For everyone, but especially for Theistic Evolutionists

[phank]

Well, Jorge is back to calling people witches and phank is back to calling people deluded nitwits.

The quiet was nice while it lasted, at least.

I guess, so long as the merits are considered irrelevant, we can have lots of nice quiet. Where evidence matters, what DO you call those who ignore it, deny it, misrepresent it, or otherwise pretend it away? Clearly, those who CARE about the merits of the evidence strike you as noisy and irritating. Bless you.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I guess, so long as the merits are considered irrelevant, we can have lots of nice quiet. Where evidence matters, what DO you call those who ignore it, deny it, misrepresent it, or otherwise pretend it away? Clearly, those who CARE about the merits of the evidence strike you as noisy and irritating. Bless you.

Oh, but we've already been over all of that, phank. We've been over the evidence, what it means in the context of religion and even the epistemological foundations of evidence and science. We've been over your allegations of delusion, fantasy-making and hand-waving. You can't support those allegations outside of your own perspective. And while other atheists are perfectly fine with the acknowledgement that people of faith might be rational, intelligent folk who have a different perspective than theirs, you're back on Rocinante, tilting at windmills.

I like quiet, rational discussions that weigh proposals based on their categorical merits. Jorge and you are mirror images when it comes to category errors; he tries to make every river an act of special creation and you try to judge every idea — be it scientific, philosophical or theological — by a empirical measuring stick. It's those categorical errors make both your arguments noisy; it's how you both deliver those arguments that make you both irritating. If you'd both just cool off and not use this board for angry catharsis, we'd have quieter, more rational discussions.

—Sam

[rogue06]

I taught a group of college students on science-faith issues a few years ago. As a practical exercise, we looked at a number of "new atheist" quotes to try to identify the underlying misconception about science and faith. Below are many of the quotes by Dawkins that I put forth as examples of sloppy thinking. Most are philosophically and theologically misguided, with a "Jorge-esque" black and white view of the issues. A few are just factually wrong.

3) “The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as ‘a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a sympton of psychiatric disorder’. The first part captures religious faith perfectly.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 5.

4) “I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 36.

5) “Compared with the Old Testament’s psychotic delinquent, the deist God of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment is an altogether grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, loftily unconcerned with human affairs, sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 38.

6) “Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. … God’s existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 50.

7) “I suspect that alleged miracles provide the strongest reason many believers have for their faith; and miracles, by definition, violate the principles of science.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 59.

9) “The point is that the pulsar phenomenon is now understood as a product of simple physics, not intelligence.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 72.

10) “All gods … are magic spells. They do no bona fide explanatory work and demand more explanation than they provide.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 73.

11) “Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting prodigious heights of complexity and elegance.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 79.

13) “A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 109.

14) “Note that evolution by natural selection would be a very easy and neat way to achieve a world full of life. God wouldn’t need to do anything at all!” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 118.

15) “Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do. More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not knowing.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 125-126.

16) “The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. It is as though God had six knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned each knob to its Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist’s answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 143.

17) “Time and again, my theologian friends returned to the point that there had to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing. There must have been a first cause of everything, ans we might as well give it the name God. Yes, I said, but it must have been simple and therefore, whatever else we call it, God is not an appropriate name.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 155.

18) “To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as yoou would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and ‘improved’ by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists,unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 237.

19) “I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca – or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwe Dagon, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan. As the Nobel Prize-winning American physicist Wteven Weinberg said, ‘Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.’” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 249.

20) “To give a brief summary of [Hartung’s] thesis, Jesus was a devotee of the same in’group morality – coupled with out-group hostility – that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 257.

21) “What is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.” – Richard Dawkins, God Delusion p. 308.

I'd add:

"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests."

Not sure when or where Dawkins said it but P.Z. Myers has quoted it on his blog Pharyngula and is mentioned in Wikiquotes

[oxmixmudd]

One of us is blinded, no question about it.

