― Matt Cibula (Formerly, the Haikunym), Thursday, 28 December 2006 15:52 (seventeen years ago) link
― and what (ooo), Thursday, 28 December 2006 15:52 (seventeen years ago) link
dude doesn't know his philosophy, just hard sciences, and i feel like an educated theologist (not some strawman ted haggard idiot) could argue circles around him.
― a_p (a_p), Thursday, 28 December 2006 15:53 (seventeen years ago) link
My main problem with all of this is that it's a waste of time. The problem is that we aren't teaching anybody the fundamentals of empirical reasoning until they've already decided to go into a scientific field, and sometimes not even then. You can go to church if you like and whatever, our greater societal issue is that we can't convince people how to not be complete fucking idiots on a day to day basis
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 15:54 (seventeen years ago) link
― and what (ooo), Thursday, 28 December 2006 15:55 (seventeen years ago) link
the exception being the creation vs evolution debate, but i like to live in my fantasy world where biblical literalism is a tiny subset christianity.
― a_p (a_p), Thursday, 28 December 2006 15:58 (seventeen years ago) link
with this statement, a new presidential candidate threw his hat into the ring today
― Matt Cibula (Formerly, the Haikunym), Thursday, 28 December 2006 15:59 (seventeen years ago) link
Come on, this is ludicrous on its face - prayer actually changes the past?
"One study found" is a completely worthless phrase.
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:05 (seventeen years ago) link
huh? who cares? the point is it's not secular or scientific to state a disbelief, atheism belongs in its own church as much as theism does, it's not a set of falsifiable theories and it pollutes the water to present it as such. running around making ted haggard get agitated is not actually helping people learn empirical reasoning.
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:08 (seventeen years ago) link
this is very otm
― a_p (a_p), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― and what (ooo), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:11 (seventeen years ago) link
― a_p (a_p), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:21 (seventeen years ago) link
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:22 (seventeen years ago) link
you could also just listen to some fuckin Stooges amirite
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:23 (seventeen years ago) link
― a_p (a_p), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:23 (seventeen years ago) link
the scientific method is better served by practice, not preaching
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:24 (seventeen years ago) link
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:24 (seventeen years ago) link
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:25 (seventeen years ago) link
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:27 (seventeen years ago) link
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
(i haven't read it all yet, and i don't give TE a whole lot of respect altogether.)
― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:31 (seventeen years ago) link
it seems like lrb/tls/nybooks/harpers types are jumping over htemselves to distance themselves from this & i still havent figured out why
― and what (ooo), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:35 (seventeen years ago) link
damn dude pay attention
― Matt Cibula (Formerly, the Haikunym), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:38 (seventeen years ago) link
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:40 (seventeen years ago) link
Yeah, that's part of the thing. Militancy does nothing but further ossify both sides, so guys like Dawkins coming out like assholes only reinforces the corresponding assholes on the opposite side re: the bullshit dichotomy between God vs Science.
― kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:41 (seventeen years ago) link
― Matt Cibula (Formerly, the Haikunym), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:42 (seventeen years ago) link
― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:42 (seventeen years ago) link
― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:42 (seventeen years ago) link
― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:45 (seventeen years ago) link
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:46 (seventeen years ago) link
― Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:47 (seventeen years ago) link
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775
― mcoleman (lovebug ), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:49 (seventeen years ago) link
― and what (ooo), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:50 (seventeen years ago) link
― and what (ooo), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:51 (seventeen years ago) link
what's the difference between that and the kind of atheism dawkins puts forward?
Maybe I'm just confused as to what's trying to be accomplished here. Maybe Dawkins and his flock are actually pursuing an escalation, maybe he's hoping he catches a bullet from a psycho one day and sets off another great religious war-down to posthumously vindicate himself
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 16:58 (seventeen years ago) link
but they don't need to be engaged with. they're harmless in every conceivable way. they're not going to force yr kid to salute the bible or bow toward mecca. those people i have no problem with -- and it's arguably in alienating them that the hardcore dawkins types make their biggest mistake.
but anyway, i don't have any problem with the militant atheists. they're a predictable and healthy response to the militant theists. "moderate" "sensible" liberals like to deride the militant atheists because it makes them feel more comfortable with their place in culture-war politics. it reassures them that they're not "extremists" just because they don't like jerry falwell, because look, they think richard dawkins is intolerant too!
i don't feel any great compulsion to read any of these books, but i enjoy watching them slug it out on the best-seller lists with bill o'reilly and rick warren.
