Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?

No, you've painted a picture of a God of wrath, who loves torture and killing - who created humans to have someone to "justly" torture and kill. Calling such a being "just" or "loving" is pure sycophancy.

See post count to the left. You do remember me chugging into 7 or so petrol stations on empty don't you. And whom I attributed this to.Reflecting on NJ's test. What is the gospel in 10 bullet points or less?

Oh yes, a little help with petrol makes up for torturing billions. So you assume - and that's all it is - that you God throws you a few crumbs.And which Gospel are you asking about ? The Christian Gospel or yours ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Yours will do fine.

Does this mean then, that I was "wrong" to NOT respond to Will Provine acclaimations he made in exuberant gleefulness that there is both no such thing as "free will" and that there WILL BE ****DYNAMIC**** control of the will and should I on a second encounter after being involuntarily confined physically assume that that lack of distributive justice is indicative of said "control to come" which in the ordination of the same "argument" was that "humans will 'download' their brains to a computer as the substance of the kinematic implication in the first case?I have heard RDawkins make his claim on Radio. I choose to ignore Will but shouldnt people like Will or Richard do better for society if they stuck with things that will make SCIENCE ITSELF better.It did not seem to me to be the case that Richard NEEDS these claims to make his reduction to the gene level that Gould scientifically leveled against him. So I agree with Holmes completely. This argument is outside the pale of science sensu stricto. I can produce some paragraphs from Kant in "JUSTICE"(among "to physics", "chemistry" and "experience") which short a name and principles would clear it that Richard's ideas are either dying on his own vine or else it is only sour grapes whether sactimonious both ways or not.I got an email from a psychology proffesor at SUNY Oswego last week who is going to give a talk next spring in Germany on ID in the US as she was reading some of EVC and wanted to know about Cornell and IDEA(if she sends me what she is going to say I will share it here).So, yes public debate is not "governed by the scientific method" as ID (on another side)has gotten political certainly
but isnt it clear what is going on here. There is a population problem that needs to be solved and there needs to be less war and with the increased politicization there can not be a DYNAMIC resolution but only a kinematic one which means to me that science would do better for the horizon of humanity if it stuck with small pieces rather than trying to force top down intelligence to submit to the current "on the ground" actuality.How is Dawkins' and Wilsons' views going to to wedge the crowd? I surely have no clue on that.

