|
Author
|
Topic: Anti-theistic strawmen?
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
Message 1 of 145 (424747)
09-28-2007 11:41 AM
|
|
|
I'm sure they exist in abundance, but I'm primarily looking to focus on the arguments put forward by prominent anti-theists. Notably, in the poltergeist thread, it was said:
Not to cast aspersions on Dawkins, by the way, but I started watching one of those video links and he said that the people gathering for a candle-lit ceremony were on a slippery slope to becoming the sort of religious fanatics who encourage someone to murder themselves and others in the name of a god. This is deeply insulting to all the peaceful religious people I ever knew. I think I'm going to go with Percy's strawman comments there and decide it's all rather too extreme for me to stomach, though no doubt he's got some good points to make. At (2:50) in "The Root of All Evil?", the statement in question:
quote:
...but isn't this beginning of that slippery slope that leads to young men with rucksack bombs on the tube?... [the assault on the senses] appeals to us not to think, not to doubt, not to probe and if we can retain our faith against the evidence in the teeth of reality the more virtuous we are... This is a benign herd. but it supports a backward belief system that I believe reason must challenge.
This is not a strawman. It is not defining religion, it is describing Dawkins' argument which he intends to then support. It is essentially the introduction to Dawkins' argument which the rest of the program intends to show. It likewise has a conclusion where he summarises. Dawkins is not arguing that these Catholics were on the slippery slope to suicide bombing. He is arguing that the same thinking, the same suspension of disbelief, the same attitude towards faith in spite of evidence, that can lead to fanaticism. The argument has weight when we examine it in my opinion, and the documentary goes someway into doing that. As Dawkins puts it at about [7.50] quote:
I want to look at how the suspension of disbelief inherent in faith can lead to far more dangerous ideas beyond.
Not long afterwards [11.05] he gives an example which I consider to be far more deadly, far more appalling, than rucksack bombers on the underground: The faith-based conviction that we should discourage condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa and the resultant action stemming from that. This should at least, deeply shock peaceful followers of religion but they should not be offended by it. Dawkins does not go around suggesting that all peaceful religious people are responsible for these deaths, but he is suggesting that their way of thinking is responsible for these deaths. However, this thread is about the supposed strawmen of anti-theistic arguments put forwards by the spokespeople. I'm sure there are some, but I do not think their central argument rests upon a strawman version of religion. For those who do not have access to the relevant books, it might be an idea to reference one of the many videos that has recently come out on this topic. One of which being The Root of All Evil? referenced in this post. I don't necessarily want to focus on the ills that religion does or does not cause, nor on the counter-balancing good it might do...such arguments should only be made with regard to any strawmen you think have been put forward. That is to say, the argument I put forward here with regards to the quote at the top of the thread, is not the topic in and of itself. Thought it best to get that clearly written. Anyway, here is Dawkins' conclusion [43.00] from that show:
quote:
Clearly, historic injustice towards the Palestinians breeds hatred and anger. But we must face up to the fact that in creating the death cults of suicide bombers - it's unshakeable unreasonable conviction in your own righteous faith that is the key. If preachers then tell the faithful that paradise after martyrdom is better than existence in the real world, it's hardly surprising that some crazed followers will actually swallow it, leading to a terrible cycle of vendetta, war and suffering.
Dawkins' basic point is here as well - without faith, without the system in which everybody reinforces the idea that faith is good despite the lack of evidence (or even despite contradictory evidence), the death cults could not function as they do now. That is what he means by the Catholics candle ceremony being the top of a slippery slope, of being the support to a backward belief system, of leading to dangerous ideas and actions. I'm guessing Faith and belief for this one
No - I don't believe a cosmic Jewish zombie can make me live forever if I eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can then remove an evil force from my soul that is present in all of humanity because a dirt/rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree about 6,000 years ago just after the universe was created. Why should I?
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
are you then willing to defend the idea that atheistic or non-theistic nationalism can't breed the same thing? Nationalism would imply some kind of dogmatic faith in one's nation's own greatness regardless of evidence that the assertion is nonsense. One can be atheistic and also hold to a political system that breeds evil. That isn't the topic, though. abe: if a death cult formed from nationalism, I'd be very surprised if an unreasonable unshakeable sense of righteous faith wasn't involved.
i'm simply saying that his assertion that without religious faith the level of commitment these individuals demonstrate wouldn't happen is indefensible. Right - and Dawkins isn't making this argument. If you want to support the position that he is, then go right ahead. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: Zeal - religious or non-religious fervor
This is faulty logic though on the part of Dawkins. Would the eradication of faith (something he uses daily, btw) really tip the scales of justice, so to speak? I think it would certainly help, yes. However, this is not a strawman.
