I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress

[Meadmaker]

I first ran across Richard Dawkins as a writer on religion in the Wired article last Fall about "The New Atheists". I had read "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene", and knew he was a prominent atheist, but I had never paid much attention to his philosophy. There was a quote in the Wired article that caught my eye, though. It regarded the teaching of children and whether or not "society" ought to "intervene" to prevent teaching them religion.

A bit of googling yielded his essay, "Religion's Real Child Abuse", which I found disturbing. Worse yet, it commended an essay "What Shall We Tell the Children" (Nicholas Humphries? I think that's the author's name.) That one I found positively frightening. The author makes it quite explicit that he would favor governmental regulation of religious education. He makes it quite explicity that this was, as far as he was concerned, more important than the principle of free speech.

Combined with Dawkins' presence on the best-seller list, and a lot of quoting him on JREF, I decided I ought to read his book. I requested it from the local library, where it was on a lengthy waiting list. It finally arrived Tuesday.

So far, I'm pleasantly surprised. It's less strident and more witty than I expected. Of course, he pulls no punches, but that seems reasonable. His point is that religion really is ridiculous and mocking it is appropriate. That, in and of itself, doesn't bother me. It's when he starts talking about "whether or not society ought to intervene" that I get very worried, but at least in the first four chapters, there's none of that.

There are a couple of things I don't like, as one might expect. The idea that such luminaries as Einstein discussed nature using religious language is referred to as "intellectual high treason". I find that I, like Einstein, have become increasingly comfortable with the language of God now that I've moved away from the belief in the reality of God. Unlike Einstein, but like many other examples Dawkins mentions, I actually go to religious services and participate in rituals, despite not believing the reality of those things that go on in the synagogue. Saying that those of us who might refer to God when we mean nature are traitors strikes me as very divisive, and just a bit troubling.

Also, I found myself a bit irritated with him on some relatively minor points reading chapter four. He talks at length about ID supporters' use of the term "by chance", and criticizes them for it, insisting that "chance" is not the way life came about. As it turns out, twenty years ago or so when I was working on a Master's thesis, I was studying the newly resurgent field of neural networks, and also genetic algorithms. The papers I was reading used the terms "random", "stochastic", and, to a lesser extent, "chance" quite freely. Were all those papers wrong? We were trying to create machines that would self-discover pattern recognition algorithms from random starting points and using random inputs. Some methods had more randomness than others, and all of them followed rules, but we didn't hesitate in saying the "chance" was involved in the outcome. We would have been offended if someone insisted that we were assembling pattern recognizers in a manner similar to a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747, but we didn't shrink from the term "chance" just because some people might misunderstand it.

It just seems to me that saying evolution occurs by chance is a reasonably accurate description, and saying that evolution is a random process is absolutely 100% accurate. I took whole classes on random processes, and evolution is one of them. Just like evolution, the outcomes of many very interesting random processes are very predictable, but that doesn't make them less random. His disdain for the term makes me think that he has bought into the other guys' use of the term. They're using it wrong, and his response is to insist that we stop using it altogether. It makes me think that his real objection to the term is that he has decided it is THEIR term, and so that makes it bad.

Also, the title of chapter 4 is "Why There is Almost Certainly No God". (I hope I got that right. I don't have the book in front of me.) I haven't finished the chapter, but I think he is going to insist that somehow, something makes God improbable. If he insists on that, I'm going to complain that he is misusing probability. Probability is a quite exact branch of mathematics, and I'm pretty darned certain that it is impossible to calculate a meaningful probability about whether or not God exists. I'll withold final judgement until the end of the chapter, but his earlier hints, and the discussion so far, make me think that he is abusing the term, which I find unworthy in a science writer.

I also definitely think he is misrepresenting some of the religious people's views, but he isn't horribly distorting them, just giving a slightly misleading picture with minor sins of omission or overgeneralization.

On the plus side, he did a better job than anyone I have ever read discussing the concept of "irreducible complexity". Some people here have tried to handle it, failed, and gotten very upset at me or others who insist that they got it wrong. Dawkins appears to have gotten it right. The important part is that the concept is not meaningless. It makes sense. It's just that the ID supporters themselves often apply the term badly.

It's a lengthy book. I'll see if there's anything in it that makes my blood boil later on. So far, I expected it to be rather offensive, and I find that it is not. Oh, sure, those whose ox is being gored might not like it, but the targets of ridicule can't really be expected to sing the praises of the ridiculer.

[JamesDillon]

Dawkins has gone off the deep end with that "protecting children from the 'abuse' of religious indoctrination" nonsense-- not the way to persuade the world to consider atheism. When it's not saying bat**** crazy things like that, I thought The God Delusion was okay, though its treatment of philosophical issues was rather elementary. I like Dawkins a lot better when he writes about what he knows-- science, not philosophy, or law (I've read a couple of his essays on the legal system that made me shudder).

[skeptifem]

^^^i guess you havent seen that creepy 'aquire the fire' show. they seriously go into a 'get them while they are young' speech, citing statistics on how witnessing to young people/children is much more likely to keep them religious for life, encouraging children to pressure each other into being a part of christianity. they also do the 'soldier for god' routine (its rather insulting how they compare witnessing to going to the war in iraq, but i guess their aim is to make kids feel like they are a part of something that is life or death important) and reading what dawkins has to say seems over the top until you see that there are people on the religious side targeting children and doing whatever it takes to scare them into believing. I do think it can be harmful to children as well, i mean how many of us here were still screwed up by religious ideas way after becoming adults?

I dont know what can be reasonably done, but i do think its wrong to teach children completely outrageous and ultimatley hurtful things when there isnt any evidence for it. Its just like people who convince their children they are psychic. its bad for everyone.

[JamesDillon]

Of course the religious right-- and more specifically, religious parents-- "target" children in the sense of taking steps to pass on their own values and beliefs to the next generation; it should surprise absolutely no one that, believe it or not, many atheist/nonreligious parents "target" their children as convenient receptacles for their own beliefs, too. Every culture throughout human history, so far as I'm aware, has made a point of indoctrinating children in its cultural norms from an early age; that's how cultural memes are transmitted, to use Dawkins's terminology. The equation of religious indoctrination with physical or emotional abuse (or the suggestion, which Dawkins has made, that a Catholic upbringing is more harmful to a child than being sexually molested by a priest) is simply raving lunacy.

[Beerina]

Guys like Dawkins and Harris have decided it's time to lock horns with religion directly and call its bluff. It is the core concept of religion that is the cause of the problem, when combined with our society's reluctance to criticize religion.

[knot]

I think it's pretty much a delusion but I'll identify as agnostic just in case.

[slingblade]

Now you've done it, knot. Go sit over there with Pascal until you see the folly of your reasoning. ;)

[andyandy]

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/andyandy/strip/2007/04/29/god_embed.png (http://anthropomorphicap.stripgenerator.com/2007/04/29/god.html)

ok....i'm just trolling this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80747) :D

[Moochie]

Dawkins has gone off the deep end with that "protecting children from the 'abuse' of religious indoctrination" nonsense-- not the way to persuade the world to consider atheism. When it's not saying bat**** crazy things like that, I thought The God Delusion was okay, though its treatment of philosophical issues was rather elementary. I like Dawkins a lot better when he writes about what he knows-- science, not philosophy, or law (I've read a couple of his essays on the legal system that made me shudder).

I don't think he's offering atheism for your or anyone else's consideration. If you think like him, you will know that atheism is where people of sound mind will quite naturally arrive at.

M.

[jjramsey]

It's a lengthy book. I'll see if there's anything in it that makes my blood boil later on.

I found that the book seemed better than I expected at first, but looking back, I noticed some serious flaws that were easy to overlook at first because Dawkins is such a slick writer. Probably the most moronic part of the book is the Neville Chamberlain atheists bit (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/hitler_zombie_massacre_over_evolution_pa.php).

If I were to lend a theist some food for thought, I'd much rather lend Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God CD than Dawkins' book, since there is much less to pick at.

[JamesDillon]

I don't think he's offering atheism for your or anyone else's consideration. If you think like him, you will know that atheism is where people of sound mind will quite naturally arrive at.

M.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean; are you suggesting that The God Delusion is not an attempt to persuade the reading public to adopt atheism? That position is clearly rebutted by the first page of Dawkins's preface, in which he writes that the book is intended "to raise consciousness -- raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." The rest of the preface goes on to discuss how Dawkins hopes that each chapter of the book will persuade the reader of some point. I cannot fathom how you could have read the book and have come away with the impression that it is not intended to persuade the reader of anything.

[Civilized Worm]

This idea that Dawkins wants to forcibly prevent indoctrination of children is a strawman. He is morally opposed to it, as he is the labelling of young children as being of a particular faith but I cannot recall him ever suggesting that such things be made illegal. He does want to see an end to faith schools but I think that's entirely reasonable.


The equation of religious indoctrination with physical or emotional abuse (or the suggestion, which Dawkins has made, that a Catholic upbringing is more harmful to a child than being sexually molested by a priest) is simply raving lunacy.


That's rather an unfair representation, what he said was that in some cases it could be more damaging to a child to be filled with fears of hell and damnation that to be touched a bit. In fact he quoted a woman who experienced both and was far more upset by the former.

[JC Fla]

Guys like Dawkins and Harris have decided it's time to lock horns with religion directly and call its bluff. It is the core concept of religion that is the cause of the problem, when combined with our society's reluctance to criticize religion.

Don't forget Christopher Hitchens...God is not Great has some interesting part. Particularly Chapter 4. Religion and health care.

[qayak]

Dawkins has gone off the deep end with that "protecting children from the 'abuse' of religious indoctrination" nonsense-- not the way to persuade the world to consider atheism. When it's not saying bat**** crazy things like that, . . .

You'll have to explain why that is a bat**** crazy idea. Dawkins makes a very logical argument why it is true, your simple thoughts on it do not cast any doubt on his mental state but they do cast some on yours.

In fact, courts have already stepped in. When someone refuses their child medical attention on religious grounds the courts step in to protect the child. After all, the child has not decided whether they believe in the religion their parents have indoctrinated them into. They are held to the rules simply because their parents belong.

Why is it that a parent can be charged with negligence for witholding food from a child but not for witholding medical treatment based on religious grounds? Why is it okay to say you wish to allow your child to die because the religion you belong to does not believe in medical intervention but not okay to say that you wish to allow your child to die just because you wish to allow your child to die?

It isn't that Dawkins' reasoning is flawed, it's your ability to follow it is.

[qayak]

The equation of religious indoctrination with physical or emotional abuse (or the suggestion, which Dawkins has made, that a Catholic upbringing is more harmful to a child than being sexually molested by a priest) is simply raving lunacy.

Except that Dawkins was molested by a priest and so I guess he is able to make that judgement sanely.

[jjramsey]

Why is it that a parent can be charged with negligence for witholding food from a child but not for witholding medical treatment based on religious grounds?

If by religious child abuse, he were only referring to things that would still be called child abuse if religion weren't involved, like denial of medical treatment or proper education, that would be fine. However, labeling children with a religious identification is also treated as "child abuse" (p. 337-8, TGD), which is rather trivializing.

[JamesDillon]

qayak et al,

Dawkins's argument is not limited to instances like Jehovah's Witnesses denying blood transfusions to their children on religious grounds-- his position is that religious instruction in itself is a form of child abuse. So your arguments about religious parents allowing children to die or to suffer harm is, at best, irrelevant. While I disagree with theistic beliefs, the idea that taking a child to Sunday school is on par with any form of actual "abuse" is simply so far outside the bounds of a reasonable weighing of these issues that I'm forced to conclude that Dawkins's judgment is being influenced by his own emotional responses here-- the type of thinking that, in his clearer moments, he forcefully rejects. I further note, in response to Civilized Worm, that I never said that Dawkins wants to forcibly prevent religious indoctrination. What I said was, Dawkins has stated that religious indoctrination is the moral equivalent of child abuse. That does pose an interesting conundrum for him, though-- if he actually believes that statement, then it seems to follow that he is logically obliged to either favor forcible prevention of religious indoctrination, up to and including depriving parents who persist in such behavior of custody of their offspring, or to argue that some forms of child abuse should not be punished criminally. Neither alternative seems particularly appealing to me.

[The Great Hairy One]

I've read the book, and I thought it was most excellent.

In answer to your concerns about Chapter 4, Dawkins simply points out that the christian god-concept is extremely complex, and for such a concept to arise by spontaneous generation is not scientifically possible.

Also, at no point does Dawkins advocate for the government to ban religious upbringings, rather he posits that a religious upbringing can cause more mental damage than sexual abuse. He also provides examples to back up his theory (although it would require a lot more work to become accepted, obviously).

Cheers,
TGHO

[The Great Hairy One]

While I disagree with theistic beliefs, the idea that taking a child to Sunday school is on par with any form of actual "abuse" is simply so far outside the bounds of a reasonable weighing of these issues


Why? For example, this child is told that their best friend, who has a different religion, will burn in Hell forever. Wouldn't that cause considerable mental suffering? Furthermore, if this child grows up fully believing the teachings of their religion, they could end up considering this once-best friend sub-human.

What I said was, Dawkins has stated that religious indoctrination is the moral equivalent of child abuse. That does pose an interesting conundrum for him, though-- if he actually believes that statement, then it seems to follow that he is logically obliged to either favor forcible prevention of religious indoctrination, up to and including depriving parents who persist in such behavior of custody of their offspring, or to argue that some forms of child abuse should not be punished criminally.


No, what he needs to do, if he wishes to actively pursue this theory, is to do some research to back up his ideas. If the data shows that he is right, then every sane person should support him. If the data shows he is wrong, then he should abandon this theory. Simple as that.

Cheers,
TGHO

[qayak]

qayak et al,

Dawkins's argument is not limited to instances like Jehovah's Witnesses denying blood transfusions to their children on religious grounds-- his position is that religious instruction in itself is a form of child abuse. So your arguments about religious parents allowing children to die or to suffer harm is, at best, irrelevant. While I disagree with theistic beliefs, the idea that taking a child to Sunday school is on par with any form of actual "abuse" is simply so far outside the bounds of a reasonable weighing of these issues that I'm forced to conclude that Dawkins's judgment is being influenced by his own emotional responses here-- the type of thinking that, in his clearer moments, he forcefully rejects. I further note, in response to Civilized Worm, that I never said that Dawkins wants to forcibly prevent religious indoctrination. What I said was, Dawkins has stated that religious indoctrination is the moral equivalent of child abuse. That does pose an interesting conundrum for him, though-- if he actually believes that statement, then it seems to follow that he is logically obliged to either favor forcible prevention of religious indoctrination, up to and including depriving parents who persist in such behavior of custody of their offspring, or to argue that some forms of child abuse should not be punished criminally. Neither alternative seems particularly appealing to me.

It doesn't force a religious conundrum on him. It forces one onto society. How can we claim freedom of religion when children are forced to believe what their parents believe? Dawkins makes the claim that religion is given special status when it comes to the most vulnerable members of society. You would certainly not let anyone tell you which religion to follow or even whether you shoudl follow one but children are told which one they HAVE to follow. This is a form of child abuse.

And having said that, Dawkins has already stated that he does not mean that government should step in for the more reasonable cases of religious indoctrination.

[qayak]

If by religious child abuse, he were only referring to things that would still be called child abuse if religion weren't involved, like denial of medical treatment or proper education, that would be fine. However, labeling children with a religious identification is also treated as "child abuse" (p. 337-8, TGD), which is rather trivializing.

How can someone say their child is christian or muslim or jewish? Those children to not have the ability to make that decision. Why is it seen as wrong to tell an adult what religious group they have to belong to but perfectly okay to tell a child? Is age really that important or should we look closer at the mental damage this could do to a child.

I think it is as bad as making your male child grow up as a female or vice versa. It denies who they really are and causes psychological damage.

[JamesDillon]

It doesn't force a religious conundrum on him. It forces one onto society.
Only to the extent that society accepts Dawkins's rather alarmist characterization of what's happening here.
How can we claim freedom of religion when children are forced to believe what their parents believe?
Because children have fewer freedoms than adults? You might as well say, "How can we claim freedom of speech when children aren't allowed to talk back to their parents"? How can we pretend to have protection from unreasonable searches and seizures when mom can look under Johnny's matress any time she pleases? How can we claim to respect due process when Sally gets grounded for a month for not doing her chores? It's simple-- children don't have the same rights that adults do. Parents act, appropriately enough, in loco parentis with respect to their children. Moreover, parents are expected to teach their children right from wrong, and a parent who failed to teach her child not to lie, steal, cheat, etc., would rightly be viewed as derelict in her parental duties. For many parents, probably the majority, that includes passing along religious beliefs.

In any case, though, children are never "forced" to follow the religion of their parents, though they may be forced to profess it and attend religious services for their first 18 years or so. Dawkins is well aware, as, I suspect, are we all, that it's simply impossible to force anyone to actually believe something against their will. Without having taken a poll on the issue, I rather suspect that a substantial portion of the nonbelievers in this forum were raised in theistic households, but at some point rejected those beliefs.

Dawkins makes the claim that religion is given special status when it comes to the most vulnerable members of society.
He may make that claim, but if so, he's clearly wrong. What "special status" is religion given in a society which, as I noted above, expects and to some extent requires parents to pass along the skills and knowledge their children will need to assimilate into society? Parents pass along everything from political persuasions to favorite sports teams to occupation-related skills to, yes, religious beliefs, to their children, and with the exception of a few extremely antisocial examples, society recognizes that parents are doing a valuable service in preparing future citizens, despite the fact that the beliefs and values they are transmitting are inevitably conflicting with those of others and may be to some extent harmful to the child. But for good reasons, I think, society takes a generally hands-off approach to the mentoring relationship between a parent and child. Dawkins's argument is therefore exactly backwards-- only if religious instruction were submitted to a higher level of social scrutiny than any other type of parental instruction would it be given a "special status."

You would certainly not let anyone tell you which religion to follow or even whether you shoudl follow one but children are told which one they HAVE to follow. This is a form of child abuse.
It is a form of nonsense, perhaps. Are we next going to argue that forcing kids to eat Brussels sprouts is a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Children are also told by parents and teachers that the HAVE to believe that 2+2=4, that the sun is a huge ball of hydrogen being converted into helium by the process of nuclear fusion, that "Mississippi" is spelled M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I, and a plethora of other things. To religious parents, the fact of God's existence is just as much a true fact about the universe as any of those things. Again-- children are not adults, they do not enjoy the freedoms that adults do, and they are, for good reasons, committed to the care of their parents, even when the decisions those parents make in raising them might be objectionable from others' perspectives.

