Unfortunately, I felt it was quite shallow and not delving deep to understand the issues.

    So, zilch, I agree that neither side should resort to this or praise their personal apologetic hero when they employ this sort of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lou GojiraDecember 20, 2008 at 7:54 AM

    I don't really understand why people seem to eat up whatever Richard Dawkins says with a spoon either. The guy may have point here or there, but you'd be hardpressed to find it since he seems to be more interested in preaching to the choir and lining his own pockets in the process. However, I wouldn't take the roars of applause to what he says very seriously Mariano...he's just a televangelist in a different hat...instead of saying "we're right and everybody else is going to hell", he's just saying "we're right and the rest of the world is delusional". Ear-tickling, in other words. And when he's gone three more will spring up in his place, ad infinitum...he just happened to be in the right place at the right time with his own personal spin of dogma. At least you can give him kudos for making that money...

    But one thing I don't think I'll ever understand is why he has people adamantly defending his running from a debate with William Lane Craig. That to me just smacks of cowardice in the highest, yet people still think he's cool and edgy and all. If I were a Dawkins fanboy, that alone would've made me seriously reconsider the fascination, and make me wonder if I'd put my hopes in the wrong icon or not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LeslieDecember 20, 2008 at 8:51 AM

    "Many atheists do not believe in disembodied immortality, and the Mark Twain quote is a way of coming to terms with death as the END. That death is not a big black nothingness to be afraid of. Death is simply the state of not existing, as you already have experience with for the past few billion years. It's nothing new, and nothing to fear. No need for immortality."

    This is the epitome of foolish talk. I don't mean to insult you, I just mean, honestly - the idea that we should not fear death if there is nothing to come is ridiculous. Mark Twain and Dawkins are simply wrong on this point. My lack of existence previous to existing is not at all the same as my lack of existence after existing. Before I existed, I knew nothing of existence at all. I had nothing to lose, because "I" did not exist. Now however, I do exist, and if when I die "I" go out of existence, then you'd better believe that is scary. It's the biggest threat to me that there could possibly be, because it is the loss of literally everything as far as I am concerned. All the knowledge, all the experience, all the relationships - all of it would be demolished. I don't fear not existing to begin with, mostly because that's not even a possibility now. I fear losing the existence that I now enjoy so greatly. Not being born and dying are not at all the same thing. This would be like someone saying "I don't fear losing my wife, because I lived for many years without knowing her." Well yeah, but now that I know her I don't want to stop knowing her and I can't un-know her. Again, it's just not the same - atheists need to accept this, because it is the dismal reality of their worldview, whether they like it or not, and it is what needs to be dealt with. Casual dismissal of the fact doesn't do anything for the debate.

    As for the Muslim stuff - it's not the same as Pascal's wager. You can't just insert any religion, because Pascal's point was dealing with a lot more than heaven or hell. It was dealing with the way we live now. It's far more existential in nature than many (both Christians and atheists) seem to understand these days. Pascal's point was that if you live the life of a Christian, your life will be much better in the hear and now, so even if you're wrong, you'll be better off for it while you are alive. I've not heard other religions claim this. In fact, to my knowledge, most other religions are rather escapists about the current condition. It's all about the afterlife, not about the life here and now. Christianity is about both the here/now and the after life, or at least it is when properly understood. This is a point NT Wright has been trying to make when he talks about the resurrection, heaven, and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JoshDecember 20, 2008 at 9:09 AM

    What Martin and Neuroskeptic said. About the third point: I have to side with Dawkins too. Given that the possibilities are a) the Universe had a beginning, and b) the Universe did not have a beginning, it's not particularly impressive that the Bible got it right.

    In that sense it isn't particularly impressive. But the Genesis creation account is bereft of the tools of ANE cosmogonies that surrounded and ought to have infiltrated the Hebrew culture.

    This is especially so, when you consider how much of Genesis is simply wrong, on things that could also have easily been expressed correctly, supposing God to have inspired them: the order of the Creation, for instance, starting with the Earth, and light, having been created before the Sun.

    Out of curiosity, do you believe that light began with the sun?

    ReplyDelete
  10. TDecember 20, 2008 at 10:45 AM

    love the title of your blog.

