john gray's reply to Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens.

[dannagain]

Interesting article:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

Thoughts?

[scratchy]

Whats interesting with it? I couldnt find anything.

[Bikewer]

It's a fairly long article, the gist of which is (I gather) that the author sees Dawkins and the others as "attacking religion" which he sees as an innately human activity.

There does not appear to be any discussion of the actual question of the existence of God/supernatural; it's the same point we've heard about "evangelical atheism" that we've heard before.

[brodski]

It's a fairly long article, the gist of which is (I gather) that the author sees Dawkins and the others as "attacking religion" which he sees as an innately human activity.

There does not appear to be any discussion of the actual question of the existence of God/supernatural; it's the same point we've heard about "evangelical atheism" that we've heard before.

Don't forget, Darwinism and atheism caused the Holocaust!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So. I read the whole damn thing and find that It really is just an opinion piece and has close to zero information content.

What can be made of someone who says:

Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science, for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.

The difference between Science with a Capital "S" and Religion with a Capital "R" is that science has a high degree of coherency, consistency and intersection with reality and religion little, if any, of these.

And you don't prove things are not true just by calling them myths. The author does not like Dawkin's memes very much but does not even try to refute his theory (which is only a "theory" :D).

Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

Hitler may have been "impressed by vulgarised Darwinism" but surely you have to blame vulgarity not Darwin. Hitler may have believed in "race" but science does not. "Science" accepted "Jews" -- Hitler did not; vide his views on "Jewish Science". He supported "Aryan Science". There is no such thing.

And, I see no reason you cannot turn this "explanation" on its head. Why not say that it was religion that was aided by science, rather than the otherway around?

These are my "Thoughts". :cool:

[Moochie]

Gray seems to be under the misapprehension that there is a movement to suppress religion. I am not aware of any such movement.

M.

[brodski]

Hitler may have been "impressed by vulgarised Darwinism" but surely you have to blame vulgarity not Darwin.

Given that Mien kampf contains reference to the earth being not more that 10,000 years old, I fail to see Hitlers support of Darwinian ideas.

[PixyMisa]

Interesting article:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

Thoughts?
Interesting only if you're playing Logical Fallacy Bingo.

[fuelair]

Dannagain failed to actually describe the article. I normally (this was normal) do not go to articles without reason - I have enough to read without that. Fortunately based on other posts here, that was, again, smart of me!!!

[Empress]

Is the author the same John Gray who wrote "Women are from Mars"? If so, although I've never read that book (and promptly circular-filed the copy I was given) I'm not surprised he's a fruitcake.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Is the author the same John Gray who wrote "Women are from Mars"? If so, although I've never read that book (and promptly circular-filed the copy I was given) I'm not surprised he's a fruitcake.

I think it's a different John Gray:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray

[Empress]

I think it's a different John Gray:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray

Aha. Well, he's still a doofus. :)

[JoeEllison]

Gray seems to be under the misapprehension that there is a movement to suppress religion. I am not aware of any such movement.

M.

Personally, I assumed he was a liar or a moron, or possibly both. "Misapprehension" is far too generous a term.

[dannagain]

Hmmm,

Well i thought it was interesting.

I do think that Dennett is talking out of his arse if he thinks that modern technology is going to cause the demise of religion. It's a woo woo idea with no evidence for it.

I also agree with Gray that it's stupid to ever try to draw a moral distinction between being a theist and an atheist. Many on this forum often give the impression that think of themselves as somehow being morally superior to woo's because they happen to have seen through the trap of woo thinking.

[Elizabeth I]

Hitler may have been "impressed by vulgarised Darwinism" but surely you have to blame vulgarity not Darwin.

And Hitler just a little bit too, surely? ;)

Is the author the same John Gray who wrote "Women are from Mars"? If so, although I've never read that book (and promptly circular-filed the copy I was given) I'm not surprised he's a fruitcake.

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus...

...actually, I think men are from somewhere in the region of Betelgeuse...:p

[PixyMisa]

I do think that Dennett is talking out of his arse if he thinks that modern technology is going to cause the demise of religion. It's a woo woo idea with no evidence for it.
Europe.

I also agree with Gray that it's stupid to ever try to draw a moral distinction between being a theist and an atheist. Many on this forum often give the impression that think of themselves as somehow being morally superior to woo's because they happen to have seen through the trap of woo thinking.
No.