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:00 (seventeen years ago) link
And hell, you even have one side that completely rejects debate and engagement out of hand as signs of mealy-mouthed weakness(whereas the other side can at least claim their stance coming from that tradition).
Part of it is that the louder figureheads of both sides command enough media attention to attack anyone coming out with actual sensible, normal positions(e.g. God & science tend to address completely different things) as facile capitulators and appeasers of the other side.
― kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:05 (seventeen years ago) link
FUCKS sake ethan, let go
i articulated my response to that article badly. our views are actually far more alike than you seem to be able to accept. for a start, i loathe libertarianism, for seconds, i agree that dawkins is essentially correct about most of what he addresses, and thirdly i read that article when in a fragile state; my initial response was an unthinking knee-jerk. i retracted it even before you had a chance to call me a 'muslim-hater', which for someone who doesn't know me in the slightest is a fucking disgrace.
hurting's 'might as well be atheistic' version of christianity is nonetheless that of a far more interesting, tolerable faith than the hardcore dinosaur idiocy we see far too much of in these not-so enlightened times. and don't take me up on 'hardcore dinosaur idiocy'; it's not meant to be an argument, it's meant to be an outburst.
― Comrades, meet Tildo Durd (Scourage), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:05 (seventeen years ago) link
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:06 (seventeen years ago) link
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:07 (seventeen years ago) link
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:11 (seventeen years ago) link
― Jessie the Monster (scarymonster), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:14 (seventeen years ago) link
neither religious types nor scientists agree with this, that's the whole problem.
― urghonomic (gcannon), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:14 (seventeen years ago) link
"The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting.
As for McGrath's book, I read it with genuine curiosity to discover whether he had any argument to offer in favor of his theistic belief. The nearest I could find was his statement that you cannot disprove it. Well, that may be true, but it isn't very impressive, is it?"
the last paragraph pretty much nails Dawkins as a senile demagogue. this is why scientists have a problem with him. and I think "nu-media savvy" seems to be a term that applies mostly to shit that sucks compared to the non-new-media savvy versions - but I'm a meme rockist
― the straw that stirs the titan's drink (trm), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:20 (seventeen years ago) link
maybe some of them are religious? or find dawkins to be anti-intellectual?
― nuneb (nuneb), Thursday, 28 December 2006 17:23 (seventeen years ago) link
no, i think i understand it very well.
you and everyone else going to bat for theological deconstructionists are the reason that everyone in the west/midwest thinks you're a bunch of 'real-person' hating fags (even though you're just being thoughtful or something)
i'm not 'going to bat' for anyone. i'm saying that if you think that a) most suburbanites who go to church every week in a big rec hall with a good av system instead of a small new england church with a big white steeple are 'fundamentalists', or that b) pat robertson has more influence on american culture than britney spears, you're a moron.
― nuneb (nuneb), Friday, 29 December 2006 21:49 (seventeen years ago) link
From a Socratic, argument-for-argument's-sake standpoint, I think yr picking good targets. But if you have a point (other than that people tend to express their class prejudices when talking about religion), I'd be curious to hear it.
― adam beales (pye poudre), Friday, 29 December 2006 21:56 (seventeen years ago) link
yes. you can also be nice about telling them that jesus christ is the way and the truth and the life. but if you spend a lot of time surrounded by people who aren't nice about that at all -- like my friend in tennessee, e.g. -- then maybe you have an appetite for someone fighting fire with brimstone.
if you think that a) most suburbanites who go to church every week in a big rec hall with a good av system instead of a small new england church with a big white steeple are 'fundamentalists', or that b) pat robertson has more influence on american culture than britney spears, you're a moron.
i don't know about "most" suburban megachurches; there are megachurches of all persuasions, even unitarian. but a lot of them are evangelical, and they are the social and political core of american fundamentalism. and the point isn't whether britney spears is bigger than god. what i said is that fundamentalists have dominated american religious discourse for a generation. now there is some pushback, but the fact that people like dawkins -- or the few high-profile liberal christians like jim wallis -- seem novel just points up how one-sided the rhetoric has been.
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Friday, 29 December 2006 22:02 (seventeen years ago) link
if that's true, i think it's a sign of the secularization of the country
― nuneb (nuneb), Friday, 29 December 2006 22:04 (seventeen years ago) link
or i could just say,
oh come on.