And having said that, Dawkins has already stated that he does not mean that government should step in for the more reasonable cases of religious indoctrination.
Which just reiterates the point I made above-- if religious indoctrination is the moral equivalent of physical or sexual abuse, why [I]isn't the government obliged to prevent it?

[qayak]

Because children have fewer freedoms than adults?

ETA: This part was very awkward so I completely changed it.

Agreed and children have fewer freedoms because they are unable to decide for themselves if something is right or wrong for them. They are not allowed to drink, sign contracts, submit themselves to medical procedures, etc. Of course, many of these things are outside their parents allowable powers as well. They cannot decide to let their 6 year old child drink. They cannot decide to let their 4 year old child drive to the store and buy a pack of cigarettes. However, when the children reach the age when they are allowed to do these things, those children get to make up their own minds about them. Parents cannot force their children to drink alcohol, drive cars if they don't want to, smoke if they don't want to.

Why is religion exempt from allowing children to make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so?

How can we pretend to have protection from unreasonable searches and seizures when mom can look under Johnny's matress any time she pleases?

Because it's mommy's house! If that kid moves out of the house at 17 or 18, mommy is no longer allowed to look under his matress.

How can we claim to respect due process when Sally gets grounded for a month for not doing her chores?

Because failure to do your chores is not against the law.

In any case, though, children are never "forced" to follow the religion of their parents, though they may be forced to profess it and attend religious services for their first 18 years or so.

What rose coloured fantasyland do you live in?

Dawkins is well aware, as, I suspect, are we all, that it's simply impossible to force anyone to actually believe something against their will. Without having taken a poll on the issue, I rather suspect that a substantial portion of the nonbelievers in this forum were raised in theistic households, but at some point rejected those beliefs.

There is much research that says you are 100% wrong and when you restrict your children's access to other information what alternative do they have?

Children are also told by parents and teachers that the HAVE to believe that 2+2=4, that the sun is a huge ball of hydrogen being converted into helium by the process of nuclear fusion, that "Mississippi" is spelled M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I, and a plethora of other things.

They are not told they have to BELIEVE it. They are shown that it is a fact. If it could be demonstrated that religious teachings are fact, then we could little argue over their being taught to children.

You have this mistake ingrained into your brain that a fact is simply a belief. It isn't. It remains a fact no matter what you believe.

To religious parents, the fact of God's existence is just as much a true fact about the universe as any of those things.

And the other aspect of my last statement is that just because you believe soemthing to be a fact doesn't make it so. If religious parents believe that it is a fact that god will cure their child with diabetes, is it morally right for them to refuse to allow their child insulin? Is it morally right for us to allow the child to die just in case there is a god who will step in at the last possible moment? Or should we simply take custody of the child who doesn't have the ability to form opinions on these things and give them medical treatment until they are old enough to make them on their own?

Again-- children are not adults, they do not enjoy the freedoms that adults do, and they are, for good reasons, committed to the care of their parents, even when the decisions those parents make in raising them might be objectionable from others' perspectives.

Forget other people's perspectives, what is best for the child? That is the decider in these types of cases. In my divorce, there were three people at the table, me, my soon to be ex-wife and a children's advocate to make sure their best interests were looked after. The judge even wrote that the agreement was acceptable because it took the best interests of the children into account on all issues.

Which just reiterates the point I made above-- if religious indoctrination is the moral equivalent of physical or sexual abuse, why isn't the government obliged to prevent it?

For years governments didn't do anything about physical and sexual abuse of children, now they do. Dawkins is suggesting, and I agree, that it is time for these issues to be brought to the attention of governments and the courts.

Attitudes change and progress is made. Religion seems to always be the hold out on advancements in society. Perhaps it is time to take religion out of the equation. Believe what you want but don't force it onto anyone else, whether they be children or adults.

[bignickel]

I, and many other Western men, got a piece of his body cut off as a baby, because I was "a Christian boy." I wasn't asked, and I certainly wouldn't have agreed, to have an unnecessary medical procedure to remove my flesh (which happens to give greater pleasure during certain activities in life. or so I hear. I'll never know).

But, religion never hurt any kid, did it?

[JamesDillon]

I, and many other Western men, got a piece of his body cut off as a baby, because I was "a Christian boy." I wasn't asked, and I certainly wouldn't have agreed, to have an unnecessary medical procedure to remove my flesh (which happens to give greater pleasure during certain activities in life. or so I hear. I'll never know).

But, religion never hurt any kid, did it?

My, perhaps uninformed, understanding is that circumcision bestows certain health benefits that make it advisable regardless of religious belief; if and when I have a son, it's certainly something that I'll want to discuss with the obstetrician despite my lack of religious belief.

That aside, and once again, neither Dawkins nor I are talking about the physical consequences of religious belief, which I think it would be perfectly appropriate to regulate if evidence exists that they are harmful to the child. Once again, my objection is only to Dawkins's view that religious instruction itself is equivalent to physical child abuse. So responses about blood transfusions and circumcision are simply irrelevant.

[qayak]

Once again, my objection is only to Dawkins's view that religious instruction itself is equivalent to physical child abuse. So responses about blood transfusions and circumcision are simply irrelevant.

They are not irrelevent, they are a direct result of religious teachings and beliefs. There are also the mental abuse aspects and the detriments to society from narrow world views. The belief that everyone different from you is going straight to hell. That if you don't believe and follow the teachings of the church, you are going straight to hell. That there is something wrong with you if you don't believe the nonsense. That you get special privileges because you belong to the in group.

Dawkins also didn't say that it was equivilent. He stated: "I replied that, horrible as the sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bring the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of applause from that Irish audience." (TGD pg.- 317)

You may also wish to re-aquaint yourself with the words of the American woman who wrote to him regarding two experiences that happened to her when she was seven. One was being fondled by a priest and the other was a friend of hers dying and going to hell because she was protestant. She wrtote, "I never lost sleep because of the priest but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to hell. It gave me nightmares."

[a_unique_person]

Dawkins has gone off the deep end with that "protecting children from the 'abuse' of religious indoctrination" nonsense-- not the way to persuade the world to consider atheism. When it's not saying bat**** crazy things like that, I thought The God Delusion was okay, though its treatment of philosophical issues was rather elementary. I like Dawkins a lot better when he writes about what he knows-- science, not philosophy, or law (I've read a couple of his essays on the legal system that made me shudder).

I call it child abuse. After several years of frantically trying to actually make sense of the Irish/Catholic brand of mumbo jumbo, in the certainty that I would go to hell forever if I got it wrong, it certainly did count as abuse.

[JC Fla]

I call it child abuse. After several years of frantically trying to actually make sense of the Irish/Catholic brand of mumbo jumbo, in the certainty that I would go to hell forever if I got it wrong, it certainly did count as abuse.

Same here. Also attending catholic school, I briefly entertained the idea of entering the priesthood...but then the "discovery" of girls well, after finding out about them (at least as much as we males are allowed to understand) I was not about to walk away from that to be a priest, no sir! Never really regretted that decision come to think about it....

[JamesDillon]

They are not irrelevent, they are a direct result of religious teachings and beliefs.
No, they are irrelevant, because we're not talking about physical consequences of religious belief here, we're talking about religious instruction itself. I'm sure we're all capable of distinguishing the two, it's really not that difficult. Obviously, any physical actions performed on a child, whether circumcision (which, once again, in light of the fact that it doesn't really do any harm and does, as I understand it, bestow at least some degree of benefit, I have a hard time characterizing as "abuse" anyway) or the denial of medical treatment, can and should be evaluated generally without respect to the underlying motivation of the parent, be it religious or secular. Beating a child to teach him fear of God is abuse, to the same extent as holding a child's hand over a flame to teach it fear of fire is abuse. But that's not what we're talking about here, and I think the fact that no one apparently is willing to defend Dawkins's view as he expresses it is telling.

I recall the Irish audience anecdote, though I don't see how the selection you quoted doesn't support my characterization of Dawkins's view, particularly since he doesn't make any particular effort to distance himself from that "off the cuff" remark in the book. I also remember the story about the child who was afraid of hell. On that point, I think it's important to remember that the "fact vs. belief" distinction you urged a few posts back requires an underlying commitment to agnosticism (at least) in order to be intelligible. That is to say, if a parent genuinely believes that hell exists, then whatever harm inflicted on a child by warning them about it is perfectly justifiable in that it makes the child less likely to experience hell firsthand. As nonbelievers, we of course find belief in hell irrational, and therefore view any mental or emotional apprehension suffered by a child with respect to hell as unjustifiable, but the fundamental point I'm making here is that, while we have every right and perhaps an obligation to try to persuade adult theists of the irrationality of their beliefs, it is both arrogant and completely unjustified in a free society to prevent those people from raising their own children to believe as they do on the ground that imparting such "erroneous" beliefs constitutes "child abuse."

Edit: JC Fla,
I'm glad that your hormones kicked in in time to save you from a life as a clergyman, but can you explain how your close call with the Church is in any way equivalent to the anxiety or harm inflicted on a victim of childhood physical or sexual abuse?

[JC Fla]

Well JamesDillon, the anxiety of prayers as a small child wondering what would happen if I die before I wake up, the terrors of going to hell because of my "sins" (this at age 7?) The ritualistic dogma drilled into my head from birth? The time it took unlearn the behavior of bobbing my head and answering "yes sister" to every nun that crossed my path and asked me a question. Living in fear that the priest had say over my eternal damnation? Oh yes, there is plenty of anxiety there. I find religion to be abhorant, a control device, to guide people like sheep, sometimes over the edge of a cliff. In the worst cases, to take advantage of the trust placed on the clergy by abusing the very "flock" they are suppose to protect. The phrase recovering Catholic has a strong basis in truth. This is a terrible mind screw to inflict on a child. Like some bizarre Koolaid cult.

I say this as a parent who battles constantly with my ex on the schools my daughter should attend. She wants a Southern Baptist private school that cherry picks science and history and would leave my daughter unprepared for the real world. I want a good, solid education in all available subjects, with science and reality, not invisible people, as its basis.

[3point14]

So, if bringing up your child in the belief that if they do not follow the beliefs of the bible (or any other book of mescaline inspired stone age rantings) is not abuse, then how far is a parent allowed to go in misinforming their child about the nature of the world?

I am not, to the best of my knowledge, a father, but if I were, would I be allowed to bring up my child believing that if they didn't wear purple on a Thursday the world would end? Or that if they didn't turn around six times and touch the floor before going through any doorway they would be sent to hell?

Just how much misinformation is a parent allowed to lump on a child before it constitutes abuse and is going to handicap the child for the rest of their life? Does it make a difference if I sincerely believe the misinformation I am giving out is true and it is all for the best of the child? What about if I firmly believe that the (extremely hypothetical) extreme physical abuse that a child is going through is necessary for the sake of the child? Am I allowed to abuse the child then? After all, they're my beliefs, and it's terribly, terribly impolite to interfere with another’s firmly held spiritual/religious beliefs.


(edit - typo)

[Moochie]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean; are you suggesting that The God Delusion is not an attempt to persuade the reading public to adopt atheism? That position is clearly rebutted by the first page of Dawkins's preface, in which he writes that the book is intended "to raise consciousness -- raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." The rest of the preface goes on to discuss how Dawkins hopes that each chapter of the book will persuade the reader of some point. I cannot fathom how you could have read the book and have come away with the impression that it is not intended to persuade the reader of anything.

I was making the point, rather inelegantly, that Prof. Dawkins's position is unequivocally hostile to the idea that there is really a choice when it comes to atheism.

M.

[Freddy]

I've read the book, and I thought it was most excellent.

In answer to your concerns about Chapter 4, Dawkins simply points out that the christian god-concept is extremely complex, and for such a concept to arise by spontaneous generation is not scientifically possible.

Also, at no point does Dawkins advocate for the government to ban religious upbringings, rather he posits that a religious upbringing can cause more mental damage than sexual abuse. He also provides examples to back up his theory (although it would require a lot more work to become accepted, obviously).

Cheers,
TGHO


I'm not aware of any religion that posits that God arose by spontaneous generation. And if you amend the argument to accurately represent the belief he is arguing against, the argument, as he presents it, loses all its force. I like Dawkins, but that particular argument would earn a failing grade in an intro to philosophy class.

As to the matter of banning religious upbringing, Dawkins can refrain from calling for such a ban only at a steep price. He can either say that child abuse on a level equivalent to sexual molestation is not necessarily grounds for forfeiting custody, or he can simply hold inconsistent beliefs. Usually when faced with such options I simply assume that I must have gone wrong somewhere in the line of reasoning that led me to such a choice.

[ZouPrime]

About the religious indoctrination of young children… compare it to other ideologies. Would it make sense to describe a child as a young communist? Or a young capitalist? What about a young white supremacist? Of course not; everyone understand that children are too young to have a valid opinion of such questions. Why should it be different for religion?

[ClintonHammond]

"taking a child to Sunday school is on par with any form of actual "abuse"
Children would be better off smoking than attending Sunday School... The former is just going to possibly cause cancer... The latter is going to rot their minds.

[Darat]

"Random" derail moved to : http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80924

[qayak]

. . . but can you explain how your close call with the Church is in any way equivalent to the anxiety or harm inflicted on a victim of childhood physical or sexual abuse?

It is being suggested that most sexual abuse is dealt with with less pain for the victim than is religious indoctrination. Having never been sexually abused, I don't know if it is true but I have now heard several people who were abused, state that the result of religious indoctrination is worse than the result of the abuse.

[tracer]

I realize that this thread has turned into a discussion of "how should we bring up the children?", but there's another area of Dawkins' book, unrelated to child rearing, that sticks out in my mind as being questionable:

His brief discussion of homophobia.

His book seems to blame the phenomenon of homophobia entirely on religious indoctrination, as though there are no other psychological or sociological forces at work in creating a dislike of homosexuals. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of secular homophobia. There are non-religious people out there who have an almost-instinctive anxiety reaction to notions of homosexuality. I'd bet you dollars to donut-holes that religious doctrine is the excuse, not the cause, of homophobia.

For a man who was smart enough to realize that religion is an excuse for holy wars but not (usually) the actual cause, I'm surprised he couldn't make the same realization with homophobia.

[qayak]

I realize that this thread has turned into a discussion of "how should we bring up the children?", but there's another area of Dawkins' book, unrelated to child rearing, that sticks out in my mind as being questionable:

His brief discussion of homophobia.

His book seems to blame the phenomenon of homophobia entirely on religious indoctrination, as though there are no other psychological or sociological forces at work in creating a dislike of homosexuals. He doesn't even acknowledge the existence of secular homophobia. There are non-religious people out there who have an almost-instinctive anxiety reaction to notions of homosexuality. I'd bet you dollars to donut-holes that religious doctrine is the excuse, not the cause, of homophobia.

For a man who was smart enough to realize that religion is an excuse for holy wars but not (usually) the actual cause, I'm surprised he couldn't make the same realization with homophobia.

You are no doubt correct that there are individuals outside of religion who are homophobic. However, look at the evidence. It is always religion denying these people their rights and trying to trivialize them. And religion organizes against them.

Who is the voice against same sex marriage? No, never mind, it was a rhetorical question.

[Meadmaker]

I finished reading chapter 4 just now. It was, how shall I say it, ridiculous. Embarrassingly so. Absolute rubbish.

He did a good job of dealing with intelligent design, a much better job of it that most of the threads on JREF manage. That part of the chapter was good. He also did a good job of dealing with the anthropic principle. My only objection was that to me, everything he said seemed almost obvious, but perhaps I've just put a lot more thought into it over the years than many others have.

But then he wandered into the weeds. He was arguing that a God that could create the universe must be very complex, and thus couldn't...well, I'm not sure what. The Great Hairy One suggested that he said such a God couldn't have arisen by spontaneous generation. Dawkins never said that, but I could understand why TGHO might have thought he did. Whatever he actually said, he argued that God's complexity just couldn't have happened.

Excuse me, but, why not?

The universe really exists, and there is no credible explanation for why it exists. Dawkins is correct to criticize theists for saying that the explanation is God. That does, indeed, raise the question of how God came into existence. Saying that God exists doesn't explain anything at all.

On the other hand, there is no explanation available. Something exists, and there is no way that we have to explain "why" it exists. Even if you accept the idea that a designer God is necessarily complex, a term left undefined by Dawkins, so what? Dawkins says (p.156) "If...our universe was designed,....the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative escalator or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in another universe."

Similar statements posted on JREF typically meet with a one word, plus one punctuation mark, reply:


Evidence?

How can he be expected to be taken seriously suggesting that this superhuman, always existing, supernatural, outside the laws of nature, creator God "must" be anything?

[JamesDillon]

He did a good job of dealing with intelligent design, a much better job of it that most of the threads on JREF manage.
I should hope so, seeing as he's a brilliant Oxford biologist and we're just a bunch of amateurs who know a fair amount of what we do know about the subject from reading Dawkins!

Moving on to the rest of your criticisms, I think what Dawkins is getting at here is that God's complexity renders him an unsatisfactory hypothesis for explaining the observed complexity in the universe. The typical theistic argument from design goes something along the lines of, "The universe is too complex to have arisen purely by chance; therefore it must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The only intelligent agent capable of designing and creating something as large and complex as the universe is God. Therefore, God exists." (Yes, that's a simplification, but I think it gets the basic point across). So the point Dawkins is making here, I believe, is that God is not an explanation for the complexity of the universe, because any being that could create the universe must be much more complex. The point is that complexity can't be explained from a top-down approach, because that approach simply creates an infinite regress of ever-more-complex creators. ("What created the universe? God. What created God? Super-God. What created Super-God? ... ad infinitum). So the point is, in response to the argument from design, that complexity must be explained from the bottom up rather than from the top down-- i.e., from the emergent complexity created by the interactions of elementary particles. And, taking the bottom-up view, God becomes not only an unnecessary, but a nonsensical hypothesis.

[Meadmaker]

Also, at no point does Dawkins advocate for the government to ban religious upbringings....

Dawkins has asked, rhetorically, at what point "society ought to intervene". The context of this quote would lead a reasonable observer to think that this intervention would take the form of laws prohibiting religious upbringings.

Also, in his essay, "Religion's Real Child Abuse", he commends the speech by Nicholas Humpheys I mentioned earlier.

Here's a link

http://cogprints.org/400/00/Amnesty.htm

Here's an excerpt:


Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with. And however painful some of its consequences may sometimes be for some people, we should still as a matter of principle resist putting curbs on it. By all means we should try to make up for the harm that other people's words do, but not by censoring the words as such.