    KeepThatFaith.com has just launched a 2nd video about Richard Dawkins.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBhttw8kAt0

    cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  11. zilchDecember 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM

    Lou- true, a lot of what Dawkins has been doing of late is preaching to the choir. As far as lining his pockets goes, though, I don't think it's fair to compare him to the televangelists, some of whom probably earn ten times what he does, fleecing the gullible. In addition, Dawkins is at least also a scientist who has made valuable contributions to evolutionary theory. What have the televangelists ever done for anybody?

    Leslie, you say:

    the idea that we should not fear death if there is nothing to come is ridiculous. Mark Twain and Dawkins are simply wrong on this point.

    With all due respect, Leslie, you are in no position to say what Twain, Dawkins, or anyone else, should feel about death. Everyone can, and does, decide for themselves what they feel. Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean that others can't, or shouldn't, feel differently.

    And about Pascal's Wager- if being a Christian makes for living a better life in the here and now, fine. But it might just as well be the case that being a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or something else, also makes you live a better life. Whatever claims different religions make about this have nothing to do with whether it is the case or not. After all, Jesus claims you can pray for anything and it will happen, and that doesn't seem to be the case, now does it?

    Josh- yes, indeed, the Bible is bereft of correct cosmogonies. Not surprising, given its age, but how can people still say that it is literally true? Or if it is not true, then how do you know what parts are true and what parts are not true?

    And no, I do not believe that light began with the Sun. But I do believe that the light on the Earth comes, and came, primarily from the Sun, and what doesn't come from the Sun comes from stars, which didn't get created until after the Earth either, according to Genesis- another mistake. There are more mistakes where those came from, as I'm sure you know. So in what sense can this be inspired by an omniscient God, unless He was fibbing?

    ReplyDelete
  12. NeuroskepticDecember 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM

    "Christianity is about both the here/now and the after life, or at least it is when properly understood."

    So a bit like Buddhism you mean, which teaches better ways of living in the present and ways of attaining a better future life and eventual Enlightenment? At least, some kinds of Buddhism do that. But only some kinds of Christianity fit your description.

    ReplyDelete
  13. jdhueyDecember 20, 2008 at 1:30 PM

    The point about the Ju-Ju line has nothing to do with directly answering the question, the question is not really a valid question. The purpose of this question is that of a rhetorical device - it does not represent a request for information or for clarification or even question meant to point out an error in thinking - it is meant simply to win debating points. The question is actually nothing more than a restatement of Pascal's Wager, which of course has been shown to be completely invalid. By replying with the Ju-Ju comment, Dawkins is simply saying: "Look, if you want to play rhetorical games, then I can play too. Your question is just a one line version of Pascal's Wager, so I will respond with a one line version of the refutation."

    ReplyDelete
  14. M. AtheosDecember 20, 2008 at 6:08 PM

    50/50

    There's more to understanding something than getting the right answer. If you get the wrong answer, it's clear your understanding is incorrect, but even when you get the right answer, there's the possibility that it was a lucky guess rather than a reflection of actual understanding. The better the odds of a guess being lucky, the less persuasive a potentially lucky guess is.

    If you had to predict whether one number in a sequence was going to be higher or lower than the previous one, then a single wrong guess shows that you don't know what's coming next, but single right guess isn't very persuasive that you do. If you could pull off a hundred correct predictions, with no incorrect ones, you'd start to have a case for knowing what the sequence was.

    But yes, one wrong answer is enough to discredit, one right answer is not enough to credit.

    Not coincidentally, that's how science works. A confirmed counterexample to a theory demonstrates that the theory (while perhaps still very useful in many cases) is incorrect. Newtonian physics? Incorrect (but still useful). Ideal gas laws? Incorrect (but still useful.) A demonstration that the theory can also make correct predictions (Newtonian mechanics makes many, for example) does not miraculously cancel out its incorrectness, or indicate that "Yes, Newton -DID- understand everything about motion!"

    ReplyDelete
  15. LeslieDecember 20, 2008 at 10:01 PM

    With all due respect, Leslie, you are in no position to say what Twain, Dawkins, or anyone else, should feel about death. Everyone can, and does, decide for themselves what they feel. Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean that others can't, or shouldn't, feel differently.

    I certainly agree here. People can feel free to believe what they want. All I was trying to say is that it doesn't answer the question and that one cannot make a logical connection between not fearing death and having not existed prior to birth. In other words, a person may not fear death, but they cannot do so logically on the basis that they at one point did not exist, since the two are not the same.