The problem you are carefully wordsmithing around here is, of course, that there is no referent to the pure-noise phrase "transcendcent and outside the universe". The universe is all there is. This is the MEANING of "universe". What you are doing here is crafting a purely meaningless phrase, and claiming Dawkins doesn 't understand it. So where IS this place "outside the universe"? How can it be located, or examined? And if it can NOT be located or examined, then you are Making Stuff Up. Furthermore, if it can NOT be located or examined, how can you even know it exists? Well, of course you can't. Which is why you made it up. Dawkins called you on it. You refuse to be honest. You are choosing instead meaningless babble.

Have you never heard of the multiverse? Have you ever heard of a Brane? Do you know anything about the current theories of physics that postulate what is beyond our universe?

The God of the Bible is a timeless being beyond anything that could be contained in this universe. Which means He is not subject to scientific verification. What is this universe is NOT all that is or could be. What is in this universe is all that is the causal result of the Big Bang.

Bull. Some religions, like yours, make specific claims well within the purview of science to investigate. And those claims are simply nonsense. And here you are handwaving around the impossible by doubletalking about "causative rather tha descriptive", whatever that might mean - probably nothing, which is why you concoct it. Dawkins is being very straightforward - a "miracle" is something physically impossible according to the rules of the universe. They are fictions. And to justify the imaginary miracles, you must gin up an imaginary god, who exists in a nonexistent location. Do you have ANY IDEA how dishonest you look doing this? Again, Dawkins has called your bluff.

Oh please. "Honest, honey, just because the detective you hired has photos of me with that woman, doesn't rule out that these are miracles created by an intelligent being!" Just how far do you think that kind of claptrap is going to get you in the real world? Seriously, that's about the lamest excuse you could put together. Dawkins is again exactly correct. Some nitwits, seeing pulsars and not knowing what caused them, naturally dreamed up some sort of supernatural, magical expanation - my imaginary god, who lives in a nonexistent place and does the impossible except when any sane person is watching, must have magicked it up! And when pulsars are examined by SANE people who don't Make Stuff Up and who find the real explanations, any HONEST person would admit that maybe their religion blinded them to reality and here's a good example. But oh no, YOU have decided that pulsars are STILL magicked up by your imaginary god! And Dawkins has called your bluff again. And you again can't admit it. You are sorry.

Do you think before you write, or are you on autopilot? Yes, Dawkins has expressed a belief. You may or may not agree with him. You MIGHT consider the buddhist statues that the Taliban blasted off the cliff. You MIGHT consider the books religions have had burned. You MIGHT consider the people various Christian sects have put to death for doing "witchcraft", science, and the like.

But whether you wish to consider these things or not, what you have stated here is a misrepresentation, and a typically poor one at that. Granted, political regimes have attacked those of specific religious faiths. Sometimes for being of a different faith, sometimes for purely political reasons. Your category error is to regard political regimes as either religious or atheistic. This is a conceptual error. Yes, Stalin attempted to stamp out Christian organizations and places of worship. But he didn't do this because he was a member of the "competing religion of atheism", because there is no such thing. Instead, Stalin was concerned that religion was a rallying point, something capable of organizing and focusing political opposition. If there had been (assuming there could be) an "organized and dedicated atheist community" Stalin had seen as a political threat, his response to it would have been precisely the same. And in fact, Stalin's paranoia wasn't by any means focused solely on religious groups. He also targeted political thinkers, philosophers, authors and other writers, jurists he disagreed with, etc. None of which were religious in nature, but all of which (along with religions) seemed threatening.

But I understand that you have little choice but to misrepresent what actually happened, in order to buttress a falsehood in your own mind.

And, not surprisingly, your attempts to explain why Dawkins is "wrong" simply reveals you as both feebleminded and biased beyond all recognition. But don't feel all alone - Televangelists rake in millions and live like monarchs by yanking on everyone's Jesus and milking them of their life savings. People like you (and their victims as well) are a wonderful illustration that you can fool some of the people all of the time. And what Lincoln might have added is, many of THOSE people want so desperately to be fooled they'll believe the most arrant nonsense. No matter how preposterous, there is NO CHANCE that the victims will ever be capable of saying "hey, wait a minute..."

Dawkins laid it out in clear, simple language. As such, he's an excellent litmus test, separating the sensible from the deluded. And you've clearly made that choice yourself. Congratulations.