And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I'd expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.

I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed -- even expected -- to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong.

[Meadmaker]

Moving on to the rest of your criticisms, I think what Dawkins is getting at here is that God's complexity renders him an unsatisfactory hypothesis for explaining the observed complexity in the universe...... The point is that complexity can't be explained from a top-down approach, because that approach simply creates an infinite regress of ever-more-complex creators. .... And, taking the bottom-up view, God becomes not only an unnecessary, but a nonsensical hypothesis.

If that were his point, it wouldn't be a bad point. If his point were that the God hypothesis didn't explain complexity, he would be correct. It doesn't, although theologians sometimes claim it does. So far, so good.

However, that isn't his point. His point is not that the God hypothesis fails to explain complexity. His point is that the God hypothesis is almost certainly wrong. He bases this on the claim, (p. 155) "Time and again, my theologian friends returned to the point that there had to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing....Yes, I said, but it must have been simple..."


Evidence?


His argument can be summarized as:

1. The first cause must be simple.
2. God is complex.
3. Therefore God does not exist.

He phrases it in various ways, such as "We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook'" p. 158. Why? If we had a skyhook, that would work. Whether we had a crane or a skyhook, neither would help. How did we get a crane or a skyhook? He seems to be arguing that something very simple could spontaneously come into existence without any prior cause, but something complex could not. Alternatively, something simple could have always existed, but something complex could not.

Excuse me, but where does he get this information. It certainly isn't from science. Every scientific law known today is causal. The current state arises from the previous state. If there was no previous state, science has nothing to say about it. Science cannot say that this thing that appeared without cause, or the thing that has always existed, is simple, complex, small or large. Science doesn't deal with things that have no causes.

[Meadmaker]

Who is the voice against same sex marriage? No, never mind, it was a rhetorical question.


In the United States? Or in China?

[The Great Hairy One]

I'm not aware of any religion that posits that God arose by spontaneous generation.


All modern monotheistic religions claim this, either directly or indirectly.

But then he wandered into the weeds. He was arguing that a God that could create the universe must be very complex, and thus couldn't...well, I'm not sure what. The Great Hairy One suggested that he said such a God couldn't have arisen by spontaneous generation. Dawkins never said that, but I could understand why TGHO might have thought he did. Whatever he actually said, he argued that God's complexity just couldn't have happened.

Excuse me, but, why not?


Very simply - the christian god-concept is extremely complex. It's an omni-being, able to do "everything", see "everything", know "everything". In our experience, complex beings don't arrive at the beginning of a sequence, but in the later stages. Positing that this particular concept arrived or "came into being" at the initial stages contradicts what we know of science. It's magic, and we all know that magic does not actually exist.

I might have got the "spontaneously generated" from Dawkin's presentation in Virginia, I'll dig out my copy of TGD and check it up.




The universe really exists, and there is no credible explanation for why it exists.
...
On the other hand, there is no explanation available. Something exists, and there is no way that we have to explain "why" it exists.


Why does it need a "why"? Why do we need to posit a reason behind existence?

Even if you accept the idea that a designer God is necessarily complex, a term left undefined by Dawkins, so what? Dawkins says (p.156) "If...our universe was designed,....the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative escalator or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in another universe."

Similar statements posted on JREF typically meet with a one word, plus one punctuation mark, reply:


The evidence is based in our current understanding of the laws of existence and the fact that the god-concept is claimed to be highly complex.

How can he be expected to be taken seriously suggesting that this superhuman, always existing, supernatural, outside the laws of nature, creator God "must" be anything?


:confused: Sorry, I don't understand this bit.

Cheers,
TGHO

[The Great Hairy One]

Dawkins has asked, rhetorically, at what point "society ought to intervene". The context of this quote would lead a reasonable observer to think that this intervention would take the form of laws prohibiting religious upbringings.

Also, in his essay, "Religion's Real Child Abuse", he commends the speech by Nicholas Humpheys I mentioned earlier.

Here's a link

http://cogprints.org/400/00/Amnesty.htm

Here's an excerpt:


Still nothing there where Dawkins asks the government to intervene.

Cheers,
TGHO

[JamesDillon]

Excuse me, but where does he get this information. It certainly isn't from science. Every scientific law known today is causal. The current state arises from the previous state. If there was no previous state, science has nothing to say about it. Science cannot say that this thing that appeared without cause, or the thing that has always existed, is simple, complex, small or large. Science doesn't deal with things that have no causes.

We're getting rather out of my depth here, but my understanding is that the above statements aren't true-- i.e., intuitive notions of time and causality break down-- at the level of quantum mechanics. So your generalizations about the science and acausality aren't necessarily accurate. But I'd ask for someone a bit more versed in physics to step in at this point to offer a more knowledgable response-- the bit about "imaginary time" in A Brief History of Time confused the hell out of me.

[Meadmaker]

In our experience, complex beings don't arrive at the beginning of a sequence, but in the later stages.

That says a great deal about our experience, but it doesn't say much about reality

It's magic, and we all know that magic does not actually exist.

You are assuming the premise. God is not claimed to work by the laws of science.

I might have got the "spontaneously generated" from Dawkin's presentation in Virginia, I'll dig out my copy of TGD and check it up.

Actually, I did read, after my last reply, Dawkins used the phrase "popped into" existence, which is pretty much the same thing. However, religious leaders rarely claim God popped into existence. They usually say he always existed.

evidence is based in our current understanding of the laws of existence

"Laws of existence"? Science tells us how matter behaves, but I missed the chapter on the "laws of existence". Science does not deal with why things exist. You can't do the experiment that makes things spontaneously and without cause come into existence. (Reason: If you could create the conditions for the experiment, the conditions would be a cause.) We also can't discuss any meaningful scientific concept of something that has always existed. (Reason: Experiments start at a finite time. We can't do an experiment relating to something eternally in the past. Experments set up initial conditions, but if something has always existed, there are no initial condiitions.)


:confused: Sorry, I don't understand this bit.


Dawkins said the designer "must" be an end product of some cumulative escalator, and also that the reason for our existence "must" be simple.

"Must"? Something with no first cause, that either pops into existence from nothing, or simply always has existed, "must" be anything at all? Why "must" God, or the first thing that existed, or the thing that always existed, be anything at all?

Cheers,
TGHO[/QUOTE]

[The Great Hairy One]

That says a great deal about our experience, but it doesn't say much about reality


Actually, this says a great deal about reality. Our experience is based upon how reality works. Science is the process of observing events and analysing the data gathered from this observation. If reality worked in a different manner, the core of our science would be different!

You are assuming the premise. God is not claimed to work by the laws of science.


Then, by definition, your god-concept is magical.

Actually, I did read, after my last reply, Dawkins used the phrase "popped into" existence, which is pretty much the same thing. However, religious leaders rarely claim God popped into existence. They usually say he always existed.


Which is indirect spontaneous generation. To explain - when asked what or who was responsible for the creation of this god-concept, the religious person evades the question, or denies the requirement of creation of their god-concept. Meaning yet again, it's a magical construct.

"Laws of existence"? Science tells us how matter behaves, but I missed the chapter on the "laws of existence". Science does not deal with why things exist.


If you want to argue epistemology, I'll bow out now. Arguing if red chairs have a right to exist has always seemed extremely trivial to me.

Dawkins said the designer "must" be an end product of some cumulative escalator, and also that the reason for our existence "must" be simple.

"Must"? Something with no first cause, that either pops into existence from nothing, or simply always has existed, "must" be anything at all? Why "must" God, or the first thing that existed, or the thing that always existed, be anything at all?


Please define your god-concept in clear and precise terms.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Meadmaker]

Actually, this says a great deal about reality. Our experience is based upon how reality works. Science is the process of observing events and analysing the data gathered from this observation. If reality worked in a different manner, the core of our science would be different!

But our experience is limited to that which we can observe. We cannot observe anything spontaneously coming into existence without cause, and we cannot observe eternal existence. When you, echoing Dawkins' thought, said that our experience says things move from simple to complex, you were talking about those things we obseved. Among things we cannot observe, we cannot say that.


Then, by definition, your god-concept is magical.


Certainly.


Please define your god-concept in clear and precise terms.


I think Dawkins did a fine job, as fine as anyone, defining my god-concept. My objection isn't with his definition. My objection is that he wishes to insist that a being so conceived almost certainly doesn't exist, and his use of an argument from complexity as support for that insistence. His argument in chapter 4 is that whatever spontaneously popped into existence, or whatever has always existed, must be simple.

Well, I demand some evidence for that assertion. I've taken a class or two in science, and read a book here and there, and I haven't read any scientific descriptions about things that pop into existence or always have existed.

(ETA: It occurs to me that even the assertion that things move from simple to complex has some problems. The second law of thermodynamics says that the increasing local complexity observed in living organisms on Earth is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the entropy of some other part of the system. The universe as a whole is no more complex today than it ever was. Indeed, it is more random than it used to be, as we know from the second law.)

[Darat]

Dawkins has asked, rhetorically, at what point "society ought to intervene". The context of this quote would lead a reasonable observer to think that this intervention would take the form of laws prohibiting religious upbringings.

...snip...

Only if that "reasonable observer" (I think you mean reader?) has a belief that society is only defined by laws and government. I would say by definition someone who holds that view is not a reasonable person since the view that society is only laws and government is an unreasonable belief to hold (since the evidence is overwhelming that a society is much more than just laws and government).

[Darat]

...snip... Science doesn't deal with things that have no causes.


Where do you get your information from?

[Darat]

...snip...

I think Dawkins did a fine job, as fine as anyone, defining my god-concept.

...snip...

Which definition? He mentions a few in the God Delusion.

[Meadmaker]

Only if that "reasonable observer" (I think you mean reader?) has a belief that society is only defined by laws and government. I would say by definition someone who holds that view is not a reasonable person since the view that society is only laws and government is an unreasonable belief to hold (since the evidence is overwhelming that a society is much more than just laws and government).

Well that's why I referred to the context. In his article he commended a different speech, quoted earlier, that very explicitly and by name called for censorship.

[Mashuna]

So is your position that because we don't currently know how the universe started, it is equally likely to have been created by God rather than spontaneously arised, or that the question is inherhantly unknowable, and that assigning probablities to such an event is meaningless?

Or something else entirely :)

[Meadmaker]

So is your position that because we don't currently know how the universe started, it is equally likely to have been created by God rather than spontaneously arised, or that the question is inherhantly unknowable, and that assigning probablities to such an event is meaningless?



Assigning a probability is meaningless.

ETA: I take that back. It isn't "meaningless". Dawkins' probability estimate has meaning. It just has no basis. We cannot say, based on any knowledge we have at this time, whether it is more likely for a simple thing to pop into existence than a complex thing to pop into existence. In our experience, things don't pop into existence. Therefore, we have no basis for saying that whatever does pop into existence is more likely to be simple or complex.

[qayak]

We cannot say, based on any knowledge we have at this time, whether it is more likely for a simple thing to pop into existence than a complex thing to pop into existence. In our experience, things don't pop into existence. Therefore, we have no basis for saying that whatever does pop into existence is more likely to be simple or complex.

It is obvious that you do not follow Dawkins' argument at all. Dawkins is applying the ID argument to demonstrate that it does just as well at disproving god as it does at proving it.

Religious people put out this argument:

1- The universe is very complex.

2- Complex systems need a designer. If the universe exists the designer ,god, exists.

3- The designer is always more complex than the system it designs so god is more complex than the universe.

Dawkins frames his argument against god using the basis of the religious argument for god.

The religious argument relies on god being far more complex than the universe to explain why we cannot detect him. They als need it because if they admit that a creator does not have to be more complex than the universe to have created it, they allow that something less compolex could do it. They are admitting that Evolution could account for life and the Big Bang for the universe.

This leads them to a paradox, because if complex things need a designer and if god is the designer and he is more complex, then something even more complex than he, is needed to account for him. They run into even greater trouble when they make the claim that he is infinitely complex.

So, you can assume Dawkins makes these mistakes, which he doesn't, but if you don't allow Dawkins to follow the rules then you can't allow the religious argument to use them either. In that case, there definitely is no god.

The little doubt that is left is only there because we allow that these rules could apply but religions still cannot explain what it was that created god which they must do in order for their theory to hold up.

And your idea that things do not have to become more complex is mistaken. Someone can only create something if they take somethign that does not exist and make it exist. They would have to do this by creating something entirely new or taking something already existing and making it into something else. If you take water and add sugar and flavour you get Cool-Aid which didn't exist before but if you take water and seperate it into hydrogen and oxygen, you have created nothing. If they create something entirely new, they have indeed made the system more complex. If they create something new by combining already existing things, they have made the system more complex.

This is all a problem with the religious argument in favour of god and it has never been addressed.

[The Great Hairy One]

But our experience is limited to that which we can observe. We cannot observe anything spontaneously coming into existence without cause, and we cannot observe eternal existence. When you, echoing Dawkins' thought, said that our experience says things move from simple to complex, you were talking about those things we obseved. Among things we cannot observe, we cannot say that.


"Cannot observe"? How can we "cannot observe" it? Is it invisible to all spectrums of light? It is immaterial? Ghostly? You does realise that we can currently observe (as such) quantum particles, yes? Describe to me in terms of physics how we "cannot observe" something without that something being reduced to a mythical construct. Basically, if we can't observe it, then this "it" has no effect on reality, does not interact with reality, and actually does not exist.

As for "eternity", that's a philosophical construct. We know that existence had a starting point. We can deduce that it has some form of end point. Before the starting point time itself did not exist. Thus there is no "eternal".

Certainly.


Then if this god-concept is magical, it does not exist.


I think Dawkins did a fine job, as fine as anyone, defining my god-concept.


Which one is yours? The Old Testament fire-and-brimstone nutcase? The "Happy Loving Jesus"? Which one of the literally dozens of different concepts which he identifies fits your definition?


My objection isn't with his definition. My objection is that he wishes to insist that a being so conceived almost certainly doesn't exist, and his use of an argument from complexity as support for that insistence. His argument in chapter 4 is that whatever spontaneously popped into existence, or whatever has always existed, must be simple.

Well, I demand some evidence for that assertion. I've taken a class or two in science, and read a book here and there, and I haven't read any scientific descriptions about things that pop into existence or always have existed.


You need to read some science books on quantum physics then. I'll admit the science is beyond me (I'm a geneticist, not a physicist), but as far as I understand it, quantum particles can spontaneously generate. However, these appear to be the only objects which can spontaneously generate - and as Dawkins pointed out, these objects are extremely simple.

If your god-concept is in any way complex - i.e. intelligent, omni-capable, etc. - then it simply can not just "pop into existence". Complex things are the end results of long processes, like evolution, not the starting points.

Furthermore, if you're demanding a "why" for the existence of the universe, you have to be consistent and demand a "why" for this god-concept. Why did it spontaneously pop into existence?

(ETA: It occurs to me that even the assertion that things move from simple to complex has some problems. The second law of thermodynamics says that the increasing local complexity observed in living organisms on Earth is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the entropy of some other part of the system. The universe as a whole is no more complex today than it ever was. Indeed, it is more random than it used to be, as we know from the second law.)


Oh, the old "Second Law" canard. See here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

You've misrepresented the Second Law in your paragraph above.

Cheers,
TGHO

[jjramsey]

Religious people put out this argument:
--snip--
2- Complex systems need a designer.

Depends on the particular argument. Often what the IDers' arguments boil down to is, "I can't imagine how blind biological processes can do X, so ...." That's narrower than the claim that all complex things require a designer, and rests mainly on an impoverished estimate of just what blind processes can do.

3- The designer is always more complex than the system

It's not clear if that is even a coherent statement. For it to be meaningful, one has to be able, at least in principle, to have a common measure of complexity for both the designer and the designed, which is really tough when the two are so different.

[Meadmaker]

It is obvious that you do not follow Dawkins' argument at all. Dawkins is applying the ID argument to demonstrate that it does just as well at disproving god as it does at proving it.

He most certainly is not doing that. The title of his chapter is "Why There is Almost Certainly no God." In it, he says that whatever pops into existence "must", his word, be simple. He says "We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook'."

He could have called this chapter, "Why We have no Evidence of God". He could have called it, "Why there is no proof of God." He could have called it "Why We do not Need a God".

In his concluding paragraph he could have said, "If the argument from this chapter is accepted, there is no reason to believe the God hypothesis. We have no reason to believe he exists." If that is what he meant, he would have said it. Instead, he said, "If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion - the God Hypothesis- is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist."

The religious argument relies on god being far more complex than the universe to explain why we cannot detect him.
Dawkins doesn't say that.


They also need it because if they admit that a creator does not have to be more complex than the universe to have created it, they allow that something less compolex could do it.

Dawkins is actually the one who says that the creator must be more complex. (Page 120, and elsewhere) He spends a fair amount of time refuting theologians' assertions that God could be simple. (See for example his discussion of Swinburne, beginning on 147.)

[Meadmaker]

"Cannot observe"? How can we "cannot observe" it?

We cannot observe the beginning of the universe. Nor have we ever observed the beginning of any elementary particle from nothing.


We know that existence had a starting point.

In that case, you (and the rest of the "we" in your sentence), know a great deal more than the physicists know.

Which one is yours?

If you mean, "Which one do I believe?", none of them. I'm an atheist. I'm critiquing Dawkins' argument. If he has put forward a lot of different God concepts and it isn't clear which one he means, that's his fault.


You need to read some science books on quantum physics then. I'll admit the science is beyond me (I'm a geneticist, not a physicist), but as far as I understand it, quantum particles can spontaneously generate.


Sorry, but no. They can spontaneously transform. They cannot spontaneously generate.

Furthermore, if you're demanding a "why" for the existence of the universe, you have to be consistent and demand a "why" for this god-concept. Why did it spontaneously pop into existence?


I'm not demanding a "why" for the existence of the universe. I say it is unexplainable through scientific means. Dawkins, however, is demanding a "why". From page 155, "There must have ben a first cause of everything, and we might as well give it the name God. Yes, I said, but it must have been simple." (emphasis added).



Oh, the old "Second Law" canard. See here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

You've misrepresented the Second Law in your paragraph above.


Actually, I have not. You have simply seen the words "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and assumed I must be talking about the misapplication of it by creationists. I'm not.

The statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is easily misunderstood, as is the interpretation in terms of randomness, disorder, etc. The book I read that finally made it "click" for me was "The Recursive Universe", by Poundstone. Highly recommended, although I believe it is out of print.