    And about Pascal's Wager- if being a Christian makes for living a better life in the here and now, fine. But it might just as well be the case that being a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or something else, also makes you live a better life. Whatever claims different religions make about this have nothing to do with whether it is the case or not. After all, Jesus claims you can pray for anything and it will happen, and that doesn't seem to be the case, now does it?

    As for Pascal's wager, I'm not saying what Christianity claims, just what Pascal said. I don't really like Pascal's wager that much on the whole. I simply think it's important to understand the actual claim a person is making prior to arguing against it.

    Speaking of which, it really bothers me when anyone, Christian or skeptic, makes this claim about Jesus' words. Jesus did not say that I can pray for whatever I want and it will happen. First of all, in context he clearly is not saying literally anything they ask for will happen - that's going way to literal with Jesus' words. I think we can afford to extend Jesus the courtesy of hyperbole. Secondly, and far more importantly, Jesus was not talking to everyone who would ever exist - he was talking to the apostles. Please do not decide to freely take things out of their context. I don't like it when skeptics proof-text anymore than I do when the Christan does it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ModusoperandiDecember 20, 2008 at 10:39 PM

    Leslie "Jesus did not say that I can pray for whatever I want and it will happen."
    Clearly you're a heretic, while the Prosperity Gospel is the One True way.

    ReplyDelete
  17. zilchDecember 21, 2008 at 4:59 AM

    Leslie- you say

    In other words, a person may not fear death, but they cannot do so logically on the basis that they at one point did not exist, since the two are not the same.

    What does fear of death have to do with logic? If I am logical, I will not fear death, because it is inevitable. Fear is an emotion that serves to pump adrenalin and help me avoid immediate danger, but it won't ultimately enable me to avoid death.

    I do what I can to avoid death, of course: but it's not fear that makes me look both ways before crossing the street, but rather a desire to avoid unnecessary pain, and a desire to prolong my life as long as is reasonably possible. I wouldn't call that "fear", would you? Twain's and Dawkin's contemplation of nonexistence before birth is just a philosophical means to attain the same detachment.

    I think we can afford to extend Jesus the courtesy of hyperbole.

    Now you've opened Pandora's Box. In addition to what M.O. posted, if you're willing to admit hyperbole in the Bible, where do you draw the line, and how do you know that you've drawn it in the correct place? I say the whole Bible is hyperbole, and thus not worth considering. How can you gainsay that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lou GojiraDecember 21, 2008 at 7:21 AM

    zilch wrote: "Lou- true, a lot of what Dawkins has been doing of late is preaching to the choir. As far as lining his pockets goes, though, I don't think it's fair to compare him to the televangelists, some of whom probably earn ten times what he does, fleecing the gullible. In addition, Dawkins is at least also a scientist who has made valuable contributions to evolutionary theory. What have the televangelists ever done for anybody?"

    Good points, and I'll take back some of what I said if you could please show me exactly what it is that Richard Dawkins has contributed to evolutionary theory. I know he's come up with the whole meme theory, which, granted, I think borders on the silly/absurd, and adds no real value to anything other than wordplay, so maybe I was a little quick to try and judge him without educating myself some more on his work. I'm not saying that you're lying about his accomplishments, all I'm saying is that I probably haven't looked at the right websites, and would really appreciate a link or two. Thanks in advance.

    I found this line of what you wrote particularly interesting though:
    "I don't think it's fair to compare him to the televangelists, some of whom probably earn ten times what he does, fleecing the gullible."

    I have to disagree with you on the logic of this bit...whether or not a person makes $100 or $100,000 by fleecing is beside the point...in the end it's still a reprehensible act and doesn't say anything good about the perp doing it, no matter how they go about doing it.

    Aside from that, do you honestly think that all of Dawkins' supporters are people with a genuine interest in science and/or theology? I'd wager that his sudden spike in popularity is due in a large part to this "New Atheism" bandwagon that pissed off teenagers and college kids are buying into hook, line, and sinker. They seem more interested in hearing or reading about how right they are and how ignorant everybody else supposedly is, hence all the one-liners and smug attitude out of Dawkins himself. In other words, he's peddling his own brand of ear-tickling, and they're throwing him money. So instead of promising blessings while pounding a pulpit, he's promising instant enlightment with a cocky smirk...same act, just with a different angle.

    And finally: "What have the televangelists ever done for anybody?"