You don't see that as a hopelessly naive notion, especially in light of innumerable instances where the eradication of religion ended in total catastrophe? Dawkins doesn't say 'eradicating religion will end world suffering'. He argues that religious dogma is a dogma which is given privileged status. It is encouraged to have faith in religious dogma without needing supporting evidence, whereas other forms of dogma this is less true. Either way, naive notion or not, it is not a strawman.
I think the argument only really points to human beings and what avenue they choose to justify atrocities. Anyone can find some reason within their heart to come to dangerous ideals. Religious zealots have done it, and so have godless zealots. Therefore, I don't see how Dawkins' conclusions apply to reality. His conclusions are fundamentally off topic though. The topic is about strawmen/straw-Gods.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 8:31 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 34 of 145 (425196)
10-01-2007 7:33 AM
|
|
|
Hitler's belief system
It's all fascinating. That said, this topic is about discussing the alleged straw-Gods put forward by contemporary anti-theists. This topic is not about hasty generalizations of theists about atheists. Thanks. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
No - I don't believe a cosmic Jewish zombie can make me live forever if I eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can then remove an evil force from my soul that is present in all of humanity because a dirt/rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree about 6,000 years ago just after the universe was created. Why should I?
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: treating childish theism as theism = strawman
It's interesting to note, in the thread 'I was a Christian', how often the personal narratives shared there describe rejection as a young adult of ideas the speaker held as a child. Never discussed is whether the person's understanding of theism at age 10 might not be as every bit as rudimentary as the same person's understanding of natural science, say, at that same age. I'd say theists have a legitimate gripe here. True enough. Are these kinds of arguments put forward by the public figures of anti-theism, or would you say that it was limited to discussion at a more 'grass roots' level?
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: treating childish theism as theism = strawman
excerpts from Dawkins that show him taking the most childish forms of religion as the best theistic belief has to offer. (As when he dumps on the book of Genesis for describing sordid behaviour by Lot--and assumes the whole time that those who revere the text as a sacred have never, in all the centuries they've read and discussed the stories, taken account of the same thing.) I've never seen Dawkins tackle the Old Testament in this fashion. Normally he raises the issue with a different point in mind. For example, showing that our morality is far divorced from the morality taught in the Old Testament. Other times, he is putting it out there, because some people - 'on the fence' Christians included, aren't aware of these stories. As for being the 'best' that religion has to offer, I've not seen him say that kind of thing, could you drag up a source?
He's obviously not boxing in the same heavyweight category as David Hume and Bertrand Russell, who really know how to land a punch. He's not a philosopher, that's for sure. However, he doesn't base his thesis of anti-theism on the assumption that theisms best construct is found in Genesis. He raises many of the same kinds of points Russell raises, in a more accessible fashion than Russell is to the modern reader. He even talks of the celestial teapot.
Granted, fundies typically espouse a childish idea of theism. Their eagerness to rush chin-forward into the ring often places their view in the spotlight. Dawkins attacks the childish beliefs, and the more moderate 'grown up' theology alike. He states up front that if your brand of theology is metaphorical wishy-washy stuff that makes no particular claims other than subjective theobabble, then he isn't really arguing against that because it would be futile to do so. He focusses his effort on the kind of theology that has real world implications, and why those implications affect us and why we should challenge the faith-based reasoning that leads to them and the undue respect they gain.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 63 of 145 (425340)
10-01-2007 8:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Jazzns
10-01-2007 3:53 PM
|
|
Re: treating childish theism as theism = strawman
Was it Dawkins that said something like, "Most people are atheists with respect to all the other gods who have existed, some just go 1 god further"? Many people have said it, I forget who was first. However, it isn't an argument, it's a way to answer the common question "How can you be an atheist?"