The point of my bringing it up is that all of the order we see today in the universe, including the complex forms of life present on the Earth today, was present in the first few fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Dawkins' argument about increasing complexity is, itself, the canard. The increasing complexity is a local phenomenon. The universe today is no more complex than it ever was.

[mijopaalmc]

I think that you are missing a common belief about God (and here "God" approaches the concept of the Abrahamic God): that god is eternal. I am not stating this as what I believe about God (or even if I believe in God); I am merely summarizing what others, in my interpretation, believe about God. Since God is eternal, God has always been (even before He created the world) and will always be (even after the world passes away), or, "was and is and is to come" (Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8). Thus, it makes no sense to talk about God "popping into existence" as it is claimed Dawkins does. In other words, to say that God is impossible because He is far too complex to have "popped into existence", while a great argument to disprove both Intelligent Design and the proof of God through Intelligent Design, is essentially an meaningless straw man when trying to disprove God in general, because God, while quite possibly infinitely complex, is eternal and therefore always existent.

[Meadmaker]

I'm partway through chapter 5. The main theme of the chapter is the quest to determine what survival advantage is conveyed by religious belief. Because it is so prominent, it would appear that it helps the species, otherwise, it might die out.

Dawkins suggests that this is not actually the case, that it is probably a byproduct of some other, useful, characteristic.

So far, so good. No objections quite yet. However, I have a feeling where he's going with this. Chapter 4 got off to a good start, too, and then degenerated into flim-flam. I suspect he's going to assert that religion is not actually helpful to the human race, but merely to its own existence. It's a meme with a life of its own, living virally inside the human race, not helping it at all, but parasitically maintaining itself despite the harm done to its host.. However, this is speculative at the moment. I'll refrain from further comment until I have read the conclusion of the argument.

[Meadmaker]

I think that you are missing a common belief about God (and here "God" approaches the concept of the Abrahamic God): that god is eternal. I am not stating this as what I believe about God (or even if I believe in God); I am merely summarizing what others, in my interpretation, believe about God. Since God is eternal, God has always been (even before He created the world) and will always be (even after the world passes away), or, "was and is and is to come" (Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8). Thus, it makes no sense to talk about God "popping into existence" as it is claimed Dawkins does. In other words, to say that God is impossible because He is far too complex to have "popped into existence", while a great argument to disprove both Intelligent Design and the proof of God through Intelligent Design, is essentially an meaningless straw man when trying to disprove God in general, because God, while quite possibly infinitely complex, is eternal and therefore always existent.

I don't know if this was directed to me, or to GBHO. Regardless of who it was directed to, I agree with it completely.

One clarification: Dawkins allows either the possibility that the first cause of the universe "popped into existence" or that it always existed. He insists however, than anything with either of those traits must be simple. He does so without support.

[mijopaalmc]

I don't know if this was directed to me, or to GBHO. Regardless of who it was directed to, I agree with it completely.

One clarification: Dawkins allows either the possibility that the first cause of the universe "popped into existence" or that it always existed. He insists however, than anything with either of those traits must be simple. He does so without support.

I wasn't really "directed" at anyone in particular; I was just making a remark as to something that Dawkins seems to have overlooked. This, however, is not an insignificant oversight, because one of the most prevalent criticisms of Dawkins and those who agree with him is that they do not understand religion. Ignoring that God, at least in most conceptions, is eternal and therefore has no beginning or end just confirms such a belief and undermines those who hold it as authorities on why atheism should be chosen as the rational alternative to theism, a complex God no longer needs to have "popped in existence".

To be fair to Dawkins, though, he seems to have been arguing that the existence of God cannot be proven the "intelligent design" for the very same reason that "intelligent design" itself is junk science. After all, if any system that is too complex to have arisen spontaneously has to have been designed and per Paley's analogy of the Watch in the field which seems to have been extended (however unsuccessfully) by the current proponents of "intelligent design" to some biological systems, the designer must be by definition more complex than the designed, any designer must by definition be designed by a more complex designer. In other words, within the context of the the most current and common formulation of "intelligent design", the "God hypothesis" is untenable as it leads to an infinite regress. However, if one rejects the notion that complexity of a certain degree must be designed, one has steps outside of the framework that requires the invalidation of the "God hypothesis", because God, even if He is complex, no longer necessitate yet another designer by virtue of His complexity nor is He necessarily complex, because the requirement that complexity is needed to create complexity no longer holds.

[The Great Hairy One]

We cannot observe the beginning of the universe. Nor have we ever observed the beginning of any elementary particle from nothing.


We can and do observe the beginning of the universe - cosmic background radiation. Red shifted galaxies. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

All evidence currently points to an initial starting point for the universe. And we can observe it, if not directly, then indirectly and via inference of the evidence we can directly observe.

Sorry, but no. They can spontaneously transform. They cannot spontaneously generate.


Evidence of the Big Bang says they can. But as I said, I am not a physicist, and quantum mechanics is beyond my understanding, I may be completely wrong.

However, this still does not support the idea that a god-concept can spontaneously generate either. If something was to spontaneously generate it would have to be extremely simple, able to come around by complete chance. Since the basic omni-being of modern monotheistic religions is highly complex and extremely specialised, it's simply not possible for such a being to spontaneously spring into existence.

I'm not demanding a "why" for the existence of the universe. I say it is unexplainable through scientific means. Dawkins, however, is demanding a "why". From page 155, "There must have ben a first cause of everything, and we might as well give it the name God. Yes, I said, but it must have been simple." (emphasis added).


Yes you are:

The universe really exists, and there is no credible explanation for why it exists.


And from that quote of Dawkins - he is not demanding a why. He's pointing out that the so-called "first cause" is required to be simple. There's no question of why there.

Actually, I have not. You have simply seen the words "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and assumed I must be talking about the misapplication of it by creationists. I'm not.

The statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is easily misunderstood, as is the interpretation in terms of randomness, disorder, etc. The book I read that finally made it "click" for me was "The Recursive Universe", by Poundstone. Highly recommended, although I believe it is out of print.

The point of my bringing it up is that all of the order we see today in the universe, including the complex forms of life present on the Earth today, was present in the first few fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Dawkins' argument about increasing complexity is, itself, the canard. The increasing complexity is a local phenomenon. The universe today is no more complex than it ever was.


Actually, you are misrepresenting the Second Law, and you're making the same mistake that many creationists make, in that you're confusing entropy with disorder. Furthermore, you're confusing complexity with order, compounding your original mistake.

Your statement "The universe today is no more complex than it ever was." is simply not correct from a biological point of view. What you are basically claiming here is that the Second Law prevents evolution from occurring, which is the creationist standpoint. Furthermore, I think physicists would argue that the current structures of the universe are a lot more complex than the initial state of the universe picoseconds after the Big Bang.

Cheers,
TGHO

[qayak]

He most certainly is not doing that. The title of his chapter is "Why There is Almost Certainly no God."

"I left the conference stimulated and invigorated, and reinforced in my conviction that the arguemnt from probability, the 'Ultimate 747" gambit- is a very serious argument against the existence of god, and one that I have yet to hear a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so."

[qayak]

Actually, I have not. You have simply seen the words "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and assumed I must be talking about the misapplication of it by creationists. I'm not.

The statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is easily misunderstood, as is the interpretation in terms of randomness, disorder, etc. The book I read that finally made it "click" for me was "The Recursive Universe", by Poundstone. Highly recommended, although I believe it is out of print.

The point of my bringing it up is that all of the order we see today in the universe, including the complex forms of life present on the Earth today, was present in the first few fractions of a second after the Big Bang. Dawkins' argument about increasing complexity is, itself, the canard. The increasing complexity is a local phenomenon. The universe today is no more complex than it ever was.

Hogwash. That's not what the second law states at all. It states: "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

The statistical interpretation only applies to systems with a small number of particles and the second law still holds. It may have significant deviations from what is predicted by the second law but the law will hold on average. The universe cannot be said to have a small number of particles. The larger the system, the more certain the law becomes.

[qayak]

I don't know if this was directed to me, or to GBHO. Regardless of who it was directed to, I agree with it completely.

One clarification: Dawkins allows either the possibility that the first cause of the universe "popped into existence" or that it always existed. He insists however, than anything with either of those traits must be simple. He does so without support.

His argument is his support. You seem to think that one must have an eye witness to constitute support.

[Mobyseven]

Just to clarify one point about why Dawkins promotes athiesm as the most rational stance (over theism, deism or agnosticism):

It isn't because of any specific argument he can make against the existence of a god.

It is because he takes the scientific view that if religion is claiming existence of a god, religion must also provide evidence to support the claims being made.

He then proceeds to respond to (and arguably demolish) many of the supposed reasons put forward so far by various philosophers and religions re the existence of god.

He then tackles religion head on with more direct criticisms of brainwashing and indoctrination (especially of children), among other things.

It is from all this that he draws the support for his conclusion that, in the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, it is entirely reasonable to assume that god does not exist.

Apologies if I have made any mistakes...it has been a while since I read the book.

[Orphia Nay]

How can he be expected to be taken seriously suggesting that this superhuman, always existing, supernatural, outside the laws of nature, creator God "must" be anything?

Dawkins isn't the one saying that God must be anything, it's the believers who are saying it. They're using another layer of myth to support the myth of God.

[Meadmaker]

We can and do observe the beginning of the universe - cosmic background radiation.

We can observe evidence of the Big Bang. We can even discuss what was happening in the universe from about 10**-39 seconds after it.

So, what happened before that?

Also, there's no reason to assume that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Dawkins himself presents several alternatives.

ETA: I might have the exponent wrong.

However, this still does not support the idea that a god-concept can spontaneously generate either.

I agree.

If something was to spontaneously generate it would have to be extremely simple, able to come around by complete chance.

This is exactly the argument that Dawkins makes, and he has no more evidence to back it up than you do. We have never observed anything, simple or complex, spontaneously generate.

(Actually there is one difference between Dawkins' argument and yours. He claims, in addition, that if something were to have always existed, it must be simple.)

Yes you are:
The universe really exists, and there is no credible explanation for why it exists.


I didn't say that there ought to be a credible explanation for why it exists. There is none. Period. End of sentence. God is not a credible explanation. Science provides no credible explanation. No one has a credible explanation, and it seems to me that no one ever will. I don't have a problem with that.


And from that quote of Dawkins - he is not demanding a why. He's pointing out that the so-called "first cause" is required to be simple. There's no question of why there.

He's saying there is a first cause, and saying that the first cause must have certain properties.

Yes, it's true that a "cause" and a "why" are subtly different.


Actually, you are misrepresenting the Second Law, and you're making the same mistake that many creationists make, in that you're confusing entropy with disorder. Furthermore, you're confusing complexity with order, compounding your original mistake.

Well blame my physics profs, because that's where I learned it. To be fair, "disorder" has a very, very, specific definition when applied to the second law of thermodynamics. As for confusing compexity with order, you could be right, but Dawkins doesn't give a definition for complexity. (This is related to jjramsey's point, commenting on the notion that a designer must be more complex than the designed.) Any definition I could think of for "complexity" ended up being related to statistical improbability of arrangement of constituent elements, and that is indeed related to entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.

If anyone would care to post a definition of complexity, we might be able to apply Dawkins' argument to it, and see if it makes more sense when using the right definitions.

What you are basically claiming here is that the Second Law prevents evolution from occurring, which is the creationist standpoint.

I do so wish that people would stop saying what I am claiming, because I certainly am not claiming that.


Furthermore, I think physicists would argue that the current structures of the universe are a lot more complex than the initial state of the universe picoseconds after the Big Bang.


Not in the books I've read.

[Meadmaker]

The statistical interpretation only applies to systems with a small number of particles ....

Would you care to quote a textbook on that one? My textbooks disagree. If not a textbook, any source by a reputable scientist would do.

[Meadmaker]

Just to clarify one point about why Dawkins promotes athiesm as the most rational stance (over theism, deism or agnosticism):

It isn't because of any specific argument he can make against the existence of a god.

It is because he takes the scientific view that if religion is claiming existence of a god, religion must also provide evidence to support the claims being made.

He then proceeds to respond to (and arguably demolish) many of the supposed reasons put forward so far by various philosophers and religions re the existence of god.



That takes us to chapter three.



He then tackles religion head on with more direct criticisms of brainwashing and indoctrination (especially of children), among other things.

It is from all this that he draws the support for his conclusion that, in the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, it is entirely reasonable to assume that god does not exist.

Apologies if I have made any mistakes...it has been a while since I read the book.

This is in the chapters after chapter 5.

So, what was chapter 4 all about?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Meadmaker,

Great thread.

One question, since I haven't read the book yet........does Dawkins make a case specifically against a personal God or against all conceptions of God? I may have missed this issue skimming through the thread.

For instance, I can understand why we have emotions (based in our biology), but I have no clue why God would have emotions. I don't see any possibility of an absolute argument against a god with emotion, but I see no reason why such a being would have them in the first place. God has a limbic system?

I don't see how he could argue against a divine universal without defining "divine", something about which I still don't have a full grasp. I don't see how that -- a divine universal -- is any more complex than the universe itself.

[gambling_cruiser]

Meadmaker I think you are wrong about nothing can generate spontaneously. In vacuum pairs of photons and anti-photons generate and annihilate many times. The law nothing comes from nothing is a law of averages and can be in short periods of time violated.
This effect produces the Hawking's radiation of small black holes.

PS Hawking has change his black holes hypothesis but I don't know details.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker,

Great thread.

One question, since I haven't read the book yet........does Dawkins make a case specifically against a personal God or against all conceptions of God?

All god-concepts that involve a God that deliberately decided to create the universe. In other words, the Spinoza/Einstein/(and I might add Meadmaker) conception of "God" as a synonym for "nature" is not criticized, other than saying that those who confuse the terms are guilty of high treason.

[sphenisc]

Well blame my physics profs, because that's where I learned it. To be fair, "disorder" has a very, very, specific definition when applied to the second law of thermodynamics. As for confusing compexity with order, you could be right, but Dawkins doesn't give a definition for complexity. (This is related to jjramsey's point, commenting on the notion that a designer must be more complex than the designed.) Any definition I could think of for "complexity" ended up being related to statistical improbability of arrangement of constituent elements, and that is indeed related to entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.


I think he covers this in "Climbing Mount Improbable", I don't have it to hand however.

[Ichneumonwasp]

All god-concepts that involve a God that deliberately decided to create the universe. In other words, the Spinoza/Einstein/(and I might add Meadmaker) conception of "God" as a synonym for "nature" is not criticized, other than saying that those who confuse the terms are guilty of high treason.

Thanks.

I suppose I should head to the gallows now.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker I think you are wrong about nothing can generate spontaneously. In vacuum pairs of photons and anti-photons generate and annihilate many times. The law nothing comes from nothing is a law of averages and can be in short periods of time violated.
This effect produces the Hawking's radiation of small black holes.

PS Hawking has change his black holes hypothesis but I don't know details.


Dang! I hate it when I have to learn something.:)

OK, until I get a chance to read up on vacuum physics, I will insist that nothing spontaneously generates, but I would welcome any comments (or easily accessible sources) on this subject, or a discussion of how this affects Dawkins' arguments.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It isn't clear that it would, though it may point to the always popular philosophical "nothingness is impossible". If we accept the uncertainty principle as an inherent structure, then nothingness would fix the position of all being (non-being) -- nowhere at no-time.

One way of trying to wheedle out of the vacuum physics issue is to say, "yeah, that's what happens in a universe where matter and energy exists, but what if there were really nothing?"

Since most philosopher's seem to agree that nothingness is impossible, I think we are stuck with eternal "something".

[Freddy]

Dang! I hate it when I have to learn something.:)

OK, until I get a chance to read up on vacuum physics, I will insist that nothing spontaneously generates, but I would welcome any comments (or easily accessible sources) on this subject, or a discussion of how this affects Dawkins' arguments.

It is my (admittedly amateur) understanding that particles and their anti-particles can spontaneously generate in a quantum vacuum. However, to say that they are generating from "nothing" is wrong. The particles don't come from nothing, they come from the quantum field (the words "quantum vacuum" describe the lowest energy state of a quantum field), a physical object whose properties are what make it possible for the particles to generate. Strictly speaking, a vacuum is not "nothing." It has spatial and temporal dimensions, among other properties, and its having such properties preclude its being nothing.

[The Great Hairy One]

We can observe evidence of the Big Bang. We can even discuss what was happening in the universe from about 10**-39 seconds after it.

So, what happened before that?

Also, there's no reason to assume that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Dawkins himself presents several alternatives.

ETA: I might have the exponent wrong.


I have no idea what happened before the Big Bang. None at all. As I said, I'm not a physicist, and have only studied physics at high school (where it was by far my worst grade).

However, there the point to be made here is that even though I don't know - or humanity doesn't know - what happened before the Big Bang, that does not then mean that a god-concept is required as the kick-start motor for the Big Bang. I'm sure that there is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation which we will eventually uncover. Until that time, I'm perfectly comfortable saying "I don't know".

This also shows that we can observe events indirectly. If your god-concept existed, we should be able to observe, either directly or indirectly, the effect this being has on reality. As we can not observe any effects, we can hypothesize that this being does not exist.


This is exactly the argument that Dawkins makes, and he has no more evidence to back it up than you do. We have never observed anything, simple or complex, spontaneously generate.

(Actually there is one difference between Dawkins' argument and yours. He claims, in addition, that if something were to have always existed, it must be simple.)


I'm still not sure about the quantum particles spontaneously generating. I'd like to hear from a quantum physicist, however I'm sure that even if they did post here, I'd still not understand their explanation.

One of the reasons Dawkins states that spontaneous generation can only occur with extremely simple particles is that the amount of energy required to actually construct a complex biological molecule over a 'spontaneous' period of time would be immense. You would have to get quarks forming into bosons, into neutrons, electrons, etc., thence to molecules and forming molecular structures, onwards to proteins and RNA/DNA structures, then to cells, organs, etc., etc. From the biological viewpoint, this is not something which is even remotely possible.

Now, if this god-concept is not made from cells, proteins, RNA/DNA, molecules, neutrons, electrons, bosons or quarks, what is it made of? How does it function? How does it work? If it's made of something completely outside our understanding of science, we're back to the "it's magic!" component of the argument.

So what Dawkins is basically saying is that spontaneous generation of a biological construct is not possible - and with this I would fully agree. It goes against all the laws of biology. Then, if the claim is put forward that the god-concept is not biological, we need to define exactly what this god-concept is. Is it pure thought? We've never experienced thought without a biological vector to house it. Is it pure energy? We've never experienced any form of energy exhibiting biological aspects, such as thought or emotions. And so on, and so on.

