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

Point taken. I guess it could be said that members of both sides can lose sight of what is atheist and a-theist... perhaps we should refer to the latter as non or untheistic. Well I don't know.... Heheheh. I thought you were going to say "the deceased". Interestingly enough I had a relative that was an avid organist for churches... he was religious though.OT aside...
Even as an atheist, and less than enthused by Abrahamic tenets in specific, I really do like music and art which has come from passionate believers. I find organ and choral music quite uplifting and energizing. I attended Xmas candle light mass well past my disinterest in Xianity, just because of the beauty and happy nature of the goings on.It is a stark contrast to much of the sterile and prudish natures coming out of atheist quarters. Never understood why rational meant one had to become more solemn or prudish about humanity. I thought the end comment about Dawkins in the first article was indicative of that. I never had a problem getting a hug after church. Edited by holmes, : brevity

---

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

This is true for theist and atheist alike. Everyone tends to focus on something more than many other things. It will generally boil down to interest. I don't see where that is a criticism of what they are doing.Yes, evolution will be of greater interest to them, and so they become more critical (which does not necessarily mean more rational) because it impacts something specific which they deal with.I would agree with Iano's point that we shouldn't just refer to the experts and say something is settled. That in itself is okay. The next step, how you challenge the statements of experts, is of more concern.

---

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

Yes, this is a large part of what I was getting at.In addition, I am also concerned that atheists not start acting out (imitating) behaviors of theists while trying to advance atheism, even if they are clear about the distinction between science and atheism.I fear that will at best simply reverse the situation, rather than solve the problem. We become the enemy. This is certainly the best service a scientist can provide for science and rational thought. It comes before theistic allegiance.

---

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

That's a very amusing take on the matter. It's amusing to me, because I always thought that the crux of Paley's Watch argument was the juxtaposition of the apparent design of a found object on the one hand, and the conspicuous lack of design in the place where it's found on the other. The conclusion of design supposedly follows from the examination of the watch per se, in spite of what's suggested by the place where it's found.To suppose now that everything is designed is to detract from what power the argument held until Darwin came along. That is to say, it's not a very smart move.On the other hand, as an appeasement, I must say that over all I enjoy your posts which are well written and, in a way, reasonably argumented. So, please read my comments above in that vein.Edited by Parasomnium, : found a better title.

I agree with you Holmes, though I don't know if bold proclamations of truth are necessarily 'the enemy'... Just those that are not in fact true. Truth is exclusive and fundamental by it's very nature.Though I do not have time to reply with the attention to detail that your critique deserves, I encourage you to continue thinking honestly on these matters.You may want to read this response: http://EvC Forum: The consequences of "Evolution is false" -->EvC Forum: The consequences of "Evolution is false"I gave it in another thread, as it addresses your position that science and morality are not compatable. It's a philosophical dissertation of the matter, but I believe it is accurate. No-one has been able to shed light on why it is not.You may also want to scroll up to message 171 for the much shorter context.

---

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

I don't know what a "spirit" is, but we know that knowledge is stored in the brain. The brain is the seat of memory, and that's what knowledge is. If it didn't come from a sense, if it originated in your mind, you don't know it.Think for a minute. The brain is well-known to have the capacity to generate sensations and memories that, while false, can't be distinguished internally from real experiences. It happens to you every night; we call them "dreams." The principle feature of dreaming is that events that we recognize later as absurd appear totally normal and genuine during the dream. The vast majority of dreamers do not know that they are dreaming as they do.How can you think about thought, as you apparently so often do, and not see that the human power of imagination and dream means that we can't simply trust what we appear to know without any idea how we sensed it? The capacity of the brain to perfectly fabricate means that it's unreasonable not to have a level of suspicion about what you think you know "extra-empirically."For anything you think you know that didn't come from the senses, fabrication is the obvious explanation - not extra-sensory connection to cosmic deities who, for no reason at all, picked you to be a conduit for their knowledge. (Another question is this - if God is telling you things, why are you so often wrong?)Empricism is the only known means of collecting knowledge that can be distinguished from fabrication. Meditation, introspection, prayer, theology - whatever, none of those have the same power. The information those sources generate is indistinguishable from imagination.

quote:

---

I see. What do you propose we do about that?

---

You're right. And in the wise words of John Kerry, if you do well in school, you can go anywhere in life and do anything you want. If you don't, you'll go to Iraq.................. Don't you think they are becoming more critical? Children are indoctrinated, be it good or bad, with evolution from a very young age. It becomes a very powerful dogma that normally no one might feel compelled to challenge it. But some have challenged it and have reviewed and find insufficient to answer some of its own questions and implausible at best, and impossible at worst. Perhaps the worlds increasing reliance on technology is the dangerous prospect. A great example of this undue reliance is the pharmaceutical companies who fortune off of your affliction. There has never been a time where motives were so pernicious. And there is an epidemic of depression and they are all too willing to dispense some pills to numb your wits and to put a band-aid on the problem instead of actually dealing with it. Anyway, I digress. That's just one instance of many. You calling the religious minded 'irrational' is, one, elitist arrogance, and two, pure defamation.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

quote:

---

Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu.

​

Chuang Tzu
Inner Chapters

---

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

probably 1 off-topic post is enough.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Well I can agree with that statement, but I do question anyone asserting that they have indisputable direct access to the Truth.More specifically, no rational scientist worth his salt should be discussing his position or his methodology as having some relation to Truth.I'll cut theists a bit more slack in that regard in that they claim to be using methods (rational or not) which are capable of revealing such, but they will get questions.I'll check out the link you gave, and respond there.AbE: Rob points out in a later post that he meant to say that bold proclamations of truth are NOT the enemy. Intriguingly I did read it as he meant, rather than as he wrote it. I am adding the {not} back into the quote above for clarity.Edited by holmes, : critical NOT added

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You said:Rightly so holmes... Rightly so!Pardon me for the following suggestion. You must think for yourself. I find it to be of the most compelling nature.

quote:

---

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ”I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic”on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg”or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” (CS Lewis, Mere Christianity)

---

Keep up the good questions holmes. A good skeptic is skeptical of his own skepticism, and so many have lost the art.

---

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

Oops! I said: I assume that you got my meaning?I meant to say that bold proclamations of truth are not necessarily 'the enemy'.

I've considered that. But then again, my distrust of the ToE comes not from theological reasons, but rather, scientific ones.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

I did get your meaning, totally missing your typo. I've changed the quote from you in my reply in order to reflect what you meant and what I was agreeing to.BTW, I went to the link and found it has been blocked as OT so I cannot respond there. I think I get what you are driving at and believe it has a logical merit, even if it is not a logical necessity which effects how others MUST approach philosophy, reason, or morality. I am thinking of starting a thread based where I answer your points.It probably won't be today, and I can't guarantee something till next week (though it could very well be tomorrow). I am interested in the topic of where reason, reality, and morality meet.Edited by holmes, : missed word

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm afraid this thread is wandering rather a long way from the OP.Perhaps you could take your scientific reasons for distrusting the ToE to a new thread.(personally - and off topic -- I find this surprising since you don't actually know much (or any?) of the science at all. )