Comparing the God of Abraham to Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, etc is not a good argument simply because there are vastly different reasons for why people reject those figures. It's a fine argument if used correctly. It's an argument that says there are many things to believe in, and choosing one is as arbitrary as what culture you grew up in. The point is that there is no better reason for believing in the God of Abraham over Apollo beyond the fact that you were born in the 20th Century in the so called 'West'. Sure - believers reject other gods because there religion tells them to, but believers are perfectly capable of understanding that the gods of other religions have no positive evidence for them which would be a rational reason for rejecting them also. I'd like to see a specific time when Dawkins brought this up, so we can see the nature of the argument he is using to see if he builds a strawman, I don't see one. At best I see a potential argument that doesn't have the intended impact.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Jazzns, posted 10-01-2007 3:53 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: treating childish theism as theism = strawman
Dawkins writes: Pat Robertson would be harmless comedy, were he less typical of those who today hold power and influence in the United States. In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham's nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: 'Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them' (Genesis 19: 5). Yes, 'know' has the Authorized Version's usual euphemistic meaning, which is very funny in the context. Lot's gallantry in refusing the demand suggests that God might have been onto something when he singled him out as the only good man in Sodom. But Lot's halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: 'I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof' (Genesis 19: 7-8). Whatever else this strange story might mean, it surely tells us something about the respect accorded to women in this intensely religious culture. As it happened, Lot's bargaining away of his daughters' virginity proved unnecessary, for the angels succeeded in repelling the marauders by miraculously striking them blind. They then warned Lot to decamp immediately with his family and his animals, because the city was about to be destroyed. The whole household escaped, with the exception of Lot's unfortunate wife, whom the Lord turned into a pillar of salt because she committed the offence - comparatively mild, one might have thought - of looking over her shoulder at the fireworks display. Lot's two daughters make a brief reappearance in the story. After their mother was turned into a pillar of salt, they lived with their father in a cave up a mountain. Starved of male company, they decided to make their father drunk and copulate with him. Lot was beyond noticing when his elder daughter arrived in his bed or when she left, but he was not too drunk to impregnate her. The next night the two daughters agreed it was the younger one's turn. Again Lot was too drunk to notice, and he impregnated her too (Genesis 19: 31-6). If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone. That's an exerpt from Chapter 7, not being held up as the best example of theology here, the only reference to 'best examples' is at the end there with a wry comment about the immorality we see in Lot's family and that questionable morality was the best Sodom had to offer.
Take that, Mr Buddha. Although many modern Buddhists are in the wishy-washy category, they haven't always been so. Buddhist theocracies have come out from faith based beliefs stemming from an interpretation on Buddha's teaching (and the bodhisattvas etc etc). If someone was to make claims about how to correctly rule a nation based on Buddhist teachings - Dawkins' argument would challenge the basis for those claims. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Lot is about the Lord's Wrath: like Katrina?
You tell us what Dawkins's point is not. But what is it? I ask because I don't know. He starts off talking about Pat Robertson, then segues with no explanation (in the excerpt we have) into a discussion of Lot and what a funny and sordid story it is. Is he saying Pat Roberson is like Lot? If so... well, let's just say that if so, the nature of the comparison is not obvious. And if I were Lot I would sue.
Pat Robertson is not like Lot. Pat Robertson is applying tales like Lot's tale (and more obviously Noah's tale) in order to come to the conclusion that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God and the only question remaining is figuring out what God is so pissed about.
More to the point for our discussion is that Dawkins invokes a clown like Pat Robertson by name but utters not a peep about all the people who have read and discussed this narrative throughout history, who are as aware as Dawkins of its funny and sordid elements, and yet who see no rational conflict between recognizing this and holding theistic beliefs. If Dawkins intends to make a case that all theism is 'delusion,' those are the people he needs to be talking about. That's where the fight is. You ask what Dawkins' point is, and you come close to answering it yourself here:
quote:
Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation...In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literally. According to Gallup, they include approximately 50 per cent of the US electorate.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: treating childish theism as theism = strawman
The point of my wisecrack was not about Buddhism. It was about the obvious prejudice in the statement. Your comment, explaining Dawkins, assumed 'wishy-washiness' as an inherent characteristic of metaphors--and thus grounds for immediate dismissal of anything metaphorical from the world of ideas. Then you misunderstand me, my apologies. I was giving my own opinion on this area of theology hoping you'd understand. Metaphorical thingies can be used in the world of ideas, I am not discounting that. The problem is when metaphorical ideas are used to make decisions in the real world that affect other people's lives. That is when such ideas must be shown for what they are: metaphor. They are not evidence and they should be afforded the same kind of respect as other metaphors in the realm of ideas: baseless without real world evidence.