Holmes I think we agree on the majority of the main issues (except perhaps in minor ways which are not worth debating here). However there are two points on which I would take issue.1) Dawkins overrall stance
2) The role of evolutionary psychology in the development of morals (and the implications this has for the theists claim to the moral domain)On the first of these I would say that is is inevitable that the most inflamatory of his comments are the ones that will be reported. However I might even concede that his refusal to take this into account could be viewed as unnecessarily confrontational in itself....If you are genuinely interested in the God Delusion you might enjoy this ten minute BBC interview with Dawkins regards the book in question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54Would be genuinely interested on your thoughts on this in relation to your OP.Regards Evolutionary Psychology and morality - I agree that the foundations of this sort of science are flimsy in comparison to the physical sciences and would share some of your cynicism regards the objectivity of the conclusions. However I do think the scientific method can be usefully applied to such investigation and that there is evidence for human morality being formed at least partly by "an interplay between universal properties of the mind, universal properties of the body and universal properties of the world". I quote this from Steven Pinkers book - The Blank Slate. IMHO well worth a read before you totally dismiss the whole area of Evo Psych.The basic premise of evolutionary psychology is that the human brain evolved not only due to the usual physical factors but due to the complex social interactions of humans with their main competitors. I.e. each other. In this "social environment" there are certain strategies which will allow an individual to thrive and some that will not. Being a psychopathic murdering bastard will only get you so far. Likewise being a completely altruistic doormat will probably not enable your genes to propogate too far either. Human morality is the result of a complex balance of the individual in a social context.The main conclusion of all of this is that humans are not moral blank slates but are mentally equipped with the basis for a form of human interraction that will enable their genes to propogate in a human social context. In other words there should be universals of behaviour between all humanity which form the basis of morality (amongst other things)This somewhat poo poos religious claims on morality so this conclusion in itself is going to be contentious.So what is the empirical evidence? It seems to fall into two areas 1) Brain damage and 2) Anthrpological studies1) There are known cases of particular portions of the brain being damaged in accidents which have drastically affected the behaviour of the unfortunate vicitim. In some cases the very sense of right and wrong, the socially acceptable and the socially unacceptable have been drastically affected. This gives credence to the idea that the development of the physical brain is somehow linked to moral behaviour and the physical brain is itself the product of evolution. I'll try and dig out some specific instances of such cases if interested?
2) The idea of universal behaviours between cultures seems to be based largely on the work of Donald Brown http://www.ishkbooks.com/universals.pdf. The universality of emotions, facial expressions and ability to empathise, all of which are arguably related to the development of morality appear to be generally accepted human constants (although again I will try and find some sources for this if interested)As you can probably tell from the paucity of my sources this is not really "my subject" (always a dangerous but educational endevour) as such, but I do think the whole area of psychology from an evolutionary perspective should not be so readily dismissed without some investigation.If you accept the human brain as the product of evolution then it is extremely difficult to argue that it's physiological development has no effect at all on the very foundation of human interraction: morality.The consequences of any sort of physiological answers for religious claims to moral insight are immense !!(which is hopefully why all this is relevant to this particualr thread)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Here is a relevant clip regarding Dennett and Dawkins, on this subject... These are mere speculations. Particularly his discussion of children being programmed not to question their parents, for which I'd like to see some evidence. Regardless, it avoids the obvious logical contradictions that people came up with religion without having been raised that way, that children of theists and atheists grow up to adopt opposite beliefs, and that if true there is essentially no point in trying to talk with them (or educate them). The only apparent solution to this issue would seem to be removal of children from the homes of religious parents, and raise them as atheists. Because they would be less likely to believe false information? False areligious beliefs or belief systems don't exist? So much blood is spilled by the religious, yet the "laws" of Darwinism can explain why the behavior of most people is essentially moral? First of all I know of no scientific definition of morality, much less verification that most are moral. Second that is a contradiction. If most people are moral then who is spilling all of this blood? As most people are religious, if most people are moral then his contention that religion leads to irrationality, or immoral behavior falls.He discusses altruism and self-sacrifice in animals, but one can hardly compare animals as freely as he mixes and matches here.I will point out that in his "laws of Darwinism" comment he is directly appealing to his role as a scientist, and contradicting your assertion he did not such thing.It should also be noted that there seems to have been a miscommunication. You claim that he does not suggest evo/atheism can deliver concepts of morality, and I don't know how you can say that with commentary such as the above. I consider the above delivering concepts of morality. I saw no discussion of mobile morality or zeitgeist. I do see him discussing consistent moral principles like altruism. Here is an excerpt discussing both Dawkins and another EP author on static moral concepts... If I am missing something, please explain. This is true of everything, including atheism. There are irrational arguments for adopting atheism just as well as theism. Dawkins shows some of them. I would not want my kids exposed to his tripe either. Sorry, you added that after I had already replied (or was writing my reply). That certainly seems to be what Harris is arguing. I am not the only one who seems to feel that way. From the second article... I agree that moderates can be criticized, but not in the way Harris does, Dawkins suggests, and you seem to argue. I don't agree with theism and strongly disagree with monotheist traditions. I personally loathe their tenets. But I don't view them as inherent child abuse or intellectual vandalism. That seems a bit of over the top objective labeling of another culture, and its perspectives.I do believe in multiculturalism as well as tolerance for beliefs I find mistaken, or personally offensive. I draw the line when my rights are threatened, but I'm not going out of my way to insult people, to the degree of stereotyping. What culture is objectively correct for children to be raised in and why?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't have a Gospel so I'll stick with the Christian one.The heart of the Christian Gospel is that those who truly repent of their sins, are baptised and have faith in Jesus will inherit the Kingdom of God.It is also strong on helping the poor, something which is supposed to follow as a consequence of faith and condemns the greedy, placing no value on material wealth or posessions. Indeed Christians are not supposed to worry about such things, trusting God to provide.(Not surprisingly the vast majority of Christians fall short of Jesus teachings on the first and some even ignore the second completely - and even preach against it - teaching that Jesus will make their followers wealthy).It preaches that you should love all - even doing good to those who would do you harm. Even those belonging to hostile peoples. It certainly doesn't say that there is no such thing as murder because humans are so vile that they all deserve to die.

Dawkins likens the calling of children by faithe.g.1) A catholic child, B) A Muslim Child, C) A Sikh childTo the comparable by political ideologye.g.1) A Marxist child, 2) A Keynesian child, 3) A freemarket enterprise childNOTE: I intend no correlation between ABC aand 123. Just random examples.Do you disagree with this analysis?

