Comments on: In Defence of Dawkins http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/ like balloons, only with dancing Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:28:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Foofito http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2880 Foofito Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:29:57 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2880 I just read the "meme" reference in Wikipedia and learned that Dawkins believes religion is a meme. So, we are so mindless that we follow the myths of religion as good "imitators"? The meme concept seems to imply that our human gullibility is just a benign trait (for religion; not for a meme that results in genocide), and belies the problem that many of use do not make much of an attempt to think for ourselves. Or, at least the meme concept seems to excuse (by ignoring) our reluctance to come to our own conclusions on many things. Sad, if it is true. I just read the “meme” reference in Wikipedia and learned that Dawkins believes religion is a meme. So, we are so mindless that we follow the myths of religion as good “imitators”? The meme concept seems to imply that our human gullibility is just a benign trait (for religion; not for a meme that results in genocide), and belies the problem that many of use do not make much of an attempt to think for ourselves. Or, at least the meme concept seems to excuse (by ignoring) our reluctance to come to our own conclusions on many things. Sad, if it is true.

]]> By: Krypto http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2879 Krypto Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:14:23 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2879 I think the idea of religion as a meme explains much of why it succeeds so spectacularly. It's an idea with built-in safeguards against analysis, built-in methods of transfer that attack the recipient when they are at their most open to suggestion and, most powerful of all, the ability to superficially provide comfort and tell people what they want to hear. I don't think atheism is really an evolutionary tendency, in fact my hunch is that the ability to think rationally is far more the result of environmental than nature. I'm sure it's true that some people have the ability to think more rationally than others, but it seems unlikely to me that the difference is actually that large. I'd think that a person's surroundings are the major factor in their ability to think critically. If you are allowed to think for yourself as you grow up, and are surrounded by sources of knowledge as well as being taught how to discover what is true and what is not, I think you'll probably see that religion is based upon nothing. But if the opposite is true, it's not that people willfully refuse to listen, it's that it never occurs to them that anything other than what they believe could be true. Or something - I could be talking nonsense :-) I think the idea of religion as a meme explains much of why it succeeds so spectacularly. It’s an idea with built-in safeguards against analysis, built-in methods of transfer that attack the recipient when they are at their most open to suggestion and, most powerful of all, the ability to superficially provide comfort and tell people what they want to hear.

I don’t think atheism is really an evolutionary tendency, in fact my hunch is that the ability to think rationally is far more the result of environmental than nature. I’m sure it’s true that some people have the ability to think more rationally than others, but it seems unlikely to me that the difference is actually that large. I’d think that a person’s surroundings are the major factor in their ability to think critically. If you are allowed to think for yourself as you grow up, and are surrounded by sources of knowledge as well as being taught how to discover what is true and what is not, I think you’ll probably see that religion is based upon nothing. But if the opposite is true, it’s not that people willfully refuse to listen, it’s that it never occurs to them that anything other than what they believe could be true. Or something - I could be talking nonsense :-)