I honestly don't know which of you or Jorge is the more abrasive, or the more illogical. Is Dawkins some kind of personal friend or something? This rant looks more like some kind of reaction to personal offense than any kind of reasoned response.


Jim

[KBertsche]

Dawkins

I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca – or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwe Dagon, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

© source where applicable

This is just factually wrong. Atheist regimes have destroyed numerous houses of worship of all sorts, and have persecuted religious believers.

Yes, Dawkins has expressed a belief. You may or may not agree with him.

Perhaps I could have phrased my statement a bit more clearly. Yes, it may be factually true that Dawkins really believes this. But if so, what he believes is factually wrong.

Yes, Stalin attempted to stamp out Christian organizations and places of worship.

Was Stalin an atheist? Yes. Did he destroy places of worship? Yes. Therefore, you yourself have admitted that Dawkins' belief is factually wrong.

But he didn't do this because he was a member of the "competing religion of atheism", because there is no such thing.

Irrelevant. Dawkins did not qualify his statement with motive or with whether or not atheism is a religion. He simply expressed his belief that atheists would not destroy religious houses of worship. This belief is factually wrong.

[wattsr1]

[cite=Dawkins]

Was Stalin an atheist? Yes.

Not a trooo atheist though.

Did he destroy places of worship? Yes.

That was yesterday however.


I shall now depart quickly, closing the door behind less the boots and other hurled items hit me.

[rogue06]

I shall now depart quickly, closing the door behind less the boots and other hurled items hit me.

Boots? I don't need no stinking boots

gun flame_thrower.gif

[Ansgar Seraph]

gun flame_thrower.gif

Niiiice.

[Roy]

Dawkins

I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca – or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwe Dagon, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

© source where applicable

Was Stalin an atheist? Yes. Did he destroy places of worship? Yes. Therefore, you yourself have admitted that Dawkins' belief is factually wrong.

Hmmm. There is a difference between destroying places of worship and demolishing outstanding architecture. I note that Stalin didn't destroy St Basil's cathedral in Moscow, for instance. Did Stalin raze any monuments, as opposed to knocking down unremarkable buildings or forcibly changing temples' usage?

Roy

[phank]

Have you never heard of the multiverse? Have you ever heard of a Brane? Do you know anything about the current theories of physics that postulate what is beyond our universe?

Yes, I'm familiar with quite a few cosmological models. Some include branes, some include multiple universes. Some don't even HAVE a big bang, but rather a Big Phase Change of some sort.

The God of the Bible is a timeless being beyond anything that could be contained in this universe. Which means He is not subject to scientific verification.

As good a description of "imaginary" as I've read in a long time. Of course, "timeless" has no operational definition, "outside the universe" has no operational definition, and "not subject to verification" means "I don't have to define my terms, because nobody is allowed to check up on me." Great.

What is this universe is NOT all that is or could be. What is in this universe is all that is the causal result of the Big Bang.

According to some models, but not all. The neat thing about having no direct evidence of the origin of our universe (if indeed it has one) and very little indirect evidence, is the sheer enormous variety of models not INconsistent with observation.

I honestly don't know which of you or Jorge is the more abrasive, or the more illogical. Is Dawkins some kind of personal friend or something? This rant looks more like some kind of reaction to personal offense than any kind of reasoned response.

Well, nice of you to address the points raised, rather than just mischaracterizing it all at once.

[phank]

Dawkins

I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca – or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame, the Shwe Dagon, the temples of Kyoto or, of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

© source where applicable

Perhaps I could have phrased my statement a bit more clearly. Yes, it may be factually true that Dawkins really believes this. But if so, what he believes is factually wrong.

Was Stalin an atheist? Yes. Did he destroy places of worship? Yes. Therefore, you yourself have admitted that Dawkins' belief is factually wrong.

Irrelevant. Dawkins did not qualify his statement with motive or with whether or not atheism is a religion. He simply expressed his belief that atheists would not destroy religious houses of worship. This belief is factually wrong.

You are correct, Dawkins made a factually incorrect claim. Having read the book and understood the context, I realized that Dawkins was saying that nobody would bulldoze these places out of misguided atheistic vigor or fanaticism. In context, certainly it wasn't Dawkins' intent to imply that atheists would never commit crimes against religious people or anyone else. Atheists, being human, are certainly not saints and Dawkns is not saying they are.