I would but I am only just beginning to make the "argument."
http://aexion.org/ecosystemengineering.aspx
I am in complete disagreement with my parents who are believers, one of which, really became one in response to a parent who was "an evolutionist" agnostic.I find that the "faith" of my parents to have been of assistance far more than the effect of the same generation of people secularly on me. There is a real difference from the "WWII generation" to the generation that MY children will beget. It can not be simply "debated" away.

I may be getting myself into hot water here....But is it not a statistical fact that the single biggest common factor in determining the particular faith one holds is the faith of the family in which one is raised?Brad you would appear to be a statistical anomoly in this respect.I would hazard a guess that the main faith of the predominant culture in which one end up in life is the second biggest statistical factor.Even where an individual rejects the faith (or lack of it) of their parents I would suggest the spontaneous conversion to Islam in a Catholic part of Ireland, for example, is going to be rare........You are going to ask me to back up my assertions with statistical sources now aren't you....?BTW The link - I don't understand the relevance.......???Edited by Straggler, : The link

No. That study passed more peer reviews than necessary for normal papers and was cleared by the AAS. While I am not uncritical of their methods (I stated in my thread on that paper I do not like metastudies), the evidence they uncovered was adequate and has not been challenged, outside of people assassinating their character for socio-political reasons.There is no similarity to the methods of the Rand study and EP papers. I read the article and am discussing the arguments in the article. I have stated I have not read Dawkins book and am not addressing it in specific. I have read EP papers and I have seen Dawkins discussing EP. I have every right to criticize the methods I have seen in them.Rather than offering specific examples of what I don't like (outside of material in the articles), only to find out that that's not what a person feels is the best example, it makes more sense for a person who maintains EP (or Dawkins in specific) has a credible claim, to advance the best example so it can be addressed. I didn't imply anything. I told you how I was going to handle information provided by you that I want to challenge. I did not mention your name or directly quote from your post. That way if my post has no connection to what you meant then there should be no problem. If it does then there should be no problem. This was not an insult or a dodge, but what I thought you wanted. You didn't want me writing to you.I was surprised to find your reply to a post of mine in another thread. I was going to thank you for your advice but was not sure if that was something you wanted.If you do not want me replying to you, please do not reply to my posts. And please do not post just to insult me again.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Then most people have parasites, in which case, natural selection still chooses religion over non-religion. There are obviously good attributes towards religious affinities if in fact we live in a completely naturalistic universe. Aside from which, the ad hoc explanation offered me nothing other than a wild guess. When you and your wife finish reading the book let me know what they have surmised. Then nature is being unreasonable. In which case, take it up with Her. Because if we were to continue in this vein, you couldn't very well blame a person for following the proclivities that nature assigned it anymore than you could for someone being born male or female. I wasn't talking about you, for starters. Secondly, is 'woowoo thinking' psuedoscientific or is there a legitimate calling for it?

quote:

---

Can you disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist?

---

Huh? Can you expound? No, you can never know if something doesn't exist. You can make some pretty good estimations for why its unreasonable to think that this or that exists, but disproving a negative is impossible. I would say that its not unreasonable for you to think there is not a blue whale in your bedroom. I guess that's all dependant on the parameters of the whale. For instance, the whole FSM argument comes from the inability to either prove or disprove the existence of God. But parasites serve a function in the whole of nature, so why would religion be any different? We already know that it serves a function. Whether that function is imagined, as in a placebo effect or not, really is inconsequential. It serves a very valid function. Everybody thinks they are right and the opposition is wrong. Saying that theists are wrong is about as ambiguous as saying birds are wrong. First of all, no is making decisions for you any more than the irreligious are making decisions for me. Secondly, you don't know whether or not their beliefs are true or false. You believe they are wrong. And they believe they are right. There's where the nasty little epithet called 'faith' comes in. People thinking that killing babies is wrong is not a sentiment for the religious. And if you don't believe me shoot down to the abortion clinic with a five year old who has no real concept of God and show them the tiny little limbs coming out. No religion required there. Secondly, killing people so that other people can live is just ridiculous. Aside from which, adult stem cells work just fine whereas fetal stem cells have not even gotten past the stage of applicable uses. As a naturalist, maybe you should question why you want to stop natural selection. Surely death is a good thing for the naturalist. It weeds out the weak and keeps the strong. But I digress as all of this is OT.

quote:

---

Hitler believed in a norse pagan religion, so in that, no, he wasn't an atheist.