This is where Dawkins is coming from when he posits that the spontaneous generation of a god-concept is not possible.

I do so wish that people would stop saying what I am claiming, because I certainly am not claiming that.


But that's one of my problems, you are. Quote from post #61: "The point of my bringing it up is that all of the order we see today in the universe, including the complex forms of life present on the Earth today, was present in the first few fractions of a second after the Big Bang."

This is simply not true, and it is pretty much what the creationists claim, in that they claim that their god-concept created everything in the forms they are now - so at the start of their universe, "...all of the order we see today in the universe, including the complex forms of life present on the Earth today, was present..." at the beginning.

Not in the books I've read.


Read more biology texts. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Meadmaker]

However, there the point to be made here is that even though I don't know - or humanity doesn't know - what happened before the Big Bang, that does not then mean that a god-concept is required as the kick-start motor for the Big Bang.


I agree.

As we can not observe any effects, we can hypothesize that this being does not exist.

I agree, and if you call it a hypothesis, there would be no objection.

From the biological viewpoint, this is not something which is even remotely possible.

When Dawkins talks about the origin of the universe, he isn't talking about biology. He is saying that there must be a first cause, and it must be simple. There's no biology there.

So what Dawkins is basically saying is that spontaneous generation of a biological construct is not possible


He most certainly is not talking about biology in his argument from complexity.

One of the most interesting things, to me, about this thread is the way that people who admire Dawkins are so willing to pretend that his plain words are not what he meant. He really is saying that a simple thing might pop into existence, but a complex thing cannot, and he really is then arguing that this means there is no God. This isn't about biological systems. This is about elementary particles and collections of elementary particles and the universe itself and God.

Your argument is interesting, but it isn't Dawkins' argument.


"The point of my bringing it up is that all of the order we see today in the universe, including the complex forms of life present on the Earth today, was present in the first few fractions of a second after the Big Bang."

This is simply not true, and it is pretty much what the creationists claim, in that they claim that their god-concept created everything in the forms they are now - so at the start of their universe, "...all of the order we see today in the universe, including the complex forms of life present on the Earth today, was present..." at the beginning.


Let me ammend. I'm surprised someone took it with that meaning, but I can see where my words were vague enough that it could be interpreted that way.

What I meant was that there was as much complexity at 10**-39 seconds after the big bang as there is today. None of that complexity was biological, but it was equally complex. The biological complexity we see in life on Earth is a localized complexity growth which was "purchased" by the increasing entropy of a different part of the system.

[Meadmaker]

I've finished chapters 5 and 6. I'm not really certain what the point of chapter 5 was. Perhaps I was too sleepy when I read it. It deals with the Darwinian origin of religion.

I think he was trying to get at a response to an argument. Some people say that even if religion is not true, it must be good for us, or it wouldn't be so pervasive. From a Darwinian standpoint, some people say that we are evolved to believe in religion, and that belief in religion must therefore have conveyed some sort of biological advantage to us. Dawkins doesn't seem to like that idea. It sounds almost like saying religion is good for you. Dawkins gives two partially overlapping alternative explanations. First, religion could be a by-product of something genuinely useful. Second, that religion is best seen as a memetic construct that is out for its own survival, and that we are susceptible to this infection.

OK. Fine. Food for thought. If anyone thinks there is something extremely important in chapter 5, let me know.

As for 6, it deals with the argument that without God there can be no morality. It's well written, but I think the arguments in it will be very familiar to those in JREF. Not many people here need convincing of this point.

[Mobyseven]

That takes us to chapter three.




This is in the chapters after chapter 5.

So, what was chapter 4 all about?

I honestly can't remember...I'm just putting forward my recollection of the book, because there seemed to be some arguments about how Dawkins comes to a conclusion that misunderstood what I remember to be his reasoning.

Having said that, I read the book at the very start of this year, and I don't have it handy to reference...

[Mashuna]

Assigning a probability is meaningless.

ETA: I take that back. It isn't "meaningless". Dawkins' probability estimate has meaning. It just has no basis. We cannot say, based on any knowledge we have at this time, whether it is more likely for a simple thing to pop into existence than a complex thing to pop into existence. In our experience, things don't pop into existence. Therefore, we have no basis for saying that whatever does pop into existence is more likely to be simple or complex.

Fair enough, and I can now understand why you don't see the point of chapter four. Personally, I agree with Dawkins on this point, although it could be seen as an argument from personal incredulity. Although we have no experience of things popping into existence (I'm ignoring all the quantum stuff until I can understand one of the replies :) ), my expectation is that it is vastly more likely to be spontaneous generation at a quantum / atomic and unstructured level than the complex being God would have to be.

I may be mistaken in this, as the way I've rationalised it, and I think Dawkins portrayed it, is essentially by extrapolating back from the hurricane creating a 747 simile. So if we're saying that something must have arisen from nothing at some point, in order for us to be here, is that something more likely to be basic particles that then expanded and ordered themselves according to physical laws, or a fully-fledged massively complex entity? My view is the former. Your view is that there's no point trying to extend what we know about the physical universe now to before it existed.

I hope that makes sense, and that I haven't misrepresented your viewpoint too much ;)

[andyandy]

We can and do observe the beginning of the universe - cosmic background radiation. Red shifted galaxies. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation


The big bang theory is not a theory of cosmic origin - just of what happened afterwards - the big bang actually leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or frankly if it banged at all.

*ok then....that's Alan Guth's description rather than my own :) *

[Darat]

The big bang theory is not a theory of cosmic origin - just of what happened afterwards - the big bang actually leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or frankly if it banged at all.

*ok then....that's Alan Guth's description rather than my own :) *

And even the name it is known by was coined by an opponent of the "Big Bang" - Fred Hoyle when he was being sarcastic about the theory!

[Beerina]

My, perhaps uninformed, understanding is that circumcision bestows certain health benefits that make it advisable regardless of religious belief;

So God's design is flawed?

[qayak]

It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or frankly if it banged at all.

If you mean we do not know if it made a noise, then you are correct but there is little doubt that the so called "Big Bang" did occur. It is at least as certain as Evolution.

[qayak]

So God's design is flawed?

We already know god isn't a very good designer. First he made man and put that little foreskinny thing on him which several religions say they need to cut off , but then he created woman and look at all the screw-ups there!

First, they have to get their ears pierced, then they start wearing make up, then it's a boob job and a butt tuck . . . could he have made any more mistakes? :D :p :D :p

[The Great Hairy One]

When Dawkins talks about the origin of the universe, he isn't talking about biology. He is saying that there must be a first cause, and it must be simple. There's no biology there.

This comes back to one of my original questions - defining your god-concept. Generally, if one takes the christian style god-concept, it is considered to be cognitive, rational (mostly), emotional, imaginative and constructive. Thus it requires some sort of biological matrix, as we've not isolated "pure thought".

Dawkins is approaching this from the viewpoint of a biologist. He's not a physicist, I don't know how much of physics he understands, I suspect he's on par with most other university lecturers of different disciplines, he knows the basics and gets confused with the complexities. He's approaching the problem from his understanding of the world, and with his training and skill set. Expecting him to come up with arguments from a quantum mechanics point of view is not entirely honest - he's not trained in that area, and he's not an expert in that area.

He most certainly is not talking about biology in his argument from complexity.

One of the most interesting things, to me, about this thread is the way that people who admire Dawkins are so willing to pretend that his plain words are not what he meant. He really is saying that a simple thing might pop into existence, but a complex thing cannot, and he really is then arguing that this means there is no God. This isn't about biological systems. This is about elementary particles and collections of elementary particles and the universe itself and God.


I think you're being overly critical of Dawkins here. He is talking about biological systems - a god-concept needs some form of biological matrix supporting it's thoughts. It can not be just pure thought or pure energy.

If you want a discussion from the quantum physics side of things, you are reading the wrong book.

Let me ammend. I'm surprised someone took it with that meaning, but I can see where my words were vague enough that it could be interpreted that way.

What I meant was that there was as much complexity at 10**-39 seconds after the big bang as there is today. None of that complexity was biological, but it was equally complex. The biological complexity we see in life on Earth is a localized complexity growth which was "purchased" by the increasing entropy of a different part of the system.


I'm not sure if I agree that the levels of complexity have not changed - I'd want to see a definition of complexity before commenting on that.

The big bang theory is not a theory of cosmic origin - just of what happened afterwards - the big bang actually leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or frankly if it banged at all.


"Big Bang" is just a descriptor, it does not imply that there was an explosive event. And I really don't think you can claim that it didn't occur, else we'd not be having this conversation!

I don't think the "why" is an important question. The "what" is, but that's beyond current science. The "how" is being heavily investigated, and more and more information comes to light every year. Hopefully within our lifetimes, we'll have a more definitive understanding of the origins of the universe.

Cheers,
TGHO

[qayak]

"Big Bang" is just a descriptor, it does not imply that there was an explosive event.

Actually, the name does imply an explosive event. Enough of an explosive event that it is the cause of the expansion of the universe, an expansion that continues many billions of years later, and that will, apparently, continue forever. By any definition of explosion, this fits the bill.

Simon Singh's book, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, is a great overview of the history of, and evidence for, the theory.

[Meadmaker]

I hope that makes sense, and that I haven't misrepresented your viewpoint too much ;)
Nope. You seem to have hit the nail on the head.

[qayak]

Your view is that there's no point trying to extend what we know about the physical universe now to before it existed.

That has often been the view prior to someone else making a ground breaking discovery. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking states that this was the view of the then pope. As Hawking said, "Too late. Scientists have already started."

This was also what Hawking referred to as the face of god. Only he wasn't saying there was a being at the Big Bang event. He was saying that if god is the "creator of the universe", then to witness the Big Bang would have been to look into the face of god because the creator of the universe was the Big Bang.

[Meadmaker]

I think you're being overly critical of Dawkins here. He is talking about biological systems

From page 142: "The relevant point here is that the value of the strong force crucially determines how far up the periodic table the nuclear fusion cascade goes. If the strong force were too small, say 0.006 instead of 0.007, the universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, and no interesting chemistry could result..."

It doesn't sound very biological to me.

In the section entitled, "The anthropic principle: cosmological version", he talks a lot about physics, astronomy, the beginning of the universe, and just barely mentions life at all.

- a god-concept needs some form of biological matrix supporting it's thoughts. It can not be just pure thought or pure energy.

We could discuss that claim, but it is not one made by Dawkins.

not sure if I agree that the levels of complexity have not changed - I'd want to see a definition of complexity before commenting on that.

Fair enough, but you won't find one in "The God Delusion".




"Big Bang" is just a descriptor, it does not imply that there was an explosive event. And I really don't think you can claim that it didn't occur, else we'd not be having this conversation!

I don't think he did. I think what he was pointing out was that the theory of the Big Bang doesn't go all the way back to t=0. It begins right around t=10**-39. As I noted, I might have the exponent wrong, but it's a real limit called the Plancke Limit, or value, or something about Plancke, and I have no idea what it means, except that we can't infer anything about a time before it. (The book I read this in was called Origins, but I don't have the author.)


ETA: http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Fourteen-Billion-Cosmic-Evolution/dp/0393327582/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2518467-0089556?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178243866&sr=1-1

[The Great Hairy One]

Actually, the name does imply an explosive event. Enough of an explosive event that it is the cause of the expansion of the universe, an expansion that continues many billions of years later, and that will, apparently, continue forever. By any definition of explosion, this fits the bill.

Simon Singh's book, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, is a great overview of the history of, and evidence for, the theory.


Pass it on to Andyandy then.

Cheers,
TGHO

[The Great Hairy One]

From page 142: "The relevant point here is that the value of the strong force crucially determines how far up the periodic table the nuclear fusion cascade goes. If the strong force were too small, say 0.006 instead of 0.007, the universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, and no interesting chemistry could result..."

It doesn't sound very biological to me.

In the section entitled, "The anthropic principle: cosmological version", he talks a lot about physics, astronomy, the beginning of the universe, and just barely mentions life at all.


"Interesting chemistry". What is biology but "interesting chemistry"?

"Anthropic Principle" - we are the anthropic principle. Talking about the anthropic principle is talking about human life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic

That section, from my point of view, talks about nothing but life!

But that's irrespective of the fact that all of those event occur after the so-called spontaneous generation of this god-concept. This specific event has to happen before the Big Bang, as it has to set the Big Bang in motion.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Meadmaker]

I've finished chapters 7 and 8, and they were much better than I expected. In Chapter 7, I was most impressed by his presentation of an experiment in which young Jewish children were given an account of the Battle of Jericho and asked if Joshua did the right thing, and they all said yes, but when Joshua and Jericho were replaced by fictious ancient chinese names and places, a different set of Jewish children said that the actions were immoral.

Chapter 7 also included a rundown of things in the Bible that ranged from silly to reprehensible. Most will be familiar to JREF readers.

Chapter 7 also included a section entitled "What about Hitler and Stalin? Weren't They Atheists" I had heard about this section in threads on JREF and I expected to hear a ridiculous discussion of Hitler's Christianity, because that's what the JREF threads said. Actually, it was a reasonable discussion of religious influences on Hitler.

Food for thought: I had read very little of Dawkins' stuff first hand. A bit here and there that sounded pretty darned bad, but most of my knowledge was secondhand, and most of that right here in these forums. I expected to read a fire breathing, no holds barred, ridiculous account of why religion is absolutely awful. I expected that, because that's what I read on JREF. The reality isn't so bad. In fact, it's quite reasonable, and definitely gives one pause. The moral of the story is, "Kids, don't try this at home." He deserves to be a best selling author while we waste time on JREF.

Chapter 8 includes his stongest stuff yet about what's wrong with religion, but even it wasn't way over the top. In fact, I think he makes a very strong indictment of faith, although not so much against religion.

Don't get me wrong. I haven't turned into a big fan of Dawkins, but his book is a lot better and more reasonable than I expected, even if chapter 4 included an argument that is rubbish. Overall, what he is saying is fairly reasonable. Of course, chapter 9, about religion and child abuse, looms. That's where I've had my biggest objection to date.

[andyandy]

DING DING DING!

Yet another Dawkins thread passes the 100 post mark....

the man's a guaranteed box office draw :D

[Tanstaafl]

So God's design is flawed?


God put the Engineering Change Notice in the Bible.

[Meadmaker]

Well, I've finished chapter 9 and it was...reasonable.

It's surprising to me that this book is as good as it is, because the people on JREF who talk about how good this book is have advocated policies that are, in my opinion, extreme and dangerous. The test case question I've discussed in some threads is "Should my son's school be shut down?" The answer from many JREF participants has been "yes".

(My son's school is a religious school run by Conservative Jews.)

Dawkins does not explicitly call for any such thing. He might wish them to go away, as he did when discussing Northern Ireland, or might call for an end of government support of religious schools, as he has in fact done. So how do you go from what he actually says to their position? I suppose the best people to ask are the people who hold that position.

[Beth]

I just thought I'd let you know I've enjoyed this thread. Your assessment of Dawkins book is very similiar to mine.

Well, I've finished chapter 9 and it was...reasonable.

It's surprising to me that this book is as good as it is, because the people on JREF who talk about how good this book is have advocated policies that are, in my opinion, extreme and dangerous. The test case question I've discussed in some threads is "Should my son's school be shut down?" The answer from many JREF participants has been "yes".

(My son's school is a religious school run by Conservative Jews.)

Dawkins does not explicitly call for any such thing. He might wish them to go away, as he did when discussing Northern Ireland, or might call for an end of government support of religious schools, as he has in fact done. So how do you go from what he actually says to their position? I suppose the best people to ask are the people who hold that position.

Wait until you've finished the book. He holds off stating his more radical opinions regarding religion and childhood education until close to the end. I don't know that he would advocate shutting your son's school down, but my recollection is that he comes pretty close.

[Darat]

Well, I've finished chapter 9 and it was...reasonable.

It's surprising to me that this book is as good as it is, because the people on JREF who talk about how good this book is have advocated policies that are, in my opinion, extreme and dangerous. The test case question I've discussed in some threads is "Should my son's school be shut down?" The answer from many JREF participants has been "yes".

(My son's school is a religious school run by Conservative Jews.)

...snip...


A disingenuous summary of a long debate.

An honest and accurate summary would be that most Members who believe that children should not be indoctrinated was that if your school practised religious indoctrination it shouldn't and if the only way to achieve that was to close it then so be it.

Please stop lying about what Members who do not agree with you have actually said..

[Beth]

A disingenuous summary of a long debate.

An honest and accurate summary would be that most Members who believe that children should not be indoctrinated was that if your school practised religious indoctrination it shouldn't and if the only way to achieve that was to close it then so be it.

Please stop lying about what Members who do not agree with you have actually said..

My recollection is that he explained what his son's school did and it was declared to be 'indoctrination'. Further, he thought that the only way they would stop what they were doing in regards to religious instruction would be to close the school down. So I don't think he's been disingenuous about it....at least, not to the best of my recollection :)

[Darat]

My recollection is that he explained what his son's school did and it was declared to be 'indoctrination'. Further, he thought that the only way they would stop what they were doing in regards to religious instruction would be to close the school down. So I don't think he's been disingenuous about it....at least, not to the best of my recollection :)

Your recollection is wrong:


And that differs from saying that religious education is child abuse...how?

Either way, it's an emotional argument. How is their mind "abused"?


...snip...

If you mean that "indoctrination" by definition reduces the ability to think critically, you're right. It doesn't matter if you are indoctrinating into religion, or out of it. The Soviet Union was full of schools that indoctrinated people with both atheism and communism, and I'm sure that their schools didn't put out a great crop of critical thinkers.

...snip...

And so I can't be accused of taking something out of context:

Good point. Let me clarify what I meant.

I think its fair to say that when you attempt to control what ideas people, especially children, are exposed to, their thoughts will be limited.

....snip...

The nearest to anyone saying what Meadmaker has made up would be drkitten's post:




Indoctrination of children is a major part of the mission of the school. If forbidden to perform indoctrination, the people who run the place would seek jobs elsewhere.

And there, in a nutshell, is why your school should be closed down. It's a fraudulent operation.

"If you insist that our educational institution should provide education instead of indoctrination, we will shut down."

Good.

My hope is that the people who run the place not only seek jobs elsewhere, but do it outside of the "educational" industry.