    Other than help push people into atheism, or be the mama birds that chew up scripture and vomit it out for certain masses to easily digest without having to read it or think about it themselves, putting their oftimes twisted spins on what they say, then I honestly don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  19. zilchDecember 21, 2008 at 8:00 AM

    Lou: Dawkin's main contributions to biology, as far as I'm concerned, are the focus on the gene rather than the individual or the species as the locus of natural selection (The Selfish Gene), and his concept of the "extended phenotype"- that is, the idea that the effects of the genes that are visible to natural selection go beyond the body of the organism: they include behavior and structures built by the organisms (e.g. beaver's dams, bird's nests, etc: The Extended Phenotype).

    You say:

    I have to disagree with you on the logic of this bit...whether or not a person makes $100 or $100,000 by fleecing is beside the point...in the end it's still a reprehensible act and doesn't say anything good about the perp doing it, no matter how they go about doing it.

    I'd say there is a difference in damage done between making $100 or $100,000, especially since the targets of the televangelists are mostly the poor, who can ill afford the expenditure for hot air. And there's also a difference between making one-liners about something that has science and data behind it, and telling people to send them money so they can do God's will, which presumably means supplying the televangelist with a Lear jet. At least, I know which I find more reprehensible. But hey, being an atheist, I have no absolute moral standard, so I have nothing to say, right?

    And judging by the number of Christians I've debated who know next to nothing about science, less about the Bible than I do, but are smug in the knowledge that they have a ticket to Heaven and don't need to do anything about the environment because Jesus is coming anyway, and know that I am going to Hell, well, let's just say that there are lots of people are ill-educated and cocky.

    As I said, I couldn't care less what people believe about God, as long as they behave nicely. Happy holidays, everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  20. LeslieDecember 21, 2008 at 2:07 PM

    Zilch,

    As for the death thing, I'm not the one trying to offer an explanation of it - I'm saying the answer given was wrong. Dawkins (and Twain) were trying to explain. So if logic has nothing to do with it, why bother trying to answer, and why try to defend their answer? Why not just say "logic has nothing to do with it." Either way, the reply was incorrect, which was my point.

    Now you've opened Pandora's Box. In addition to what M.O. posted, if you're willing to admit hyperbole in the Bible, where do you draw the line, and how do you know that you've drawn it in the correct place? I say the whole Bible is hyperbole, and thus not worth considering. How can you gainsay that?

    I have to be honest - this kind of thing almost upsets me, simply because it is so ridiculous. How is it opening Pandora's Box to say that I have to take things in context? That's an awfully convenient viewpoint for the skeptic to take. You're talking like I'm just going into the Bible and picking and choosing what is or isn't the context. That's not what I'm doing. I'm reading it in context just like I read anything in context. You find out what is or isn't right by studying it in it's social, historical, linguistic, etc. contexts. It's called hermeneutics. How on earth does it make sense to go to the Bible and take everything ultra-literally? Would you do that with any other document? Your view is the one which leads to picking and choosing - mine has objective standards which determine how I take certain things. Sometimes that leads me to interpret things in a way that I may not even like - but it's irrelevant because I have an objective standard. If you want to know that objective standard, go read some books on hermeneutics. But don't do the whole straw-man Bible thing. It's fallacious and intellectually irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ModusoperandiDecember 21, 2008 at 2:45 PM

    Leslie: So how come your "objective standard" and "in context...hermeneutics" come to different conclusions than those of others? By their standards, you're the one whose reading it incorrectly. It's always the other guy who is wrong.
    How variable is Truth, anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  22. LeslieDecember 21, 2008 at 3:05 PM

    Leslie: So how come your "objective standard" and "in context...hermeneutics" come to different conclusions than those of others? By their standards, you're the one whose reading it incorrectly. It's always the other guy who is wrong.
    How variable is Truth, anyway?

    So let me get this straight - people disagree with each other, therefore everyone is wrong and/or we can't know what is right? Scientists disagree with each other, so are they all therefore wrong and we can't find out what is right?

    On your view, you disagree with others as well as to how to interpret the Bible. Why is your view of the Bible better?