The terms 'wishy-washy' and 'theobabble' are pejorative terms that were introduced without any reasonable grounds provided for doing so. The reader was expected to act as if an argument had already been made. None was. I wasn't making an argument, I was simply stating that Dawkins doesn't address this branch of theological discussion. He doesn't address God is in the community (that I've heard as a refutation of Dawkin's criticism) or God is a metaphor for how we live kind of stuff. He specifies the kind of God and the kind of faith he is addressing, it is a real thing that really exists in the real world and he is attacking its grounds. He attacks the beliefs that imply certain actions are correct and moral based on religious faith (or any kind of faith), since these things might be moral, but it would be better to have good reasons rather than bad reasons (or more accurately: made up reasons).
There is thus no reason why the theists of the world (including Mr Buddha) should take much notice. If the theist in question believes in a deity that doesn't get involved in human affairs or decide absolutely on moral issues, then yes - they need not bother with Dawkins. Buddhism does make absolute statements of morality though, last time I checked the precepts. Thou shalt not harm living beings is one of them. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Do we have examples of grown up theism?
it isn't. you just have to actually study it with people who've studied it for a long time and not people who are "leik omgz! when wuz you saveed!!!" Sophistry, then? Dawkins makes clear which God he is discrediting, and he does so. If you, or anyone else, has a conception of God that is not inline with the God Dawkins is discrediting, then Dawkins isn't discrediting it. If someone wants to describe a God different to the ones Dawkins speaks of, then that description of God can be critqued as it comes. Do you have any links to articles describing such a God? You are making the claim that Dawkins does not tackle a certain kind of God. Show us this god being written about and we can see if Dawkins addresses this deity.
dawkins is a biologist. he can't possibly refute god with any authority. Why not? Because he specializes in one field, does not discount him from discussing other fields. Dawkins certainly refutes the type of God he is saying he is going to discredit, biologist or no biologist. Besides, he is an ethologist, which means he studies animal behaviour, culture etc. Humans are an animal, and their culture is very much part of Dawkins' field. A scientist is definitely qualified to refute claims of an entity that is said to influence the physical world. An ethologist is qualified to refute claims that such an entity is the only possible explanation for the existence of morality in homo sapiens. An evolutionary biologist is perfectly qualified to refute the claims that God had to be involved in life in certain ways. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 100 of 145 (425545)
10-02-2007 5:37 PM
|
|
|
Some pointers
If you find that your post contains the name Hitler, is critical of atheism, is critical of evolution or 'evolutionism' refers to any supposed atheistic dictator, then you are probably not on topic. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
Message 117 of 145 (425603)
10-03-2007 3:41 AM
|
|
|
Definitely offtopic
Perhaps a map will help, I found this one on the intertubes. Hitler? Genocide? The evils of atheism? Evolutionism? Then read this map:
And decide how to get back on topic for yourself, thanks.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 119 by bluegenes, posted 10-03-2007 12:08 PM | | Modulous has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 120 of 145 (425666)
10-03-2007 4:34 PM
|
|
|
Sophisticated theology
I've tried looking for this sophisticated theology. More specifically, I've gone looking for the God of sophisticated theology. I've sought it with thimbles, I've sought it with care; I've pursued it with forks and hope; I threatened its life with a railway-share; I charmed it with smiles and soap.' And oh, beamish theologians, beware of the day your God be a Boojum! For then it will softly and suddenly vanish away, and never be met with again!' Here is Tillich's God:
quote:
"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
The best I've managed to ascertain from Tillich is that God is beyond space and time and is infinite. All knowledge of the divine is symbolic. The only way knowledge of the divine can be obtained is through revelation. I'm not sure on his ideas about prayer, I see this:
quote:
God's directing creativity is the answer to the question of the meaning of prayer, especially prayers of supplication and prayers of intercession. Neither type of prayer can mean that God is expected to acquiesce in interfering with existential conditions. Both mean that God is asked to direct the given situation toward fulfilment. The prayers are an element in this situation, a most powerful factor if they are true prayers. As an element in the situation a prayer is a condition of God's directing creativity, but the form of this creativity may be the complete rejection of the manifest content of the prayer. Nevertheless, the prayer may have been heard according to its hidden content which is the surrender of a fragment of existence to God. ... Every serious prayer contains power, not because of the intensity of desire expressed in it, but because of the faith the person has in God's directing activity - a faith which transforms the existential situation.