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Friday, 29 December 2006 22:12 (seventeen years ago) link
― Edvard Butt Munchausen (Edvard Butt Munchausen), Friday, 29 December 2006 22:22 (seventeen years ago) link
― Edvard Butt Munchausen (Edvard Butt Munchausen), Friday, 29 December 2006 22:53 (seventeen years ago) link
I said you can not establish that religion has an overall positive OR negative effect, there are effects in both directions, so I wish that entire stupid argument would just go away. Also, there's a big difference between saying religion is inspiring for some people, as individuals, and encouraging it as a "useful myth for societal control". It's useful for me, but the vast majority of my friends, even the ones I know through community service and activism, are atheists, and I would never try to "improve" them through religion..
Also, if you have a concept of God that's not just him existing to fill in the holes science hasn't gotten to yet, and one that isn't scientifically provable or falsifiable, the "God clearly doesn't exist, stop believing lies" argument is not nearly a good enough argument for why any belief in God is bad and destructive. I really don't see what harm liberal Christians are doing by merely existing.
(xxxxpost)
― Maria e (Maria), Friday, 29 December 2006 22:57 (seventeen years ago) link
― Edvard Butt Munchausen (Edvard Butt Munchausen), Friday, 29 December 2006 23:14 (seventeen years ago) link
...
So long, friends!
and
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
― Edvard Butt Munchausen (Edvard Butt Munchausen), Friday, 29 December 2006 23:17 (seventeen years ago) link
Lock thread.
Goodnight kids, and God bless. Best in the new year. Not sure I can honestly say I love you one and all, but if I did, I'm almost sure I would.
― adam beales (pye poudre), Friday, 29 December 2006 23:48 (seventeen years ago) link
― amon (amon), Friday, 29 December 2006 23:58 (seventeen years ago) link
Right right, no disagreement from me about that - sorry I wasn't being too clear here, but the reason I brought up the historical religious roots of western science was more to invalidate Dawkins' claims about religion being the most harmful thing ever in human society (paraphrasing roughly here), not that science should cling to outmoded or invalidated beliefs. He can't have it both ways - the very thing he's decrying as holding humanity back basically established the theoretical and rhetorical framework he's using to make that accusation. Its like a child saying their parents are the worst thing ever and that they've never produced anything worthwhile in their lives. Its, y'know, snotty and arrogant and displays a lack of self-awareness.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 04:59 (seventeen years ago) link
so don't give "we owe science to religion," unless what you mean by it is "we should be thankful the priests didn't kill all the scientists."
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 30 December 2006 06:16 (seventeen years ago) link
― latebloomer (clonefeed), Saturday, 30 December 2006 06:28 (seventeen years ago) link
I don't believe Dawkins is ignoring that history, he's simply concluding that the three centuries of discourse hasn't improved anything and enough is enough - it's itme to be militaristic. If you're deal-brokering with religion then it's a slippery slope to eventual contamination. It's a Steve Ditko Mr. A story starring Dawkins as one of the talking heads.
Of course Dawkins picks easy targets... Ted Haggard, creationists, etc. I don't see him going to an inner city AME, a Sanctuary Movement congregation, or anyplace where the local church is the only support network in town.
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Saturday, 30 December 2006 06:47 (seventeen years ago) link
what did?
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 30 December 2006 07:05 (seventeen years ago) link
i meant that this makes it sound like science and religion were always distinct entities which were...ahhhh fugedduhboutit
the funny thing about all this is that most people posting to this proibably agree on most of the basic issues we're addressing. it's just a matter of whether you like dawkins' way of approaching this.
ha, maybe that's another reason he's annoying, he's more polarizing than enlightening.
― latebloomer (clonefeed), Saturday, 30 December 2006 08:08 (seventeen years ago) link
― latebloomer (clonefeed), Saturday, 30 December 2006 08:16 (seventeen years ago) link
of course not. they've been intertwined forever. but they represent different strands of the same instinct -- to understand the world and why and how it is -- and it's a fallacy to say science somehow arises from religion. they arise from similar questions but have gone in somewhat different and periodically conflicting directions. a lot of people don't have any great problem reconciling them. but as with any division, there are people and institutions that see gain in exploiting the differences.
what bothers some people about dawkins, i guess, is that he doesn't seem interested in reconciliation -- in coming back to the comfortable live-and-let-live position that a lot of people, religious and nonreligious, are happy to occupy, where we're all willing to let science happen (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody) and let religion happen (ditto). but he's defending the Secular Science wing, which has been under sort of sustained assault lately and is likely feeling kind of lonely and unloved, and it's expecting too much of the atheists maybe to also make some grand live-and-let-live gesture, because they're not convinced that the people they're up against are willing to do the same.
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 30 December 2006 08:41 (seventeen years ago) link
Not necessarily true. Some theological movements of the Middle Ages and Renaissance were about negotiating the "barriers" between religion and reason.