    ReplyDelete
  23. ModusoperandiDecember 21, 2008 at 3:51 PM

    Leslie "So let me get this straight - people disagree with each other, therefore everyone is wrong and/or we can't know what is right?"
    But this is God's Word we're talking about. Ten people can add up the inside angles of a triangle and all come up with the same answer, and ten biologists can look at the datum of life and come to similar (if incomplete) answers. When engineers disagree, the bridge either falls down or it doesn't, weeding out the incorrect engineers pretty quickly. Ask ten theologians a religious question and you get ten different (and sometimes entirely incompatible) answers (and some of those with completely different gods). When the religious disagree, it just leads to yet another sect/denomination, and another One True interpretation of God's Word.
    It's the only trade where your conclusion is always the right one.

    "Scientists disagree with each other, so are they all therefore wrong and we can't find out what is right?"
    If the theory fits the data, the theory stands. Scientists get closer to consensus as more data weeds out interpretation.
    Do you know what fits the supernatural hypothesis? Everything. This is why religions split and multiply every day (...or it's because God mumbles, or He's not there at all, or He's not the God they're thinking of, or He's not the interventionalist kind of deity, or...).

    "On your view, you disagree with others as well as to how to interpret the Bible. Why is your view of the Bible better?"
    Clearly, my Holy Spirit kicks your Holy Spirit's ass.

    ReplyDelete
  24. LeslieDecember 21, 2008 at 4:15 PM

    You're right about the triangle stuff. Because in the basics of math there is no gray area. You are incorrect about scientists, however. There are dozens of different theories out there about various points, from physics to chemistry, and they're all competing for general acceptance. And as it happens, I'm pretty sure it's the neo-darwinist community that has a stranglehold on the "my way or the highway" philosophy. Just like what you're accusing religion of.

    As for those who say there is only "One True" way to be a Christian, that's their argument, not mine, so I'm not going to try to rationalize what they're saying. Debate one of them about it, not me. As for myself, I believe there are gray areas. There are places where people can genuinely disagree and still be right with God, and this is even stated in the Bible. I do draw lines, but we all draw lines at some point, and logically have to, so I don't see that you can hold this against anyone.

    But anyway, your final comment makes it clear you don't care to actually discuss/debate, so I'll just leave it at that. But thanks for the careless blasphemy all the same. Hope you have a merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ModusoperandiDecember 21, 2008 at 7:54 PM

    Leslie "There are dozens of different theories out there about various points, from physics to chemistry, and they're all competing for general acceptance."
    But eventually, for example, geocentricism faded into a fringe element. All the "fringed" religions are still there, just as true as ever to those that believe in them.

    "And as it happens, I'm pretty sure it's the neo-darwinist community that has a stranglehold on the "my way or the highway" philosophy."
    They're arguing the details. If it was religion, there'd be significant groups still arguing for Lamarckism, and whether the man made the "seed" and the woman was just the "soil".

    Just like what you're accusing religion of."
    But they eventually come to consensus. If the supernatural hypothesis points to any god, it points to all of them.

    "Merry Christmas to you as well."
    I'm out of eggnog. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  26. zilchDecember 22, 2008 at 1:45 AM

    Leslie, you say:

    As for the death thing, I'm not the one trying to offer an explanation of it - I'm saying the answer given was wrong. Dawkins (and Twain) were trying to explain. So if logic has nothing to do with it, why bother trying to answer, and why try to defend their answer? Why not just say "logic has nothing to do with it." Either way, the reply was incorrect, which was my point.

    As I said, I don't think that Twain and Dawkins were trying to logick their way out of fear of death, but merely suggesting one way of looking at it. But I'll cheerfully concede that you are right: if logic has nothing to do with it, there's no point discussing it.

    You find out what is or isn't right by studying it in it's social, historical, linguistic, etc. contexts. It's called hermeneutics. How on earth does it make sense to go to the Bible and take everything ultra-literally? Would you do that with any other document?

    M.O. said it: it makes sense if you're a fundamentalist to claim that the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, because it's God's word. As M.O. and I said, however, that leads to problems: you might call your interpretation of the Bible "hermeneutics" or "exegesis", others might call it "heresy" or "eisegesis".

    And it seems pretty obvious, if you read the Bible carefully (which I have done, and I'm sure you have too), that there can not be one "correct" interpretation for many parts of the Bible: it is simply written with lots of contradictions, hyperbole, and vagueness: exactly like any other human story.

