h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh, and then he ridiculed it! Even if he was an atheist, he should have presented the teaching accurately.

I'll be back to this, when I'm less rushed.

Sooner than I imagined.

It's unfair to say that Dawkins (and others) misrepresent Christianity, unless one is prepared to say that many, many Christians also misrepresent it. To do this, one would first need a clear exposition of what Christ's teachings are. I'm far from convinced that there *is* such an exposition - certainly not one to which all the disparate groups or individuals calling themselves Christians would sign up to.

Agreed, Dawkins attack can be argued to apply to only part of the spectrum of Christianity. Let's postulate that he misses out part of his spectrum. Let's call it 'True Christianity' - that part which is demonstrably true to Christ's teachings.

And therein lies the rub. On what rational, commonly agreeable basis can we agree this? This illustrates the differences between religion and rationalism which is at the heart of religion's intellectual vacuity. Hitchens puts it like this:

"...the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning "punctuated evolution" and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning..."

So on what evidence do you say that Dawkins misrepresents Christianity? Because he definitely nails *some* of it.

But let's be fair to Christianity. I'm sure there are parts of Christ's (alleged, as represented by some portion of Christians) teachings with which an atheist can agree. 'Love thy neighbour' springs to mind. Well..we can agree on those on *rational* grounds. We don't have to invoke the Christian god or any other. The teaching is not exclusive to (certain interpretations) of Christianity

>> ...but what about being fair to each other in our discussions... <<


Yeah, I was just getting to that. I'm up to chapter 6 and beginning to have a hard time knowing when he's just kidding. Much of his most verilent criticism transcends a very fine line, a breath away from being the most brilliant irony. All it would take is for people to not take his words so seriously or at face value. His wit is as dry as Douglas Adams.

Some of his 'attacks' would never stand outside the barrage balloons and sandbags of academic credibilty that surrounds them. I mentioned earlier his accurate use of fatuous and fallacious but I have since been questioning the rather more plain prose with which he condemns many aspects of religion as 'stupid', 'silly' and 'ignorant'.

In particular his objections to the Argument from Experience all seem to be based on reducing them to clinical psychological conditions (including temporal lobe epilepsy). Reduced to their essence all these objections come down to his saying 'those who argue from experience are all crazy'. He even includes a childhood example of his own 'delusion' and subsequent self-actuated mental cleansing to justify his credibilty to see thru all god-inspired halucinations.

But I have to suggest that dismissing everyone who has had a religious experience as a sufferer of some mental or emotional disorder is just as offensive (and effective) as shouting 'You're alll nuts!' into the face of any and everyone who has had a personal religious experience. As one who only has never had more than my own argument from my experience to hold me back from the apparent glory and freedom of capital A, Atheism, I really resent having my experiences dismissed so cavalierly as 'non-sense'.


~jwf~

Interestingly, the psychiatric definition of 'psychosis' is to do with seeing things which are either not there or are alien to one's cultural experience. So seeing a 9ft white rabbit indicates psychosis, seeing an apparition of Our Lady might not.

I've succumbed. The paperback was less than half price in Tescos, and I was nearly at the end of an Aubrey/Maturin.

It's an easy enough skim for me, since I know the arguments already. That was one reason why I wasn't going to bother. The other was that I'd assumed (as I've said in this thread), that he'd be attacking the easy targets. (Creationists, Violent fundamentalists). I'm rather impressed tom see that this isn't the case. For example, he has no truck with any 'Non-Overlaping Magesteria' cop-outs.

Interestingly, yesterday in another bookshop, I saw it displayed next to (count 'em!) 6 rebuttals. In two cases, the blurbs gave the impression that the authors were spurred into action by reading the book wheras they are, in fact, a known ID apologist (Michael Ruse) and a religious scientist (Francis Collins) whose views are actually mentioned by Dawkins. Dawkins also discusses McGrath, mentioned earlier on this thread.

Now, I'll admit that I haven't pored over these peoples' books - and I'm unlikely to - but I think I'm reasonably aware of their arguments. I honestly can't see what amongst their various objections Dawkins has left unaddressed. For example, McGrath criticises him for misquoting/misunderstanding certain details of Christian theology. Dawkins' basic response is 'So what?', ie those are niggling points compared with the bigger picture. I'd like to go a bit further:
a) Are theologians *really* saying that the truth or otherwise of religion is dependent on some arcane point about, eg, Paulian teaching on original sin?
b) Do the all self-avowedly religious people, unlike non-believers, understand these arcane points?