And there was only drkitten that actually said that - yet Meadmaker summarised that one person's view as (bold by me) "...because the people on JREF who talk about how good this book is have advocated policies that are, in my opinion, extreme and dangerous. The test case question I've discussed in some threads is "Should my son's school be shut down?" The answer from many JREF participants has been "yes"...."

There are dozens of Members that have said that it is a good book, yet Meadmaker summarises one person in one extremely narrow part of one long discussion who said anything about his son's school being closed down as "...the people on JREF who talk about how good this book is...".

His summary was disingenuous and nothing more then an attempt at poisoning the well (http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Poisoning_the_Well), it was dishonest and totally unnecessary.

[T'ai Chi]

Thanks for clearing that up!


T'ai Chi - keep things civil. I've removed the text that was nothing more than an attempt to provoke and gratuitously insult someone; make your point without being insulting next time.

[Meadmaker]

A disingenuous summary of a long debate.

An honest and accurate summary would be that most Members who believe that children should not be indoctrinated was that if your school practised religious indoctrination it shouldn't and if the only way to achieve that was to close it then so be it.

Please stop lying about what Members who do not agree with you have actually said..

I wrote a reply, but I decided to delete it.

For what it's worth, my son's school does in fact practice religious indoctrination (with or without italics), and they don't intend to stop as long as they remain open. If anyone is interested in why I would send my son there, feel free to ask. If anyone is intested in Darat's position, whatever it is, feel free to ask him.

[Meadmaker]

Wait until you've finished the book. He holds off stating his more radical opinions regarding religion and childhood education until close to the end. I don't know that he would advocate shutting your son's school down, but my recollection is that he comes pretty close.

I finished it tonight.

It's interesting on whether or not he advocates such an extreme position. In any literal sense, he doesn't. However, if you follow the implications of what he is saying, it seems that he would.

For one thing, in my opening post, I mentioned a rather despicable, imho, speech by Nicholas Humphreys. Dawkins praises the speech and quotes it at length. So, he doesn't say in his book that we ought to shut those schools down, but he praises a speech that goes even farther than that, extending the hand of government censorship into the home.

I think the best way to analyse Dawkins' position is in terms he used in chapter 7, about the changing zeitgeist (spirit of the times) in the world. He noted that Abraham Lincoln held views that would put him in the category of the worst racists of our day, but for his times were extremely radical in their liberalism. If a politician of his day would have actually called for equality for blacks, he would never have been elected to anything, much less the Presidency.

Dawkins wants to further a change in the zeitgeist of the world. He will not call for padlocks on the schoolroom doors, as such, but he wants to bring about a world in which such an action would not be considered extreme, hateful, or dangerous. I think if he were successful, the doors would indeed be padlocked, eventually, "for the sake of the children".


Overall, the book was good. Better than I expected. Fairer, more reasonable, and in some spots an incredibly powerful argument. However, I still have a couple of big problems with it. The first I alluded to above. Even though he was fair, he advocates positions which, when picked up by others, I think would inevitably transform into hateful and dangerous ideas.

Second, in chapter 5 he tried very hard to dismiss the idea that religion is good for you, even if not true. He pointed out that maybe it isn't really true that we evolved to have religion, but that religion was an undesirable side effect of something genuinely useful that had offered an evolutionary advantage.

He might be right. However, it still means that we are evolved in such a way that religion is very appealing, and in my humble opinion, we ought to think twice about bashing it so strongly. Dawkins suggests at every turn that it is childish, but I think that's too simplistic. Dawkins tried to offer science as a substitute in chapter 10, but, frankly, I think chapter 10 was the weakest in the book.

Third, so many of his criticisms really suffer from outsiders' syndrome. It's very difficult to understand a religion from the outside. As a Christian, I figured I had a fairly decent handle on Judaism. It was like Christianity, just they didn't think the Messiah had come yet. Right? And so they still kept the Mosaic Law. Like Dawkins, I could chuckle at the weird habits of Jews that I had read about.

It took me about five years of being a pseudo-Jew to start really understanding how incredibly different the religions were. You can describe the beliefs and practices of a religion by reading a book, but until you have a bit of experience of it, it won't make sense to you. That's not to say it should make sense to you, and certainly not that it's a good thing, just that some of the criticisms will miss the mark if you don't understand what you are criticizing.

Well that's more than enough for now. Overall, it was a good book. I agreed with a great deal of what I read. I still think Dawkins is too extreme, and maybe even dangerous, but in many ways, that's judging him by the company he keeps. I fear that many people will find inspiration in his words, and will end up advocating censorship and other rather ugly things, all the while spouting Orwellian rhetoric about how they are actually advocating even greater freedom. Time will tell.

[Apathia]

I'm quite satisfied with a seperation of relgion and state. I don't want any sort of government meddlng in beliefs, except when life and public safety are put in danger. (For example, if a Jehovah's Witness parent denies a child a neccessary blood transfusion, I'm for public intervention to save that child from her parent's ignorance.) I don't want to see the state attempting to save a child from his parent's beliefs. This quickly becomes a strike against freedom of thought and speech.

Legislated teaching of Atheism in schools, turns a simple lack of belief in gods into a Theological position. Please, just keep it out of the cirriiculum along with ID and any other belief position.

I object that already shcools want to do values education. It's enough that they want to impose the so-called Three R's. I don't want ideologically filthy hands pretending individual hearts are made of clay to be shaped and fired into Wal-Mart quality tableware.

[JamesDillon]

So God's design is flawed?

What are you talking about? Did I say anything remotely suggesting that I was defending a theistic perspective there?

[JamesDillon]

I don't think he did. I think what he was pointing out was that the theory of the Big Bang doesn't go all the way back to t=0. It begins right around t=10**-39. As I noted, I might have the exponent wrong, but it's a real limit called the Plancke Limit, or value, or something about Plancke, and I have no idea what it means, except that we can't infer anything about a time before it. (The book I read this in was called Origins, but I don't have the author.)


ETA: http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Fourteen-Billion-Cosmic-Evolution/dp/0393327582/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2518467-0089556?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178243866&sr=1-1

That's consistent with my very limited knowledge of this subject. As I recall from reading Hawking, the point is that the laws of physics simply break down at a singularity, so it's impossible to describe what happens there, or to predict what will happen within a singularity. So the laws of science as we understand them would only apply up to a point back to some instant in time very shortly after the termination of the proto-universe singularity at the Big Bang.

But I could be totally wrong about that; physics makes my head hurt.

[Beth]

I finished it tonight.

It's interesting on whether or not he advocates such an extreme position. In any literal sense, he doesn't. However, if you follow the implications of what he is saying, it seems that he would.

I think the best way to analyse Dawkins' position is in terms he used in chapter 7, about the changing zeitgeist (spirit of the times) in the world.


Yes. IMO, that's a good summation of Dawkins position.

Overall, the book was good. Better than I expected. Fairer, more reasonable, and in some spots an incredibly powerful argument. In chapter 5 he tried very hard to dismiss the idea that religion is good for you, even if not true. He pointed out that maybe it isn't really true that we evolved to have religion, but that religion was an undesirable side effect of something genuinely useful that had offered an evolutionary advantage.

He might be right.

Yes, that was one aspect that troubled me too. He doesn't actually have any strong evidence that religion is just an undesirable side effect and not genuinely useful for the survival of human societies. I am not convinced that religion is not useful to us.

He also argues (I can't recall if it's in that book or somewhere else) that even whatever benefits religion does provide to people (comfort, security, community, etc.) we don't need religion to provide those. While this may well be true, I don't find it an argument against religion.


However, it still means that we are evolved in such a way that religion is very appealing, and in my humble opinion, we ought to think twice about bashing it so strongly. Third, so many of his criticisms really suffer from outsiders' syndrome.

I quite agree with these points.

[Meadmaker]

Yes, that was one aspect that troubled me too. He doesn't actually have any strong evidence that religion is just an undesirable side effect and not genuinely useful for the survival of human societies.


Right. He presents an alternative, but he doesn't present any evidence, or even any significant argument about one alternative or the other.

[Gurdur]

Tiddley om.

Timely reading in The Guardian today. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html)

[Meadmaker]

Tiddley om.

Timely reading in The Guardian today. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html)

I loved this line:

"they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimised - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition "

[Beth]

My favorite was this:

"With little understanding and even less sympathy of why people increasingly use religious identity in political contexts, they've missed the proverbial elephant in the room."

[andyandy]

If you mean we do not know if it made a noise, then you are correct but there is little doubt that the so called "Big Bang" did occur. It is at least as certain as Evolution.

You misunderstand the quote. It is making the point that the big bang theory is not a theory of cosmic origins. It is a theory of what happened afterwards.

[andyandy]

from the graniund

But it tips over into something much more sinister in Harris's latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically unreformable because so many Muslims are "utterly deranged by their religious faith". In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".

Harris has hit upon a solution - kill the believers! :rolleyes:

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well that's more than enough for now. Overall, it was a good book. I agreed with a great deal of what I read. I still think Dawkins is too extreme, and maybe even dangerous, but in many ways, that's judging him by the company he keeps. I fear that many people will find inspiration in his words, and will end up advocating censorship and other rather ugly things, all the while spouting Orwellian rhetoric about how they are actually advocating even greater freedom. Time will tell.

Again, haven't read Dawkin's book yet, but I get the same impression from reading Sam Harris, though it seems that Harris is a bit more extreme than Dawkins seems to be. I find a few of the things that Harris says to be quite scary, especially his comments about torture.

Overall do you think it is worth other's time investment to read Dawkin's book? I guess I should anyway since I do enjoy his writing style, so I suppose my question is really moot.

[Meadmaker]

from the graniund



Harris has hit upon a solution - kill the believers! :rolleyes:

I was sufficiently "impressed" by the quote that it became my sig of the moment. Looks like I'll have to read Harris' book to see where the slippery slope might lead.

Oh, yeah, that's a fallacy. I forgot. That sort of thing never happens.

[bignickel]

Huh?
But it tips over into something much more sinister in Harris's latest book. He suggests that Islamic states may be politically unreformable because so many Muslims are "utterly deranged by their religious faith". In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them".
I really don't remember this in "The End of Faith". So, this is somewhere in "Letter to a Christian Nation"? If so, I'd appreciate it if someone gave me the page number. It sounds a bit iffy to me.

[Gregory]

Well, here he accuses the Muslim workl of being "utterly deranged by its religious tribalism." (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/)

[bignickel]

Well, if you enjoy cherry picking quotes from authors, Harris is as good as Dawkins to do it to. I found a whole lot of blogs out there condemning Harris for the statement, but not one yet that mentioned the context. Luckily, someone pointed out the page number in the comments section of one blog. I wonder why none of the bloggers mentioned the page numbers, or context?

I finally found the passage, p52-53 "The End of Faith"
The link between belief and and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.
(italics mine)

So, Harris is not talking about the government executing people for 'wrong ideas.' He's talking about people who have committed acts of horrific violence, and are still at large, and our military's attempts to hunt them down. Which is why he included 'may' in his sentence: he was going to talk about it further in the rest of the paragraph. Somehow, the rest of the paragraph never makes it onto blogger's pages. I wonder why.

[bignickel]

Harris also makes it perfectly clear who is he speaking about in the footnote to the above passage (page 246). Those bloggers who love to cherry-pick could only avoid knowledge of what Harris was talking about only by skipping over just about everything he wrote after that sentence.

"5. We don't have to bring the membership of Al-Qaeda to justice merely because of what happened on Sept 11, 2001. The thousands of men, women, and children who disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center are beyond our help - and successful acts of retribution, however satisfying they may be to some people, will not changes this fact. Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith.

[JamesDillon]

So, Harris is not talking about the government executing people for 'wrong ideas.' He's talking about people who have committed acts of horrific violence, and are still at large, and our military's attempts to hunt them down. Which is why he included 'may' in his sentence: he was going to talk about it further in the rest of the paragraph. Somehow, the rest of the paragraph never makes it onto blogger's pages. I wonder why.

But that's not what he's saying, is it? He's not talking about killing people in self-defense because they have committed acts of horrific violence; he's talking about killing people because their beliefs might lead them to do such a thing, or even simply to believe that the violent acts of others are justified. That sounds a lot like the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war that has been so widely, and I think rightly, criticized. So it is clear, even in the full context that you provide, that he's essentially talking about killing people for the beliefs they hold. I haven't read any Harris (though I own his first book), but I find this quite disturbing.

[Meadmaker]

So, Harris is not talking about the government executing people for 'wrong ideas.'

Yes, he is. He's quite explicit about it.

ETA: Correction: He isn't talking about "executing" them. He's talking about killing them if they can't be captured.

He's talking about people who have committed acts of horrific violence,

Or whom we think might do so in the future.



Harris could easily have said something along the lines of, "Motivated by faith, there are people who are actively plotting horrific acts of violence against those who do not share their faith. In such a case, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self defense."

I may occasionally misspeak and say something I didn't really mean in one of these forums. However, I don't have months to write the book,and I don't have an editor. I can only assume he actually meant what he said, which is that it might be ethical to kill people who hold certain beliefs.

[bignickel]

I assume that he said what he meant to, in the rest of the paragraph, and the footnote.
Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world.
This, and the footnote, make it quite clear who he is talking about. And yet, I've seen blog after blog of people saying "Harris thinks it's OK to execute people simply because of what they believe." (italics mine) Which is a baldfaced lie.

The context makes it clear that is NOT a position he holds. Although many would like to continue believing it is so. (maybe because it makes a nifty sig; Dawkins has been cherry-picked often enough to have his thoughts end up in similar places)

[Meadmaker]

I assume that he said what he meant to, in the rest of the paragraph, and the footnote.

This, and the footnote, make it quite clear who he is talking about.

Indeed, you are correct. So, let's test the clarity with a question. Is he saying

a) If someone is plotting to kill you, it is acceptable to kill them first, in an act of self defense.

or

b) If someone holds religious beliefs that make them believe it is acceptable to kill you, it is acceptable to kill them first, in an act of self defense.


It seems to me that he is quite clear, and it is the latter.

[bignickel]

a) If someone is plotting to kill you, it is acceptable to kill them first, in an act of self defense.

or

b) If someone holds religious beliefs that make them believe it is acceptable to kill you, it is acceptable to kill them first, in an act of self defense.


It seems to me that he is quite clear, and it is the latter.
What is clear is that you are missing what he is saying. I don't believe it's A OR B, but it's certainly not B because his footnote makes it explicitly clear who he's talking about: "We don't have to bring the membership of Al-Qaeda to justice merely because of what happened on Sept 11, 2001."

He doesn't say 'people being educated in madrassas'. He says Al-Qaeda. If he really meant 'people being educated in madrassas', then I would think he would have said so. But, "I can only assume he actually meant what he said."

Have you actually read his book? I have to ask, because I'd rather not have to explain this whole part of the chapter, where he is talking about how beliefs get into people's heads, and then the belief leads to actions. He's talking about the direct result of what people believed, and then what they did as a result of that belief. A literal 'war of ideas'.

But hey, who am I rob someone of their new sig? Enjoy your portrayal of Sam Harris as Inquisitional maniac. 'How ironical! He says hes for rationality, but he calls for the death of people who have different ideas! Pwned!'

[T'ai Chi]

I'd be interested in hearing of anything new you read in this book.

So far, it appears to be a rehashing of stuff that is ages old that I've read elsewhere.

[Dunstan]

I'd be interested in hearing of anything new you read in this book.

So far, it appears to be a rehashing of stuff that is ages old that I've read elsewhere.

I thought it was a very interesting book.

[Steven Howard]

Indeed, you are correct. So, let's test the clarity with a question. Is he saying

a) If someone is plotting to kill you, it is acceptable to kill them first, in an act of self defense.

or

b) If someone holds religious beliefs that make them believe it is acceptable to kill you, it is acceptable to kill them first, in an act of self defense.


It seems to me that he is quite clear, and it is the latter.


By my reading, he's quite clearly saying:

c.) If someone holds religious beliefs that make them believe it is acceptable or even desirable to kill innocent people, and if they've demonstrated this in the past by actually killing innocent people, and if you can't stop them any other way, then it may be ethical to kill them in order to prevent further killings.

But I only think that because that's exactly what the quoted section actually says, so don't go by me.

[Dunstan]

Dawkins does not explicitly call for any such thing. He might wish them to go away, as he did when discussing Northern Ireland, or might call for an end of government support of religious schools, as he has in fact done. So how do you go from what he actually says to their position? I suppose the best people to ask are the people who hold that position.

Assuming for the moment that some people actually hold that position, why would you have to "get there" from what Dawkins says?

In my opinion, Dawkins is a good writer and speaker and an asset for those of us who would like to see a little more critical examination of faith. But he isn't the Atheist Pope, nor is he part of an Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (or Dennett or Shermer or whoever else you like). Atheists are allowed to hold positions that are inconsistent with any or all of those folks. It's part of that whole "freethinking" thing.

I had read very little of Dawkins' stuff first hand. A bit here and there that sounded pretty darned bad, but most of my knowledge was secondhand, and most of that right here in these forums. I expected to read a fire breathing, no holds barred, ridiculous account of why religion is absolutely awful. I expected that, because that's what I read on JREF. The reality isn't so bad. In fact, it's quite reasonable, and definitely gives one pause. The moral of the story is, "Kids, don't try this at home." He deserves to be a best selling author while we waste time on JREF.


Most of the Dawkins threads here on JREF seem to be of two types: (a) believers who disagree with the content of what Dawkins says; and (b) atheists who dislike his methods or tone. It's inevitable that such threads will focus on the "worst" or "most extreme" things he has said or written -- or worse yet, people's inaccurate characterizations (or third-hand recollections) of what Dawkins has said or written. You don't see a lot of "Dawkins Is Awesome! Post Your Favorite Excerpts" threads, because they wouldn't be terribly interesting.

[Meadmaker]

He says Al-Qaeda. If he really meant 'people being educated in madrassas', then I would think he would have said so. But, "I can only assume he actually meant what he said."

Certainly he is talking about Al-Qaeda, although he mentions them after he says that it might be ethical to kill people who hold certain beliefs. I assume that Al-Qaeda is an example.

I'm all for killing Al-Qaeda, but for their behavior, not their beliefs. He links the need to kill them to their radical Islamic beliefs that make it impossible to talk to them. I could write that off, if it weren't for the fact that in other essays, he says that moderate Islam doesn't really exist.