[JoeEllison]

I also agree with Gray that it's stupid to ever try to draw a moral distinction between being a theist and an atheist. Many on this forum often give the impression that think of themselves as somehow being morally superior to woo's because they happen to have seen through the trap of woo thinking.

Interestingly, a logical argument can be made that the more religious a person is, the more amoral they are, by definition. After all, someone who accepts a code of conduct based solely on punishment and reward and the authority of the being stating that code, the way the Bible suggests, can only be seen as completely amoral by any normal definition.

[blobru]

Interesting article:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

Thoughts?


John Gray is a notorious contrarian.

Anti-religion, anti-science, anti-humanism, anti-democracy (yet, pro-torture).

In his most recent book, Black Mass, he argues modern belief in progress is rooted in apocalyptic Xtianity, its most recent branches being political: Marxism, Nazism, liberalism; i.e., "utopianism".

His issue with DDH&H is they don't realize that politics and science are based on the same myth of progress and just as dangerous as religion ever was. That's an enormous counterpoint to take on. Though he writes well, he argues it sloppily (as Gord points out above).

Pretty much what you'd expect him to opine -- sharp-eyed cynic versus starry-eyed skeptics -- so a bit anticlimactic. Still worth a look though; thanks.

[Empress]

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus...

...actually, I think men are from somewhere in the region of Betelgeuse...:p


Oops. :o Well, I admitted I hadn't read it. :D

[brodski]

Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus...


However the full title is Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and pop-psychology is from Uranus

[dannagain]

Europe.

America?

No.

Yes.

[dannagain]

His issue with DDH&H is they don't realize that politics and science are based on the same myth of progress and just as dangerous as religion ever was. That's an enormous counterpoint to take on. Though he writes well, he argues it sloppily (as Gord points out above).


Well at least someone saw what I saw. Thanks.

[dannagain]

Interestingly, a logical argument can be made that the more religious a person is, the more amoral they are, by definition. After all, someone who accepts a code of conduct based solely on punishment and reward and the authority of the being stating that code, the way the Bible suggests, can only be seen as completely amoral by any normal definition.

Yeah but IRL it doesn't work like that. People are people and they do bad and good stuff pretty much irregardless of their religious (or lack of) beliefs.
Obviously this is anecdotal but I have never noticed any correlation between a person's theism or atheism and the way the treat other people.

[rocketdodger]

Yeah but IRL it doesn't work like that. People are people and they do bad and good stuff pretty much irregardless of their religious (or lack of) beliefs.
Obviously this is anecdotal but I have never noticed any correlation between a person's theism or atheism and the way the treat other people.

Yeah I see no correlation between extremists' killing others and their theism. Good point.

[PAC]

Yeah but IRL it doesn't work like that. People are people and they do bad and good stuff pretty much irregardless of their religious (or lack of) beliefs.
Obviously this is anecdotal but I have never noticed any correlation between a person's theism or atheism and the way the treat other people.

I have found that the christian fundamentalists I know don't treat other people very well, unless they are part of their church. While I can not say that theism is the reason, it does appear to be the justification.

[PAC]

Don't forget, Darwinism and atheism caused the Holocaust!

I am interested in your support of this statement. Can you expand on this?

[Elizabeth I]

Don't forget, Darwinism and atheism caused the Holocaust!

I am interested in your support of this statement. Can you expand on this?

Um, brodski's post was sarcasm...

[Robin]

Interesting article:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

Thoughts?
There was a moment when I thought he knew the difference between atheism and secularism, but that last sentence crushed that hope.

He seems to think that the idea of church-state separation is an atheist concern, but of course it was originally championed by the dissenting tradition of the Christian religion.

This kind of makes nonsense of the phrase "secular faith"

If he is to take others to task for their lack of knowledge of history, perhaps he should have taken more care with his own.

I agree with part of what he says, that religious violence is just the type of violence that people would engage in anyway, religion being the most convenient excuse.

Deprive them of this excuse and they would find another.

[The Atheist]

So. I read the whole damn thing and find that It really is just an opinion piece and has close to zero information content.

Quite right.

I rated it for a christian site:

Fallacy rating:

Guilt by Association 9
Poisoning the Well 6
Godwin 4