Here is my translation:
God's directing creativity is the answer to the question of the meaning of prayer, especially prayers of supplication and prayers of intercession. Prayer doesn't mean that God will actually do anything real. It means that someone is asking God to continue applying cause and effect until humans judge the situation to be 'fulfilled'. False prayers are an element in asking God to apply cause and effect and true prayers are a powerful factor. Since God is creative he doesn't have to do anything about the prayer. Nevertheless God appreciates that you are a sucker for thinking prayer will work ... It's not the prayer that changes existence, but the faith behind the prayer So, by asking God to bring a situation to fulfillment, he may or may not do so. However, by having faith in God, you can change the real world. This seems to me to be indirectly saying that in some sense of the word: Prayers have an effect on the real world, sort of, kind of, ish. This is addressed by Dawkins. Dawkins also deals with revelation as a means of knowing something. That said - this is clearly not the theology of the Bible, this is basically general 'theism' with appeals to the Bible when things can remain vague and to refer to the Bible as symbolic metaphor at other times. I don't see a lot of beef here, but whenever this God has an effect on the world, it enters the realm of the kind of deity Dawkins is opposing. Whenever this God is a vague, indefinable being who doesn't exist - Dawkins states that he isn't arguing against that other than in a 'based on what, exactly?' argument. Let us remind ourselves how Dawkins is using terms:
Dawkins writes: Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism. So, either Tillich is a theist and his God has some effect on the world or he is a deist and his God doesn't. He sounds like a strange mix of the two to me. His God has some effect on the world, can fulfil somethings and faith provides magical powers. Only it seems not in a definable way, just in a vague noncomittal sort of way. It looks Dawkins is not dealing with this kind of theology, except when it proposes intervention/revelation by a supernatural entity (or being beyond existence and essence if we want to be sophisticated about it). I see no strawman here. Any suggestions anyone?
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
Re: treating childish theism as theism = strawmanll
If the reason that it's so irrefutable is because at no point are you willing to state what it is, then I think you're involved in a shell game. I don't think you've identified some theology Dawkins is afraid to address when you adamantly refuse to explain exactly what it is. I've tried finding these guys' theology. Its difficult, but in several important ways these things are tackled. A characteristic of Maimonides appears to be a form of god in the gaps with clever wording. That is to say: God reveals truth to us, however if something we thought was God's truth is contradicted by experience/science/philosophy then it isn't truth. It's a 'This is the way of the cosmos, and you have to prove me wrong - I don't need to justify it' kind of affair. He argued that a claim of truth can only be made if it is proven by rationalism, empiricism or authority. Dawkins deals with the latter category in many of his writings and why the latter should be rejected as a source of truth. Either that or by authority, he means the kind of authority we have in science: which is an authority which can be trusted to have employed rationalism and empiricism to reach its conclusions. Since nobody has done the rationalism and empiricism to validly reach conclusions about God, Maimonides' theology is either denying God's existence entirely, or based upon an unjustified faith in authority figures. Given one of his principles of faith is in the immutability in the Torah as God's law - I'd say it was unjustified faith in authority figures which Dawkins does address. In a dash of cynicism, Maimonides refers to the idea that God is angry at sinners as not a true reflection of God, but a necessary spin to keep people in line. All this from 'his' wiki page. Here is a great bit from that page:
quote:
While these two positions may be seen as in contradiction (non-corporeal eternal life, versus a bodily resurrection), Maimonides resolves them with a then unique solution: Maimonides believed that the resurrection was not permanent or general. In his view, God never violates the laws of nature. Rather, divine interaction is by way of angels, which Maimonides holds to be metaphors for the laws of nature, the principles by which the physical universe operates, or Platonic eternal forms. Thus, if a unique event actually occurs, even if it is perceived as a miracle, it is not a violation of the world's order.[6]
which would put Maimonides in the pantheistic category of Dawkins, which he outright states he is not attacking since it is just a way of using metaphors to describe nature. TS Eliot's theology lead him to the conclusion that liberalism and democracy were very bad. That saving people is not a matter of educated them. It led him to believe in the greatness of the monarchy but also to hate tyranny!? That's what I managed to get from a brief search. IT seems that whatever his theology is, it definitely leads to morality->actions in the real world that affect real people. Dawkins tackles this kind thing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2007 1:09 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2