I'm not the first person to find that line rather odious. Indeed, I got it out of a column that will get much wider circulation than anything I write. He's perfectly aware of the controversy that line caused. As such, he could easily write an essay of his own, explaining what he meant, and clearing things up. He could say, "Of course I didn't mean that the beliefs themselves is what we should look for in seeking out targets for self-defense actions. I only meant Al-Qaeda, and I meant that their beliefs have led them to do things that make them a danger to us. So, we could be justified in killing them if there is no way to stop them."

So, why hasn't he done that? I think the answer is clear. That's not what he meant. He meant that the beliefs themselves are dangerous, and it's ok to kill people who hold those beliefs. That's what he said, and it seems likely that's what he meant.

I have the same problem with Dawkins and "child abuse". He could easily make a statement that says it isn't necessarily child abuse to raise your child Amish, or Jewish, or Catholic. If he did that, a lot of people would back down from their criticism of him. So, where is that statement? I don't think it's coming, because I think he feels that it is, in fact, abusive.

Have you actually read his book?

Not yet.


I have to ask, because I'd rather not have to explain this whole part of the chapter, where he is talking about how beliefs get into people's heads, and then the belief leads to actions.


No need to explain. Even in the quoted excerpts, it is quite clear. Beliefs get into people's heads. Beliefs lead to actions. So, we are justified in killing the people with those beliefs before they act. I get it. He made it perfectly clear.

[Meadmaker]

By my reading, he's quite clearly saying:

c.) If someone holds religious beliefs that make them believe it is acceptable or even desirable to kill innocent people, and if they've demonstrated this in the past by actually killing innocent people (emphasis added), and if you can't stop them any other way, then it may be ethical to kill them in order to prevent further killings.

But I only think that because that's exactly what the quoted section actually says, so don't go by me.

But the quoted section does not say that. Specifically, the bolded section above is not in the quoted section.

ETA: To add emphasis, here's part of his quote.

The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith.

He doesn't say "members of Al-Qaeda" actually believe, he says "certain twenty-first-century Muslims". It seems to me that he is saying that if we find other 21st century Muslims who believe the same things as the people who did the September 11 attacks, we would be justified in attacking them, as an act of self defense.

[Meadmaker]

Assuming for the moment that some people actually hold that position, why would you have to "get there" from what Dawkins says?

Good point. Poor wording on my part.

What I was really thinking about was that Dawkins doesn't himself call for specific actions against religious believers, or at least very mild ones. However, it is my opinion that his rhetoric, if accepted by significant numbers of members of our society, would lead to "societal intervention" that took the form of laws forbidding religious education.

Some people on JREF have called for such action, although they do not include Darat, who said something completely and utterly different from that.

[Dunstan]

Good point. Poor wording on my part.

What I was really thinking about was that Dawkins doesn't himself call for specific actions against religious believers, or at least very mild ones. However, it is my opinion that his rhetoric, if accepted by significant numbers of members of our society, would lead to "societal intervention" that took the form of laws forbidding religious education.

Some people on JREF have called for such action, although they do not include Darat, who said something completely and utterly different from that.

But then all you have is a slippery slope argument. Dawkins shouldn't say something because it might lead other people to take more "extreme" action?

[Steven Howard]

He doesn't say "members of Al-Qaeda" actually believe, he says "certain twenty-first-century Muslims". It seems to me that he is saying that if we find other 21st century Muslims who believe the same things as the people who did the September 11 attacks, we would be justified in attacking them, as an act of self defense.

If by "believe the same things as the people who did the September 11 attacks" you mean "honestly and completely believe, the way you and I believe that two and two make four, that God wants them to kill thousands of innocent people", then this is in fact almost what Harris wrote. You still need to add in the "and there's no other way to stop them" part. And the part where Harris only says it might be justified to kill them in self-defense, not that it necessarily would be.

[Meadmaker]

But then all you have is a slippery slope argument. Dawkins shouldn't say something because it might lead other people to take more "extreme" action?

Pretty much. Of course, everyone on JREF knows that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy. On the other hand, everyone with a clue knows that societies slip on slopes quite frequently, whether or not it's a fallacy.

[triadboy]

However, it is my opinion that his rhetoric, if accepted by significant numbers of members of our society, would lead to "societal intervention" that took the form of laws forbidding religious education.



Just finished reading TGD and loved it.

I think Dawkins and atheists in general would applaud a class that taught Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and the Jewish religions. Teach a Metaphysics 101 class for people who want to learn the varied beliefs down through the years.

Xians would not like this class because THEIR religion would be merely one of many.

[mijopaalmc]

Assuming for the moment that some people actually hold that position, why would you have to "get there" from what Dawkins says?

In my opinion, Dawkins is a good writer and speaker and an asset for those of us who would like to see a little more critical examination of faith. But he isn't the Atheist Pope, nor is he part of an Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (or Dennett or Shermer or whoever else you like). Atheists are allowed to hold positions that are inconsistent with any or all of those folks. It's part of that whole "freethinking" thing.

Most of the Dawkins threads here on JREF seem to be of two types: (a) believers who disagree with the content of what Dawkins says; and (b) atheists who dislike his methods or tone. It's inevitable that such threads will focus on the "worst" or "most extreme" things he has said or written -- or worse yet, people's inaccurate characterizations (or third-hand recollections) of what Dawkins has said or written. You don't see a lot of "Dawkins Is Awesome! Post Your Favorite Excerpts" threads, because they wouldn't be terribly interesting.


However, when atheists quote or misquote the above authors to support their views on religion and believers, it appears that such authors have a certain cachet, if not authority, among atheists. It's like a Christian quoting Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God; the argument carries most of its force precisely because Thomas Aquinas is considered an authority on Christian theology. I think most people realize that not all atheists agree with everything that those authors say, but when they come so often in discussion with atheists, it seems only reasonable to think that some atheists agree with them. This is exactly why it is so disturbing that try to explain away Dawkins' claim that religion is mental illness or Harris' assertions that we should kill people for what they believe, especially since both of them essentially speak out both sides of their mouths. They make outrageous statements and then provide comments that seem to moderate what they originally said but are in fact making a separate argument, allowing their apologists to equivocate as to what they said.

Why is it so hard for that these authors might hold some unsavory and down right dangerous views of their own?

[bignickel]

You know what I find odious? Cherry-picking. I've seen all the blogs with that line, as i've already mentioned: hardly any of them have the rest of the paragraph. Why? Because they know that it'll only 'confuse' the reader from their main point: Harris is an Inquisitional itellectual fascist. Your interpretation of his words is a torturous mis-reading, and Harris' ideas are easy enough to read to show that you are being intellectually dishonest. Write a column to explain what he meant? Why? His words in the paragraph are perfectly clear. The only reason he'd have to write such a paragraph is to defend himself from you and all the other cherry-picking bloggers out there.

Whatever. Enjoy your new sig. If you try hard enough, I'm sure you could cherry-pick something equally as ridiculous from Dawkins or even Randi himself.

[Dunstan]

Why is it so hard for that these authors might hold some unsavory and down right dangerous views of their own?

You've done this in the "Skeptical movement" thread as well. It really does you no credit. Asking "why is it so hard for you to admit I'm right" is not an argument. It's just childish.

[The Great Hairy One]

Meadmaker,

I find your usage of that Sam Harris quote for your signature in poor taste and one sided. Are you going to include some quotes such as:

"[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim" - Osama bin Laden

"Terrorism against America deserves to be praised" - Osama bin Laden

"The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the Church to attain its end when rebels act against it" - Pope Leo XIII

"must put these wicked men to death" - Pope Leo XIII

"I had heard from the sermons in the mosques that those who blaspheme deserve to be killed immediately. It was a weakness of faith that we did not do it." - Asghar Ali Afridi

And there are many many more available to choose from. Which one will you add to show a balanced view?

Cheers,
TGHO

[qayak]

However, when atheists quote or misquote the above authors to support their views on religion and believers, it appears that such authors have a certain cachet, if not authority, among atheists. It's like a Christian quoting Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God; the argument carries most of its force precisely because Thomas Aquinas is considered an authority on Christian theology.

It is called an appeal to authority and it is a logical fallacy to have this as a basis to your argument. However, there is a difference between agreeing with someone because they are right and you agree with them and agreeing with them because they are an authority.

I agree with most of what Dawkins says regardless of his standing in the atheist community. His arguments make sense. I think theists have pretty much admitted this to themselves and don't waste their time trying to rebutt him. Instead they make a big deal out of his method of transmission, claiming that he could reach more people if he was nicer. It's almost like they think they can convince us that they are looking out for his best interests! :dl:

I think most people realize that not all atheists agree with everything that those authors say, but when they come so often in discussion with atheists, it seems only reasonable to think that some atheists agree with them.

I think you will find that most atheists agree on a couple of central issues:

1- There are no gods.

2- Every religion has it wrong.

This is exactly why it is so disturbing that try to explain away Dawkins' claim that religion is mental illness . . .

You are either ignorant or you lie. If you are ignorant, educate yourself by reading what Dawkins actually said. There is a vast difference between saying "belief in god is a delusion" and "religion is mental illness."

. . . or Harris' assertions that we should kill people for what they believe . . .

Please provide a reference, in context, for this.

. . . especially since both of them essentially speak out both sides of their mouths. They make outrageous statements and then provide comments that seem to moderate what they originally said but are in fact making a separate argument, allowing their apologists to equivocate as to what they said.

They both fully explain each of their ideas. Unfortunately, they are used to dealing with honest people who take the time and make the effort to understand what they are talking about. Dawkins and Harris cannot make allowances for people who don't read their books, take them out of context or make up what they "think" Dawkins and Harris said, and then think they are qualified to comment on it.

Why is it so hard for that these authors might hold some unsavory and down right dangerous views of their own?

This is an awkward sentence on your part but I think I get the drift. Dawkins and Harris do have some unsavory and down right dangerous views . . . if you are a religious person who believes that your religion has a monopoly on how people should live their lives.

[mijopaalmc]

You know what I find odious? Cherry-picking. I've seen all the blogs with that line, as i've already mentioned: hardly any of them have the rest of the paragraph. Why? Because they know that it'll only 'confuse' the reader from their main point: Harris is an Inquisitional itellectual fascist. Your interpretation of his words is a torturous mis-reading, and Harris' ideas are easy enough to read to show that you are being intellectually dishonest. Write a column to explain what he meant? Why? His words in the paragraph are perfectly clear. The only reason he'd have to write such a paragraph is to defend himself from you and all the other cherry-picking bloggers out there.

Whatever. Enjoy your new sig. If you try hard enough, I'm sure you could cherry-pick something equally as ridiculous from Dawkins or even Randi himself.

The point is that it is not cherry picking. Harris did advocate killing people for what they believe. I am not condoning holding beliefs that require the killing of other people, but advocating killing these people because they believe that it is acceptable to kill people is deplorable. It is not even covered in any of the justifiable homicide laws that I have. In order for homicide to be justifiable, one's life must be in "imminent danger", or in the words of the Revised Code of Washington:


Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Killing someone who is plotting to kill a person or some people is not justifiable and, if it can be proven that one had knowledge of the plot, there would be grounds for a charge of first-degree murder as it might imply premeditation. I realize that such stipulations are suspended for combatants in a war (even then it is questionable to attack someone who has neither declared war on or attacked you), but no such stipulations were referenced in the passage. Thus, it seems that what Harris is saying has the widest possible application, which is what is so disturbing about the passage and the attempts to defend it.

[mijopaalmc]

You've done this in the "Skeptical movement" thread as well. It really does you no credit. Asking "why is it so hard for you to admit I'm right" is not an argument. It's just childish.

I have done that because I have presented empirical evidence that supports what I believe and, in my opinion, countered the arguments that people have put up. Nonetheless, people continue to deny that validity of my arguments most often by redefining terms so that the goal posts have been moved. This tactic is roundly, and rightly, denounced when used by creationists or pseudoscientists in defense of their pet projects, and I think that it is the height of hypocrisy for skeptics to use it in defense of skepticism.

Despite what you think of the maturity of my arguments, I think it is perfectly valid to ask why people continue to deny what I'm saying in face of empirical evidence as has also been asked of creationists in many threads (e.g., Challenge question for evolution doubters (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81507)). I find especially aggravating that people choose to impugn against my character for asking about why they are so adamant about their denials because unlike I have avoided assuming that I know the inner workings of their psyches and have not posited a reason for their vehement denial, their standard trope of psychological protection as the only explanation for why creationists question evolution. Rather, I have given them the opportunity to engage in their own self-reflection come up with their reason for choosing to ignore the evidence I present. I say this not to lord my supposed moral superiority (which I know I don't have) over anyone but to express my general frustration with the seeming uncritical way some of the self-identified skeptics here mistake (or possibly deliberately confuse) one argument for another or continue to deny the validity of an argument despite that fact they have been presented with counterevidence (or present counterevidence themselves but claim that it is evidence) and explanation on such diverse topics as the relationship between evolution and abiogenesis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78543), the randomness (or stochasticity) of evolution (e.g.,
Evolution: Technically Random? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50550), Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80924), Chance (and regularity) in evolution (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81217)), the existence of skeptical movements (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81443), (as in this thread) what Dawkins (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2554740#post2554740) and Harris are saying about religion or believers.

Needless to say, the style of my arguments does not effect the validity of their contents.

[mijopaalmc]

It is called an appeal to authority and it is a logical fallacy to have this as a basis to your argument. However, there is a difference between agreeing with someone because they are right and you agree with them and agreeing with them because they are an authority.

I agree with most of what Dawkins says regardless of his standing in the atheist community. His arguments make sense. I think theists have pretty much admitted this to themselves and don't waste their time trying to rebutt him. Instead they make a big deal out of his method of transmission, claiming that he could reach more people if he was nicer. It's almost like they think they can convince us that they are looking out for his best interests! :dl:

An appeal to authority isn't necessarily a fallacy; it is an appeal to misleading authority that is the fallacy, discussed in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) and Fallacy Files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html) articles on appeal to authority:

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have been wrong actually. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism. A philosophy which denies and rejects harshly the existence of any authority, proof, disproof, or justification, even only with probability, and holds everything open to criticism, including observation (that is, it even rejects the inference "X was observed directly → X is necessarily true" as an appeal to authority), logics and its own very basic positions, such as criticism itself, is pancritical rationalism. Without the need to ever appeal to authority for justification, the pancritical rationalist is able to hold his position with complete integrity, since he is not guilty of relativism or dogmatism.(emphasis mine)


Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.


However, since authority appealed to is almost always improper (e.g., Al Gore on anthropogenic global warning, or William Dembski on information theory in evolution) the most common title for the fallacy excludes "improper". This, though, does not mean all such appeal are inherently fallacious. After all, there would be no point in the practice of academic citation, because the act of citation is predicated of the fact that one does not need to perform the cited research again as it has already been performed.

Furthermore, you posit a false analogy, because Dawkins is not an expert in religion, psychology, or sociology, which are essential to understanding how religion functions in the human mind and society. For instance, as I have already mentioned, he missed the common conception of God as eternal, meaning that the argument that God is too complex to have "popped into existence" is nonsensical since God, as commonly conceived, has always existed (or never not existed). Thus, to say that you agree with Dawkins because he is right is both factually incorrect and an appeal to misleading authority as Dawkins is not an expert in the fields salient to the evaluation of religion's ultimate value to society, or more properly Dawkins improperly qualified to make the sweeping determinations of the ultimate destructiveness of religion to society, which makes his most controversial claims (e.g., about religion and child abuse, especially molestation) all the more galling.

I think you will find that most atheists agree on a couple of central issues:

1- There are no gods.

2- Every religion has it wrong.

I never disputed that. My attributions of the things that I have said about Dawkins and Harris to Dawkins and Harris do not arise from the fact that they are atheists; rather, they arise from the fact that I believe that the things they have written justify the things that I have said.

You are either ignorant or you lie. If you are ignorant, educate yourself by reading what Dawkins actually said. There is a vast difference between saying "belief in god is a delusion" and "religion is mental illness."

That was a nice ad hominem and straw man wrapped in a false dilemma. I am neither ignorant nor a liar. Furthermore, the quote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2554489#post2554489) that you have provided previously that supposedly demonstrates Dawkins is not using "delusion" to refer to mental illness. Aside from the definitions "deluded" and "delusion", Dawkins:


acknowledges that psychiatrists have objected to his usage of what they perceive to be a technical term
cites a dictionary definition that does not include mental illness
cites a dictionary definition that does include mental illness
ends with a quote that associates religion with collective delusion.


Thus, at the very least the quotation, demonstrates that Dawkins was fully aware of all possible connotations (including that implication of mental derangement) and nonetheless decided to use "delusion" in his title. While that doesn't necessarily constitute a deliberate attempt to provoke, it displays a stunning naivety for a man of Dawkins' supposed intellect if his intention was not to provoke. I therefore find extremely baffling that you and others insist that such quotation is conclusive evidence that Dawkins was not being deliberately provocative.

Please provide a reference, in context, for this.

It has already been cited here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2583198#post2583198), and my interpretation of it and its justification is explained here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2590136#post2590136).

They both fully explain each of their ideas. Unfortunately, they are used to dealing with honest people who take the time and make the effort to understand what they are talking about. Dawkins and Harris cannot make allowances for people who don't read their books, take them out of context or make up what they "think" Dawkins and Harris said, and then think they are qualified to comment on it.

See explanation below laughing dog and comment immediately preceding the above quote.

This is an awkward sentence on your part but I think I get the drift. Dawkins and Harris do have some unsavory and down right dangerous views . . . if you are a religious person who believes that your religion has a monopoly on how people should live their lives.

This is a prime example of you hearing me say what you want met to say and not what I actually said. I think that what Harris says is dangerous because I think anyone who advocates killing someone because what the believe is dangerous and not because what he says threatens people's religious belief. Furthermore, I have given an example of where killing someone because you think they are going to kill you but are not in that act of doing so is legally impermissible. What Harris suggests is therefore illegal in at least one US jurisdiction and morally questionable at best it becomes more and more difficult to prove that killing someone is the only possible course of action the further you get from the event.

[Meadmaker]

And there are many many more available to choose from. Which one will you add to show a balanced view?


I think most people on JREF would be familiar either with those specific quotes, or any of thousands others like them. It isn't hard to find quotes from religious leaders saying that infidels ought to be killed.

What might surprise many people on JREF is that a prominent and respected atheist is doing something similar. For this community, the "cherry picked" quote in my sig IS balance.

And yes, obviously, my quote is cherry picked, just as it was when I read it in the linked article. After I read it, I couldn't believe he had said it. So, I went and found the quote in context, and unlike you, I found it at least as disturbing in context as out. In fact, after I went to his web site and read his article "Who are the Moderate Muslims" (probably have the title wrong. It's from memory), I found the quote even more disturbing.