Now, I'd hoped that in this thread I might get something to get my anti-theological teeth into. Honestly, I've yet to be presented with anything approaching a decent comeback. I really can't understand why anyone, particularly with a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge, would continue to believe. Maybe I can turn this back on Random Mood (or others):
Why do you continue to maintain there is a god?

There were two posters on display at Sheffield Train station the other day as I was passing through on my way to York. One was for some sort of christian fellowship, proclaiming the truth of God witha biblical quote and welcoming all to attend an evangelical meeting; the other was for the the paperback release of The God Delusion. I found their proximity rather amusing.

Also the other day I was in Blackwell bookstore in Sheffield, I queried why Dawkin's 'God Delusion' was on the popular science shelves but the (many and numerous) rebuttals were on the philosophy/religion shelf.

Apparently it was an error - someone had assumed a book of Dawkin's would automatically belong in science.

Non-overlapping magesteria and non-overlapping bookshelves.

In fairness to the bookshop, I guess one of Dawkin's arguments - and the one that Michael Ruse and he disagree over (they're friends, apparently) - is that evolution (and science generally) *is* incompatible with religion. At any rate, the sheer fact of the absence of a designer should inspire anyone to shake off their faith.

I have been unable to pick up the book again since I laid it down more than a week ago and began re-reading the Five Part DNA Trilogy (HHGttG - omnibus edition) to see if I could glean some clearer idea as to why I wanted to keep assuming that Dawkins was being brilliantly ironic (especially when at his most scathing and didactic).

And I've been reflecting on RM's expressed concern that Dawkins is perhaps a bit unfair and even rude in expressing his judgements. And if Dawkins is not being ironic then some of his comments really must be judged as unnecessarily unkind and counter-productively inflammatory.

I believe it has to do with the difference between scepticism and cynicism. A sceptic says "I won't belive it until you prove it" while a cynic says "I don't believe it. Period. Full stop. Screw you."

And there-in I think I've found the problem. Dawkins is not as I thought being a comically ironic sceptic but a truly bitter cynic. And for the moment I am much preferring a re-read of Douglas Adams, who makes all the same points without being bitter about it or wanting to damn and punish those who manage to find comfort in religion.

I suspect that those, like Dawkins, who are raised in a religious environment will inevitably carry a bitter resentment once they've figgered out what a load of hooey all organised religions really are. But a true sceptic keeps and open mind, feels no need for rancor and would rather be witty and ironic and free from bitterness. Yay DNA!

That said, I will continue to finish the God Delusion at a more leisurely pace, mindful that I almost bought into his anger and (for a couple of chapters) almost applauded the seeming necessity of organising Atheism into a crusade against the assorted insidious mind-f***s.

I guess I'm really a Deist. No idea what that might be - but that's the point. A-theism is just organised resentment by people who have wised up to the codes and methods and indoctrinations of organised theisms but still don't dare to acknowledge that there is still an actual mystery to life, the universe, et al., which cannot (ever?) be scientifically evaluated.

peace
~jwf~

Jaysus! What a cop-out! I'd say that Dawkins savages Deism more comprehensively than anything else. Are you *sure* you haven't got Einsteinian Religion? Can ye be healed?

I want to defend Dawkins' savagery. I get the impression he's A Nice Man - very well-spoken and mild-mannered and he seems to get on well with intelligent religious people. But he's taking a deliberate position against the undue respect given to religion. After all - even the dafter ones *are* given respect. Being Darwin's Rottweiler is a dirty job - but someone's got to do it, and he's volunteered.

I heard him on the radio recently with his pal Dan Dennett. Dennet, while equally militant, is more appeasing. His stance is to engage with the religious and discuss their hare-brained tosh from their own points of view. Dawkins had this to say about his approach:
"Yes - that's a really good tactic. Perhaps I should try it myself. If I can be bothered." There's a man who takes himself less seriously than his critics.

Plus, any friend of DNA...

<<...that there is still an actual mystery to life, the universe, et al., which cannot (ever?) be scientifically evaluated. >>

Beautifully said.

The 'actual mystery' is indeed a wonderful thing to contemplate. I don't really see the idea of "God" being anything other than laughably improbable, so I call myself an atheist. Deism is plausible, unlike certain religions, but in my view the probability of a triple-O god is somewhat less than Alabama *really* being the centre of attraction for aliens wanting to find out what kidneys are.

Simulpost with Ed.