    Frohe Feiertage! (Happy Holidays)

    ReplyDelete
  27. LeslieDecember 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM

    I'd just like to add one thing to you, Zilch:

    Again, I just think it's awfully convenient to go to the Bible on those terms. People want to go to the Bible and say "well there's no sure way to find out what is being said about X, Y and Z." Yet take this position in a literature class and you'll wind up with a failing grade. It seems odd to take that position with the Bible, when we recognize it is not true in other areas. It's horribly inconsistent, and obviously so.

    You see contradictions, vagueness and excessive hyperbole because the Bible doesn't come to you and your terms. You want it to be like a newspaper. Skeptics want proof that can never be given in reality. If God appeared to them personally, they would be like Scrooge when the first spirit appeared - "I must've eaten something bad." As the rich man was told in the story of the rich man and lazarus "if they do not believe the law and prophets, they will not believe even if a man were to rise from the dead." I'd highly suggest you check your presuppositions and the go back and actually study the Bible. Don't just read through it. Study it. There is a big difference between the two, and the difference is where most problems show up for people. Unfortunately, the difference is also comprised of a whole lot of time and effort, and I'm convinced that is why there are so many problems, both in the religious and secular fields.

    Anyway, happy holidays ... I hope they are pleasant for you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. zilchDecember 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM

    Leslie: I don't have any problems at all accepting that the Bible is a document of its time, and that it needs to be interpreted. As you say, that's true of all documents, from Gilgamesh to Dubliners. But why should the Bible be considered as something any different than these books I mentioned- a work by human beings, with mistakes, and not of God? I don't see why God would inspire such obvious falsehoods. But then again, I don't know what God's motivations or character are.

    Happy Holidays to you and yours too!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lou GojiraDecember 22, 2008 at 7:20 PM

    zilch -Before I get started, I wanted to take a minute and thank you for the links provided, make a promise that I'll read them as soon as I can, and to apologize for being a bit slow to respond to you. I spend most of my time lurking for that very reason...I never know when I'll get a chance to respond if and when I jump into a conversation, and I always feel like I'm being rude if I don't get back to the person right away. Anyways, on with the show...

    "I'd say there is a difference in damage done between making $100 or $100,000, especially since the targets of the televangelists are mostly the poor, who can ill afford the expenditure for hot air."

    No arguement here, there certainly is a difference in damages done...but we were discussing the act of fleecing and not the end product of the process. Are we in agreement that the act of fleecing is, in and of itself, a bad thing? Or are you saying that it's okay for certain types of fleecing to continue going on? To clarify, I'm saying that fleecing, whether done by some loudmouthed telegangelist or some smarmy professor, is equally vile. I'm not willing to give one a free pass and not the other just because the means and the targets may differ.

    "And there's also a difference between making one-liners about something that has science and data behind it, and telling people to send them money so they can do God's will, which presumably means supplying the televangelist with a Lear jet."

    Good point...one sure seems to be a faster means than the other for making money, but I wasn't disputing that in the first place.

    "At least, I know which I find more reprehensible."

    So can I safely assume that you too find Dawkins' penchant for showboating, which seemingly attracts and gratifies this "New Atheist" crowd, at least slightly reprehensible?

    Just so you know, I'm not trying to demonize Dawkins and blast him for something that televangelists have been guilty of for decades...I'm saying that he has, at least it seems this way to me, become the thing that probably helped him at least in some small degree go into atheism to begin with. I don't know if I should take him less seriously because of it, pity him for it, or try to do both at the same time.

    "But hey, being an atheist, I have no absolute moral standard, so I have nothing to say, right?"

    I have never said this, and if you think I implied this by anything that I've written so far, then all I can do is apologize for the mistake. I hoped that my earlier defending of atheists in another post would've cleared up any misconceptions that may occur in the things that I may write.

    "And judging by the number of Christians I've debated who know next to nothing about science, less about the Bible than I do, but are smug in the knowledge that they have a ticket to Heaven and don't need to do anything about the environment because Jesus is coming anyway, and know that I am going to Hell, well, let's just say that there are lots of people are ill-educated and cocky."

    Again, no arguement here...I even said the same thing in an earlier post. I'm pretty sure you remember it, because you had responded to it. I don't know if you think I'm trying to apply a doublestandard to Dawkins or atheism in general, but please rest assured that I am not.

    "As I said, I couldn't care less what people believe about God, as long as they behave nicely."

    Bro, if we were at a bar right now I'd toast you, because I too feel the same way about both theism and atheism, and I even stated it as such earlier myself.