And now, back to the context, Stalin did these things to consolidate and preserve political power. Not for religious reasons. Dawkins is probably engaging in hyperbole here, but I personally doubt anyone would commit such atrocities out of "atheistic fervor", assuming such a thing even exists.

[phank]

Hmmm. There is a difference between destroying places of worship and demolishing outstanding architecture. I note that Stalin didn't destroy St Basil's cathedral in Moscow, for instance. Did Stalin raze any monuments, as opposed to knocking down unremarkable buildings or forcibly changing temples' usage?

Roy

But we notice (and certainly Dawkins noticed) the Taliban destroying those 2000-year-old carvings in the cliffs, for PURELY religious reasons. And those certainly qualified as outstanding architecture. The original quote about religion being required to make good people do bad things, certainly applies here.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, I'm familiar with quite a few cosmological models. Some include branes, some include multiple universes. Some don't even HAVE a big bang, but rather a Big Phase Change of some sort.

Big phase change eh.

As good a description of "imaginary" as I've read in a long time. Of course, "timeless" has no operational definition, "outside the universe" has no operational definition, and "not subject to verification" means "I don't have to define my terms, because nobody is allowed to check up on me." Great.

Well, let's see Phank. You and Dawkins sit around and think you are so smart and know exactly why God can't possibly be real, yet you are incapable of formulating a correct assessment of what one should expect IF God is real. If you are incapable of even understanding what is being postulated when one speaks of 'The God of the Bible', then how in the world are you capable of pronouncing the idea invalid?

"Timeless" has several operation definitions Phank. The one which most fits the God described in the Bible is a being that exists at all times or is in fact outside of time. Certainly you can conceive of the concept of a spacelike dimension that is timeless, or a time dimension coupled to 3 spacial dimensions (the relativistic description of our universe) But who is to say that there is only 1 time dimension. Orthogonal time like dimensions would allow the 'observation' or awareness of one from the other. Further, who is to say time like and space like are the complete description of the set of properties that apply to what we conceive of as 'dimensions'.

Your attempt to mock the concept of a God outside of time reveals only your own prejudices.

.
According to some models, but not all. The neat thing about having no direct evidence of the origin of our universe (if indeed it has one)

All the evidence is that it has one, about 13.7 billion years ago. What is the problem Phank, what you want to believe is true getting in the way of what the evidence implies is true?

and very little indirect evidence,

But sufficient to convince an entire community of astrophysicists hostile to the idea ...

is the sheer enormous variety of models not INconsistent with observation.

I know of no model that does not have what we perceive as our universe beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. This earth began, despite the universe around it having existed for some 9 billion years before it came to be. The fact something existed before the Earth does not contradict the fact the Earth began. Likewise the universe or cosmos. The biblical implication is that there indeed was something else that existed before the cosmos was made. But that which existed before it was of a different substance that what now is.

Well, nice of you to address the points raised, rather than just mischaracterizing it all at once.

I accomplished my purpose for the post. I had no desire to endure some lengthy back and forth laced with you corrosive and abrasive style. Too bad you can't converse at a level less than every one who disagrees with you is an idiot.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

But we notice (and certainly Dawkins noticed) the Taliban destroying those 2000-year-old carvings in the cliffs, for PURELY religious reasons. And those certainly qualified as outstanding architecture. The original quote about religion being required to make good people do bad things, certainly applies here.

This is Bigotry Phank. With a captital 'B'. But lets see, you are an atheist. Oops, I guess religion isn't required to make good people to do bad things after all.

Or is being a Bigot only bad when the Bigot is religious?



Jim

[phank]

This is Bigotry Phank. With a captital 'B'. But lets see, you are an atheist. Oops, I guess religion isn't required to make good people to do bad things after all.

Or is being a Bigot only bad when the Bigot is religious?



Jim

Can you be more specific. I asserted that the Taliban destroyed those statues for religious reasons, because the Taliban SAID that's why they did it. And that makes me a bigot? Then I quoted someone else. Is THAT what makes me a bigot?

Your personal attacks are unfortunately both baseless and demeaning to you. Pray for patience, so you can do better.