>>Deism is plausible

But meaningless and unnecessary.

As far as I understand it, a Deist god creates the universe and then stays hands-off. So it's nothing to do with the way be run our lives. But anyway, doesn't Dawkins explain clearly enough that this sort of god is hugely improbable? If there *is* such a god, it has to be even more complicated than that which it creates. So we then have to ask "What made god?" (the question which, asked of a bishop when I was 12, cemented my atheism.) Alternately, postulate the simplest possible first thing. Surely we call this 'the universe'?

Abandon those skyhooks and embrace the wonders of the Einsteinian non-faith! It has some appealing benefits, not least that The Meaning Of Life is entirely what we make of it.

>>The 'actual mystery' is indeed a wonderful thing to contemplate.

No and yes. A mystery gawped at in dumbstruck bafflement shames us as a species. Mysteries only become wonderful when we start to investigate them. It's the highest calling for are wonderful brains. Apart from loving one another, obviously.

>>are wonderful brains Phonetic typing. Our!

Perhaps tangentially relevant: I'm just been watching the BBC's Planet Earth series, and wow. Now that's how you deal with mystery.

I wonder if there's a problem of communication error. Occassionally on here I will see statements like 'people need faith for ', which are a red rag to a bull and will result in angry responses from people who don't have faith and don't like the implication that they're somehow lacking as human beings. Similarly we're none too keen on being condemned as sinners, or the idea that it would somehow be a good thing for us to be eternally damned.

But I'm rather coming to suspect that a lot of the rhetoric and justification employed by the bulk of the religious, particularly of the deliberately vague sort, means little more than 'leave me alone'.

Possibly.

But for me, the the statement, 'We need faith' has other implications. Those who make it are under the impression that faith and faith alone delivers various benefits. A sense of wonder. An explanation for our origins. Comfort in our suffering. Moral values. Clearly, objectively, this isn't true. Those of us without faith can have all of these things. Now, as it happens, I'm relatively relaxed about people having mistaken explanations for our origins or an intellectually lazy sense of wonder. Of course, in these area that Reason is the only game in town.

I'm rather less relaxed about people extending their faith into the other two areas. This may puzzle some because they're traditionally regarded as the are where faith *can* deliver and reason can't. On the Comfort issue - there's the cheated souls who put their faith in a protector god, who subsequently fails them. Admittdly, I don't have anything to offer them. But I also think of the shameful example of Mother Theresa who prefered to devote her time and other peoples' (occasionally ill-gotten, incidentally) resources to praying for the sick, rather than easing their suffering. Granted, often suffering *can't* be relieved - but at least we can apply our Reason to trying. And I also think of those who adopt mistakenly adopt destructive, inhumane behaviours towards others - presumably with the best will in the world, based on the faith that they're pleasing a god. It seems to me that Reason is a far more effective moral device, allowing as it does for discussion and testing of the outcomes that we want, individualy and collectively.

>> ...as I understand it, a Deist god creates the universe and then stays hands-off...<<

Yes Dawkins suggests that's how Einstein explained his polictically corrected version of Deism. It allowed him to function as an atheist without offending anyone (too much).

But I guess mine shouldn't have a capital D.
Because it isn't any of the 'other' 'known' gods. It's a void. It's just like the arithmetic symbol X in that it represents the unknown and seemingly unknowable factor in the cosmic equation (which DNA suggests is so obviously incomprehensible that no intelligent person would waste any more time in giving it much further thought).

The very antagonism of any crusading Atheism is in itself guilty of the same sin as any organised religion. It is this 'screw you' attitude of most atheists that has always kept me from identifying with them. Perhaps because I got over that kind of rebellious angst around the same time I reached puberty. It's so much easier just to live and let live. Especially since (as Dawkins/Dennet/etal suggest -
religion has an undeniable vitality of its own) only a silly Cnut would try to turn such a tide.

By all means, we should point out the sins of organised religion on grounds of basic human rights. But to organise into an anti-theistic group is to fall prey to religion's biggest fault - the intrinsic need to buddy up and overcome opposition by force of numbers.

~jwf~

Foolish Cnut? Just to clear this one up...

'But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king's feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth, and se obey eternal laws." Thereafter King Cnut never wore the golden crown, but placed it on the image of the crucified Lord,'

- Henry of Huntingdon, History of the English People 1000-1154

In this original source of the story - Cnut is actually demonstrating humility and trying to get his courtiers to cut out their superfluous praise, so there .

This post has been removed.