    Here's where I'm probably confusing you, now that I think about it: It is not uncommon to hear Christians criticizing televangelists and trying to warn each other about them. Hank Hanegraaff, back when I used to listen to his radio show in the wee hours of the morning while throwing newspapers as a side-job, seemed to chop into Benny Hinn at least two or three times a week. I don't listen to Christian talk radio like I used to, but lately I've heard Todd Friel doing the same thing. Those are just two of the big names, but at least they're doing it, and I'm not taking into account word of mouth that passes between Christians about the evils of telegangelism.

    Now, how many atheists have spoken out against Richard Dawkins? I've seen a few, VERY few atheists on Youtube doing it (and they've gotten flamed to no end over it), because, for the most part, he's seemingly attained an army of internet trolls that live to do damage control for him...and I think this is one of the reasons fewer atheists are stepping forward and calling him out on his behavior. Maybe...that's just speculation of course...

    Also, I'm saying that I know in my heart, from having atheist friends both online and in real life, that atheists are usually much smarter than to roll over and settle for whatever self-appointed mouthpiece presents themselves for their beliefs. For instance, it took some time, but Brian Sapient and his Rational Response treehouse cult finally got laughed off of the internet (so to speak), and I guess what I'm trying to convey is my confusion as to why it's not happening any faster to Dawkins. Maybe I'm seeing something most atheists aren't in the man...I don't know...

    "Happy holidays, everyone!"

    Yeah, and a Happy Festivus to you too! ;) Sorry for the long-winded post. I'll let you get the last word on it if you wish, and I'll go back into lurking now. Thanks for the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lou GojiraDecember 22, 2008 at 7:25 PM

    Oh, one last thing before I go back to lurking zilch..if you don't mind...what is that thing you're holding up in your avatar? I've been curious about that since day one, and I keep forgetting to ask you about it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. KenDecember 23, 2008 at 10:43 PM

    Zilch;

    Gracias amigo. Mucho tiempo en los EU y no tanto hablando en castellano!

    I think that it is a facil avoidance of the issue to play the 50/50% chance game.
    Light before the Sun is a non issue by they way—the Sun is not the only source of light in the universe.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  32. KenDecember 23, 2008 at 10:49 PM

    Martin;
    Thanks for the comment.

    You certainly are dogmatic about your materialistic assertions and your prescriptions as to how we should feel.

    And, Dawkins' certainly was an non-answer if more atheist would be as skeptical and critical in their thinking as they claim Dawkins would be a recluse in his ivory tower.

    By the way Islamic hell and Christian hell have nothing to do with each other.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  33. ModusoperandiDecember 24, 2008 at 4:48 PM

    Mariano "By the way Islamic hell and Christian hell have nothing to do with each other."
    Obviously. Only Jahannam is real. I assume that I'll see you there.

    ReplyDelete
  34. zilchDecember 27, 2008 at 5:44 AM

    Lou- thanks for the nice reply. I will toast you right now with my mug of chicken broth (necessary in my rather cold workshop): cheers.

    I think there's little point in going into a detailed discussion of degrees of reprehensibility vis-à-vis Dawkins and televangelists. I'll just say that Dawkins, although his take-no-prisoners confrontational style is not my cup of tea, is at least not offering something he cannot provide.

    About my avatar: that's a picture of me on the beach near my uncle's house in Crescent City, California, and I'm holding a horn made of bull kelp. Being a musician, I can't resist doing a Jubal when I'm at the ocean. All you have to do is cut half the ball off the big end, and cut a cup-shaped mouthpiece at the small end, and voilà! you've got a pretty good horn.

    Mariano: you say

    Light before the Sun is a non issue by they way—the Sun is not the only source of light in the universe.

    As I recall, the creation of the stars came after the Earth in Genesis too. But it doesn't matter: there's lots of other mistakes which cannot be denied, even by métodos exegéticos avanzados.
    ¡Feliz Año Nuevo, Salud y Suerte!

    M.O.- You're going to be in Jahannam? Pity- I'll be in Hades. I was hoping to meet you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Peter DoyleFebruary 3, 2009 at 4:07 AM

    Hi Mariano,

    Nice job with your blog(s)!

    Sadly, there are few things more pitiful than a noisy Dawkins fan.

    I hope you don't mind if I leave a link to a God Delusion review:


    CELEBRITY ATHEIST - THE SELF DELUSION

    Thanks mate.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)