---

Hitler was raised as a Catholic, but abandoned his Christian religion. He used Christianity as a vehicle to instill his hatred for "inferior races." Hitler had some bizarre beliefs that can be noted by examing the Thule Society. This man believed that the Aryan race came to earth from outer space on a comet that crashed on earth. He also believed that that a super race of aryan people lived inside the earth as a part of the Hollow Earth Theory. At the age of 19, Stalin attended Tiflis Theological Seminary when he first began to read Origins. During that time, he began to read other critical atheist works and so became an atheist. Origins cannot be blamed for the sole reason of his deconversion, however, it still is an interesting parallel. He wasn't the only luminary to drop theism after reading Darwin. Lysenkoism has nothing to do with Darwin. It had everything to do with eugenics. If you don't remember, Hitler and Stalin opposed each other. But they were still both out of their minds. Yes, I know who that is. .Wouldn't you say that Pol Pot went against just about every tenet of Buddhism? I only ask because just because someone says they are one thing doesn't make it so. I could try and convince you, til I'm blue in the face that I'm an Asian women but it doesn't make it so. If Communism has nothing to do with atheism then it has nothing to do with theism either by the same token. Communism has been used as vehicle by the irreligious for years and years. There really shouldn't be any ambiguity about that. That's absurd, especially when looking at the pronouncements of Lenin and Stalin. They were absolutely opposed towards religious sentiments. Because the word Christian means to be "Christ-like," and Jesus gave numerous discourses on being kind to even your enemy, that's why. I've never much understood the swearing on Bibles when Jesus Himself tells us not to swear by anything. He said, "Let your yes be yes, and you no, no." As for your discrimination, you do realize that people have the right to believe as they do. If you don't want to swear on a Bible, you don't have to. As for courts openly asserting the existence of God, that isn't true as its not the place of the court. I think you are all liars? I've never said you are all liars, but, then again, we all are liars if we've told even one lie. That would make me a liar too, by definition. I think that's the case unknowingly for many atheists. I don't think anyone is trying to trick other people, but rather, in a sense, trying to convince themselves. Excuse me, and when did I call you a liar to your face, with or without cause? Uh-huh, and how exactly have I made myself out to be your wife who knows you better than yourself?Keep pretending otherwise, though. I'm sure it makes you feel a lot better.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

The link has to do with my own view on the legal relations between a place on Earth and the applications of a completely different view of economics than you provided FROM WITHIN an evolutionary perspective. There is no reason to provide stats. I just wished to add my few cents even if they seem to be chaff rather than wheat backs.It is probably correct that PLACE determines faith predominantly. I just think that evolutionists have FAILED to do good science of these locations or "stations on Earth" as in legal US documents. I do recall a lunchroom converstation in High School where I said that I would likely be not Presbyterian if I lived in India. The view I have of any division of economics however can not be compared to the differences in faiths in any way which perhaps I misunderstood in your appelation to Dr. Dawkins but thereat ALSO incorporates evo-theory(so I think) so IN THAT VERY particular I might be "an anomoly." But in the topic at hand it is a very peculiar one at worst. I have ascended more towards the faith of my parents because of the BAD example I found outside my immediate family.As for THE EFFECT of my family on my faith I can assert and know that it was actually fairly little outside the general trends in the faith distribution(irrespective on non-faith data)in the region of my residence. My parents were "trying" out Methodist, Babtist, general Ecumenical and Presbyterian divisions and I choose irrespetive of them to attend CHURCH WHILE THEY WERE CHOOSING NOT to go. I choose it on my own and really in a large part on seeing how two-faced they seemed to be to be able to choose on a Sunday basis if they "felt" like going to worship or not. It seemed like an all or nothing thing to me. Economics is not like this.This website (as opposed to a page)will deal ONLY with the places, irrespective of politics, economics, or faith.
http://axiompanbiog.com/default.aspxEdited by Brad McFall, : response to direct contentEdited by Brad McFall, : lukewarm wordsEdited by Brad McFall, : water under the bridge

First let me say I have seen your previous, longer, post and will get to it. I definitely am grateful for the link to the Dawkins piece. I will watch the clip and answer your post tomorrow. I'd do it tonight but its already a bit late and I want to give it a decent reply.As for this short question... I should probably think about my answer more, but off the cuff I'd say I don't think I'd disagree. They are likely to be raised in an environment exposing them to a system of beliefs with a varying degree of importance on various topics... yet with an underlying central disagreement/conflict.What I'm not certain on is if he'd suggest atheist child would not fit on that list just the same, and if not, why not.I'll definitely get to your other post first thing tomorrow.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)