[The Great Hairy One]

I think most people on JREF would be familiar either with those specific quotes, or any of thousands others like them. It isn't hard to find quotes from religious leaders saying that infidels ought to be killed.

What might surprise many people on JREF is that a prominent and respected atheist is doing something similar. For this community, the "cherry picked" quote in my sig IS balance.

And yes, obviously, my quote is cherry picked, just as it was when I read it in the linked article. After I read it, I couldn't believe he had said it. So, I went and found the quote in context, and unlike you, I found it at least as disturbing in context as out. In fact, after I went to his web site and read his article "Who are the Moderate Muslims" (probably have the title wrong. It's from memory), I found the quote even more disturbing.


"Unlike me"? You assume, sir, and you assume incorrectly. I find it fascinating arguing with some of the people here, they seem to have an inflated sense of self-righteousness.

Balance? You're not interested in balance. You're interested in accusation, denigration and misdirection.

An influential atheist suffers from a moral failure. Hmmm, that definitely a pity. I agree he's wrong to say those things. I agree he should not be calling for the slaying of another human being. I mean, we're atheists. We obviously have a much higher standard of morals than any other philosophical group on the planet. We obviously don't suffer from the same emotions and failures as any other human. And him saying this invalidates everything else he says, yes?

You know, Meadmaker, I've worked out what you are. You're a hypocrite.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Meadmaker]

"Unlike me"? You assume, sir, and you assume incorrectly. I find it fascinating arguing with some of the people here, they seem to have an inflated sense of self-righteousness.


Oops. (I think).

Perhaps I was confused. I was assuming that you were supporting BigNickel's argument. BigNickel was saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the quote I used was taken out of context. In context, it was, according to him, not very offensive.

Your call for "balance" was, I thought, related to his argument.

Perhaps I was wrong. I find the quote very disturbing, whether in context or out of context. BigNickel seems to think that in context, it's ok. I had thought that your call for inclusion of quotes by Al-Qaeda or Leo XIII was a similar sentiment, indicating that when the context of similar quotes was included, the quote from Harris didn't seem so bad.

I meant no offense, but I do wonder, if I was incorrect, what you think a quote from Osama Bin Laden would add. In fact, I think I'll try it. If you are reading this post more than a few minutes after I write it, check my new sig.

[Correa Neto]

Please notice the small changes I introduced in the original text (bold text).
The link between ideology and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain ideologies place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Germany and Japan, and it is what we and other Allied Powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Nazi-Fascist world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.
Can it create so much controversy after these changes?

Are the any real differences between aggressions stimulated by ideologies based in religious concepts and aggressions stimulated by ideologies based in political/economic/pseudoscientific concepts? Or in the preventive measures that must be taken to counter and/or prevent them?

Honestly, change "Muslim" by "Nazi", "Fascist", "Communist", "Fundamentalist Christian" or anything else that you feel that threathens you. Do you still feel uneasy about it?

I think one might consider the postulated reaction -preemptive strikes, killing- a drastic response, but not because the aggression threat comes from individuals or groups fed by an ideology based on religious concepts.

[Meadmaker]

Honestly, change "Muslim" by "Nazi", "Fascist", "Communist", "Fundamentalist Christian" or anything else that you feel that threathens you. Do you still feel uneasy about it?


Yes.

Let's take "Nazi". There are a few people in the United States today that share the Nazi ideology that was preached by Hitler. Would it be ethical to kill them, as an act of self defense? Or imprison them? After all, their beliefs are identical to Hitler's, and Hitler's beliefs were the cause of such incredible misery.

I say it would be unethical to attack them in any way. It isn't their beliefs that make them dangerous. If they happen to be planning or executing violence against others, then by all means lock them up and throw away the key, but not for their beliefs.

I had thought of a not quite so Godwinian analogy. The racism of many Americans caused the deaths of many blacks through lynching. Would it have been ethical for blacks to kill racists as a matter of self defense?

[The Great Hairy One]

Oops. (I think).

Perhaps I was confused. I was assuming that you were supporting BigNickel's argument. BigNickel was saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the quote I used was taken out of context. In context, it was, according to him, not very offensive.

Your call for "balance" was, I thought, related to his argument.

Perhaps I was wrong. I find the quote very disturbing, whether in context or out of context. BigNickel seems to think that in context, it's ok. I had thought that your call for inclusion of quotes by Al-Qaeda or Leo XIII was a similar sentiment, indicating that when the context of similar quotes was included, the quote from Harris didn't seem so bad.

I meant no offense, but I do wonder, if I was incorrect, what you think a quote from Osama Bin Laden would add. In fact, I think I'll try it. If you are reading this post more than a few minutes after I write it, check my new sig.


"Oops" would be right. I winced when I read that quote in Harris's book. "Oh Sam," I thought, "now that's just wrong."

I completely disagree with Harris here - calling for someone's death because they might do something leads to Thought Crime(tm). Yes, some radical fundamentalists call for the deaths of others. So? Until they actually act on those thoughts, all they are spouting is invective and rhetoric. We don't have the right to kill someone just because they're grumpy!

Context and framing are immaterial. You're talking about a person's life. Sure, prevention is better than cure, I understand this. But prevention should occur when the person has committed irreversible action, not when they are sitting at home simply ranting. For example, arresting the 19 hijackers as they boarded the planes would, in my mind, be perfectly reasonable.

However, whilst I say this, I fully understand that we're all simply human. Emotions and irrational thoughts control us. No one, not a single person on this globe, can even remotely claim that they have never voiced a thought in anger. Every single person on this planet has, at some point in their lives, wished harm and suffering on some other person. Anger has ruled all of us.

Furthermore it must be recognised that some ideological groups can not be reasoned with, and are not rational. Humans can be defective - we are biological creatures, and biology does not always "work". That doesn't mean we should preemptively wipe these people out, but we should definitely monitor and observe them very closely.

And lastly - bad things happen. People are blamed. People are killed. Wars start. Emotional responses occur. Insults are screamed, deadly promises made. No one is perfect.

Meadmaker, I see no reason for you to have either quote in your signature. Do these quotes reflect your thoughts? Do they sum up your beliefs? Do they represent you? Why not have something which illuminates or uplifts, rather than attacks and denigrates?

Cheers,
TGHO

[thaiboxerken]

Yes.

Let's take "Nazi". There are a few people in the United States today that share the Nazi ideology that was preached by Hitler. Would it be ethical to kill them, as an act of self defense?


Yes and it IS their beliefs that make them dangerous.

[Meadmaker]

"Meadmaker, I see no reason for you to have either quote in your signature. Do these quotes reflect your thoughts? Do they sum up your beliefs? Do they represent you? Why not have something which illuminates or uplifts, rather than attacks and denigrates?


Good question. Expect a change, and if not right away, it's just because I won't make the effort just yet.

Good post.

[Correa Neto]

Yes.

Let's take "Nazi". There are a few people in the United States today that share the Nazi ideology that was preached by Hitler. Would it be ethical to kill them, as an act of self defense? Or imprison them? After all, their beliefs are identical to Hitler's, and Hitler's beliefs were the cause of such incredible misery.

I say it would be unethical to attack them in any way. It isn't their beliefs that make them dangerous. If they happen to be planning or executing violence against others, then by all means lock them up and throw away the key, but not for their beliefs.

I had thought of a not quite so Godwinian analogy. The racism of many Americans caused the deaths of many blacks through lynching. Would it have been ethical for blacks to kill racists as a matter of self defense?
I was looking for consistency in your position, and so far it seems I found. You feel its not right to make preemptive strikes against religious and non-religious groups.

However, I have to disagree on some aspects. The most important one is touched in your example regarding racism. It can be seen as an ideology. An ideology based in prejudice and pseudoscience. No wonder its a component of fascism. The rascists believe in white supremacy, radical communist groups beleive in freeing the word from the imperialistic capitalism, radical far-right groups belive in purging their countries from foreigners, radical Muslim groups believe in purging the world from the infidels, [add preferred example of bigotry here]. In my opinion, it does not -it should not- matter if the bigotry act (potential, impending or factual) is based on religious or secular beliefs. There's no difference according to my view.

Its under this point of view that I interpret the original quote. The writer thinks preemptive strike against groups that are planning and intend to execute acts of violence against the Western World. These acts are not random, there's always an ideology behind. It actually does not matter if the underlying motivation is an ideology religious or secular belief. Nowdays, radical Islamic fundamentalism is perceived as the main threat for the Western countries. In the past, it was comunism (or capitalism, depends on where in the world you lived); nazifascism (or democracy, depends on where in the world you lived). We go further back in the timeline, but you know what I mean. Had the author written that text back in the mid 50s, chances are the would use an ideology other than those based on radical fundamentalist Islam.

Its not just attacking a group of people for their beliefs. Its attacking a group of people who are planning an act of violence- and will make it. To say the writer is postulating violent acts against people just because of their beliefs is a misrepresentation. I think the text has to be understood withing a broader context.

However, re-reading your post its seems you agree with me -and the writer!
I say it would be unethical to attack them in any way. It isn't their beliefs that make them dangerous. If they happen to be planning or executing violence against others, then by all means lock them up and throw away the key, but not for their beliefs.
Or I am interpretating the above text outside of context given my bias?;)

[Meadmaker]

Its under this point of view that I interpret the original quote. The writer thinks preemptive strike against groups that are planning and intend to execute acts of violence against the Western World.

If that's what he thought, then he should have said so. However, he said something else. Maybe he just expressed himself poorly, but if that's the case, he has had ample opportunity to correct it, and has chosen not to do so.

What he said was that their beliefs are dangerous. He said that the beliefs would lead people to commit acts, and he said that it was ok to kill people who held those beliefs.

I'm willing to kill people for their actions. I'm even willing to kill people for their intended future actions. I'm not willing to kill people because they hold beliefs that I assume will lead them to commit future actions.

[Correa Neto]

If that's what he thought, then he should have said so. However, he said something else. Maybe he just expressed himself poorly, but if that's the case, he has had ample opportunity to correct it, and has chosen not to do so.
Has he chosen not to do so? I don't know!
Maybe he considered it was pretty clear that he was reffering to a particular religion-based ideology (or all religious-based ideologies) and that the situation is also valid for secular ideologies. The character of the ideology -based on religious or secular (mis)conceptions- used to justify or inspire violence is irrelevant. Maybe he considered that while reading and interpreting the text, people would have a historic perspective in mind. And he does seems to have made one or two bad choices of words.

The text, I think (believe?), can and should only be interpreted under a broad historical perspective.

This is what I presume and I admit its just my own (biased?) speculation. Are there any chances that some personal bias seeped in to your interpretation?

What he said was that their beliefs are dangerous. He said that the beliefs would lead people to commit acts, and he said that it was ok to kill people who held those beliefs.
Well, many ideologies -be them based on religious or secular principles- do lead some people to commit violence. This is a fact. So far, we agree on this, I presume.

Many ideologies (and/or beliefs, if you preffer) do carry bigotry and prejudice withim themselves and may be used to fuel violence. They may thus be considered as dangerous -at least potentially. Are we still agreeing?

From now on, I think we'll start to disagree...

My reading from the text is that the author considers preemptive actions may be justified against: (i) individuals planning and intending to make acts of violence and (ii) individuals who actively inspire or incentive other people to make acts of violence.

A proeminent and influential leader who believes and preaches hate and violence against a certain group could be a target. A person who belives in some hate ideology but has no intention of commiting an act of violence is not a target.

I'm willing to kill people for their actions. I'm even willing to kill people for their intended future actions. I'm not willing to kill people because they hold beliefs that I assume will lead them to commit future actions.
OK, its your position. But the way I see it, the author is not proposing any action against people based only on their beliefs. The actions proposed are against people who are incentivating and/or will commit violent acts.

[qayak]

I think that what Harris says is dangerous because I think anyone who advocates killing someone because what the believe is dangerous and not because what he says threatens people's religious belief. Furthermore, I have given an example of where killing someone because you think they are going to kill you but are not in that act of doing so is legally impermissible. What Harris suggests is therefore illegal in at least one US jurisdiction and morally questionable at best it becomes more and more difficult to prove that killing someone is the only possible course of action the further you get from the event.

This is done all the time.You don't think law enforcement waits for people to blow stuff up do you? They identify people based on their stated beliefs and they begin investigating them.

The war in Iraq is another example of a pre-emptive strike by the forces of good. :D It definitely isn't the only one.

I think the probelm is that people are upset because it is their beliefs that are being targeted this time instead of someone else they don't particularly like. I get a little irate when my atheist beliefs come under fire so I imagine others do the same when theirs do. However, my atheist beliefs do no harm to anyone, so attacking them is unjustified, However, religious beliefs often do harm others and should be examined closely before they are allowed to continue.

As for your belief that one is not justified in killing someone who they believe is out to kill them: there are allowances in law for this. It is based on past experiences, present attitudes and the chances of the behaviour continuing on in the future. Besides this, there is the old adage: "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

[Meadmaker]

My reading from the text is that the author considers preemptive actions may be justified against: (i) individuals planning and intending to make acts of violence and (ii) individuals who actively inspire or incentive other people to make acts of violence.

A proeminent and influential leader who believes and preaches hate and violence against a certain group could be a target. A person who belives in some hate ideology but has no intention of commiting an act of violence is not a target.


I don't see how you could possibly get that from the text. Here it is, with emphasis added:

"Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith. "

They can't go on living by the light of their peculuiar beliefs. They actually believe...

The author could not be more clear. He says they must be killed for what they believe. There isn't really any ambiguous reading of the text possible. It was introduced by the quote that is (for the moment) in my sig, saying it's ethical to kill people who believe certain things. It ended by saying that the September 11 killings prove that they actually believe certain things.

Belief, belief, belief.

The obvious inference is that anyone with those beliefs is dangerous, and it's ethical to kill them. Heck, it's isn't even an inference. He says it explicitly.

[Correa Neto]

I don't see how you could possibly get that from the text. Here it is, with emphasis added:

"Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith. "

They can't go on living by the light of their peculuiar beliefs. They actually believe...

The author could not be more clear. He says they must be killed for what they believe. There isn't really any ambiguous reading of the text possible. It was introduced by the quote that is (for the moment) in my sig, saying it's ethical to kill people who believe certain things. It ended by saying that the September 11 killings prove that they actually believe certain things.

Belief, belief, belief.

The obvious inference is that anyone with those beliefs is dangerous, and it's ethical to kill them. Heck, it's isn't even an inference. He says it explicitly.
Nope, I disagree. I think this -as well as some other- text can only be correctly interpreted within its full historical context. Isolated quotes will only result in biased distortions. This thread reminds me of quarrels on interpretation of ancient texts and myths...

Again, the text coiuld well have been
"Our subsequent actions in Germany and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of German Nazi Party are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of the Holocaust should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty century Nazis actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their ideology. "
It could be talking about Pol Pot, Idi Amim, the shattering of Yugoslavia, Torquemada & the Holy Inquisition, the Crusades, guerrilas commanded by druglords, warlords from Somalia, the Taliban, Jim Jones-like cults, pogroms, KKK, South American dictatorships from the 70s, Franco, Salazar, slaverers, etc. The above are not making the headlines today.

I bet if the author had used "ideology" instead of "faith" there would be no long discussions -regardless the fact that many ideologies are based on faith. The word "faith" triggered interpretations of a text block outside its full context and some people quickly felt in to the "slippery slope" fallacy.

[Meadmaker]

Again, the text coiuld well have been
"Our subsequent actions in Germany and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of German Nazi Party are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of the Holocaust should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty century Nazis actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their ideology. "



There are people today that believe exactly what Hitler believed. It seems to me that the text above says that it would be ethical to kill them. Twenty-first century Nazis actually believe the same dangerous and implausible tenets of their ideology that twentieth century Nazis beleived. Why would it be unethical to kill them?

[bignickel]

The author could not be more clear. He says they must be killed for what they believe.
Wow. First we have 'may even' inserted into a sentence that would normally be "some propositions are so dangerous that it ethical to kill people for believing them", which changes the idea in a very important way. And now, we've gone beyond losing 'may even', and to adding "MUST" to the sentence. Good job.

I'm thinking that you still haven't read the book yet. Sam takes up a few pages to make what he considers an important idea: that people's beliefs often lead to people's actions. And when you have people plotting to kill hundreds or thousands, and the military tries to take them out because it doesn't have any other means to arrest them, then the military IS killing them [i]because of the beliefs that these people have in their heads. That's all.

Throughout the 3 or so pages of argument to make that point, some people have snipped ONE of the sentences, a sentence stating a reality about people who are actively plotting our destruction. Why didn't he include 'people plotting our destruction' in the original sentence? Well, probably because he's had 3 or so pages to DEVELOP the whole idea, and he doesn't need to cram each and every sentence in such a way to prevent cherry-pickers from mis-representing himself. If every author had to write the same way to avoid such mis-representation, every non-fiction book on the planet would be twice or thrice as thick, and reading would truly become a chore.

Why not read the book yourself?

[bignickel]

I think that what Harris says is dangerous because I think anyone who advocates killing someone because what the believe is dangerous and not because what he says threatens people's religious belief.
Evidence that Harris says this?

[Correa Neto]

There are people today that believe exactly what Hitler believed. It seems to me that the text above says that it would be ethical to kill them. Twenty-first century Nazis actually believe the same dangerous and implausible tenets of their ideology that twentieth century Nazis beleived. Why would it be unethical to kill them?
You are asking my opinion or my interpretation of Harris' views based on his text?

My interpreation of his text was already exposed. Here it is, again:
Key point: Some beliefs (exclusion ideologies in the case) may be dangerous, regardless if they are based on religious or secular principles.
It follows that preemptive actions may be justified against disciples/militants/leaders of these ideologies when: (i) the individuals are planning and intending to make acts of violence; (ii) the individuals are actively inspiring, incentivating or ordering other people to make acts of violence and (iii) the individuals can not be captured.

My opinion on the subject, if I agree or not with this position? Heck, I don't know! I think its a too complex subject; a sweeping "yes" or "no" answer can not be provided, it would be unfair and unwise. I say it would depend on the level of danger presented by each "menace". And yes, before you ask, the evaluation of this level of danger can be very hard, subjective and prone to errors.

Not to mention the neonazi may violently resist the arrest and die. Or become an inspiring martyr for his/hers case if captured or killed.

The question is very complex from the ethical, politics and feasibillity points of view. No easy simple "yes" or "no" here.