― LynnK (klynn), Saturday, 30 December 2006 15:47 (seventeen years ago) link
I'm not talking about their theoretical or philosophical similarities, I'm talking about the actual physical people and institutions that developed science and the scientific method as we know it today, and I cited specific examples. The roots of western science go back to Greco-Roman (and by extension Egyptians and others) folks - Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc. - and not only were all of these guys profoundly superstitious and inextricably bound up with the religious institutions of their day, it was religious institutions (namely the Catholic Church and Muslim theologians/scholars) that preserved that work and prepared it for its European revival centuries later. While Europe was busy being all filthy and ignorant in the Middle Ages, the Muslim theocracy was busy advancing and preserving the disciplines of medicine, astronomy, chemistry, math, etc. There were no non-religious-oriented scientific institutions pursuing these schools of thought in the West (or Islam, for that matter) - for the first few thousand years that science was developing, it was hand-in-hand and explicitly under the guidance of religion and religious institutions - priests with libraries, basically. This doesn't have anything to do with whether the two are of similar intent or different strands of the same instinct, the fact is they were pretty much inextricably intermarried until a bunch of European scientists got fed up with kowtowing to religious politics.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:27 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:30 (seventeen years ago) link
― remy bean (bean), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:34 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:35 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:37 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:38 (seventeen years ago) link
― suzy artskooldisko (suzy artskooldisko), Saturday, 30 December 2006 17:02 (seventeen years ago) link
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 30 December 2006 18:05 (seventeen years ago) link
I mean essentially I agree with the more holistic worldview you describe - where all of these elements exist and develop together - but Dawkins' argument attempts to separate religion out of this matrix and blame it for society's ills, which is what I have a problem with. Its like when atheists get all excited about blaming religion as the source of all wars throughout history or some such bullshit, its just myopic and simplistic and innacurate.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 30 December 2006 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link
Formerly known as "religion".
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Saturday, 30 December 2006 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 30 December 2006 22:15 (seventeen years ago) link
10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism
― kingfish in absentia (kingfish), Sunday, 31 December 2006 08:29 (seventeen years ago) link
for me, it's pretty simple: atheists getting "militant" on everybody's ass is spectacularly unhelpful. what dawkins and others are doing - and they really don't seem to realise the irony - is repositioning "atheism" as not just a lack of belief but as a belief system in itself: ie "i identify myself as a devout non-believer, and will angrily spout the following atheist dogma".
jesus christ bloody hell for god's sake ... er, look, fellow atheists. it's not difficult. we're meant to be the tolerant ones, remember?
― grimly fiendish (simon), Sunday, 31 December 2006 15:39 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 31 December 2006 16:58 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 31 December 2006 17:00 (seventeen years ago) link
"god": a theoretical concept invented by humans in a (pretty flawed) attempt to etc etc.
"the internet": an etc etc etc.
― grimly fiendish (simon), Sunday, 31 December 2006 17:51 (seventeen years ago) link
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Sunday, 31 December 2006 18:51 (seventeen years ago) link
― Maria e (Maria), Sunday, 31 December 2006 19:47 (seventeen years ago) link
maybe you'd like it better in RUSSIA where THEY DON'T HAVE GOD
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Sunday, 31 December 2006 19:58 (seventeen years ago) link
happy new year you theocrazies
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Sunday, 31 December 2006 20:03 (seventeen years ago) link
i thought agnostics were the tolerant ones. the perceived dogmatism of atheists is what keeps some of us agnostic.
― tipsy mothra (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 31 December 2006 21:00 (seventeen years ago) link
http://salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/print.html
"Q: Now, one thing I find curious is your own position in this debate. Your book "The Creationists" is generally acknowledged to be the history of creationism. You've also been very upfront about your own lack of religious belief. Yet, as far as I can tell, you seem to be held in high regard both by creationists and by scientists, which -- I have to say -- is a neat trick. How have you managed this?
A: Unlike many people, I haven't gone out of my way to attack or ridicule critics of evolution. I know some of the people I've written about. They're good people. I know it's not because they're stupid that they are creationists. I'm talking about all my family, too, who are still creationists. So that easy explanation that so many anti-creationists use -- that they're just illiterate hillbillies -- doesn't have any appeal to me, although I'm quite happy to admit that there are some really stupid creationists. "
― schwantz (schwantz), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (Hardcover) by Carl Sagan
http://www.amazon.com/Varieties-Scientific-Experience-Personal-Search/dp/1594201072/sr=8-1/qid=1167767176/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9541001-0413728?ie=UTF8&s=books
― o. nate (o. nate), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:49 (seventeen years ago) link