]]> By: Foofito http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2878 Foofito Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:19:38 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2878 Here in the States most people believe in the existence of god, and subscribe to a particular branch of a religion (i.e., branch of the Protestant faith). And a large minority in the country consider themselves Catholics. And there are a few million Jews too, mostly secular. An atheist oftentimes lives in the proverbial "closet" in order not to alienate/offend this large believing majority. Weren't these beliefs taught to us when we were too young to think rationally about many things? Was this the original point to this thread of comments? In effect, is the belief in a god just the result of this universal societal folkway to inculcate children into the belief of a deity? Do we do this for the same reason parents tell children there is a Santa Claus (it is the expedient thing to do, just in case the child doesn't like his/her Christmas gift)? Is belief in a god the expedient way to get a child to stop crying when a close relative dies? Was believing in god originally a red herring, and now we've been hoisted on our own petard? Is atheism the workings of evolution in our brains? Is there something genetic going on (or at least genetic drift) that results in some of us to completely divest ourselves from our childhood religious/god teachings? Is god/religion just a palliative to the fear so many have of death? As an atheist these questions are never answered by others, since I don't ask them. Any thoughts? Here in the States most people believe in the existence of god, and subscribe to a particular branch of a religion (i.e., branch of the Protestant faith). And a large minority in the country consider themselves Catholics. And there are a few million Jews too, mostly secular. An atheist oftentimes lives in the proverbial “closet” in order not to alienate/offend this large believing majority.
Weren’t these beliefs taught to us when we were too young to think rationally about many things? Was this the original point to this thread of comments?
In effect, is the belief in a god just the result of this universal societal folkway to inculcate children into the belief of a deity? Do we do this for the same reason parents tell children there is a Santa Claus (it is the expedient thing to do, just in case the child doesn’t like his/her Christmas gift)? Is belief in a god the expedient way to get a child to stop crying when a close relative dies? Was believing in god originally a red herring, and now we’ve been hoisted on our own petard?
Is atheism the workings of evolution in our brains? Is there something genetic going on (or at least genetic drift) that results in some of us to completely divest ourselves from our childhood religious/god teachings?
Is god/religion just a palliative to the fear so many have of death?
As an atheist these questions are never answered by others, since I don’t ask them. Any thoughts?

]]> By: Krypto http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2877 Krypto Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:44:51 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2877 Sal - to paraphrase my response to that: no, no, no, no, no. I repeat, there is no agenda in science. The non-existence of a deity is *not* assumed at the start of the process - I wish I knew why so many religious people have this bizarre idea. The theories are based upon evidence, and that is all. There is no need for blind daith in the evolutionary process, because anybody can look at the base evidence and see the logical arguments stemming from it. This is the complete opposite of faith (no matter what odd definiton you use) in which belief is based upon no evidence. Sal - to paraphrase my response to that: no, no, no, no, no.

I repeat, there is no agenda in science. The non-existence of a deity is *not* assumed at the start of the process - I wish I knew why so many religious people have this bizarre idea. The theories are based upon evidence, and that is all.

There is no need for blind daith in the evolutionary process, because anybody can look at the base evidence and see the logical arguments stemming from it. This is the complete opposite of faith (no matter what odd definiton you use) in which belief is based upon no evidence.

]]> By: Krypto http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2876 Krypto Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:39:17 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2876 I don't really know what to say about that - that's not any definition of 'faith' that I've ever heard used before. But changing the words doesn't make any difference to the argument. There is no evidence for the existence of a deity, so belief in a deity is based upon nothing reasonable, hence why I think it stifles rational thought. I don’t really know what to say about that - that’s not any definition of ‘faith’ that I’ve ever heard used before. But changing the words doesn’t make any difference to the argument. There is no evidence for the existence of a deity, so belief in a deity is based upon nothing reasonable, hence why I think it stifles rational thought.

]]> By: Benjamin http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2875 Benjamin Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:09:04 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2875 Tony, Griffith-Thomas is giving a description of what faith is and how it comes about - which is what amounts to a defintion. And the central point I am making is that faith includes 'the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence'. You can't have an assumption in a definition, you are stating what a term means so therefore your defintion stands and the point to be debated is how many people who use the term agree with the definition. And in the case of Christianity I think that this is typical of most serious writer's understanding of the term. Tony,

Griffith-Thomas is giving a description of what faith is and how it comes about - which is what amounts to a defintion. And the central point I am making is that faith includes ‘the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence’. You can’t have an assumption in a definition, you are stating what a term means so therefore your defintion stands and the point to be debated is how many people who use the term agree with the definition. And in the case of Christianity I think that this is typical of most serious writer’s understanding of the term.

]]> By: Tony http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2874 Tony Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:43:05 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2874 <em>A typical definition used by a mainstream Anglican theologian, Griffith-Thomas (Wycliffe Hall, Oxford) is as follows:'Faith affects the whole of man's nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned with the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.</em> Benjamin, That not a definition of faith. Griffith-Thomas starts with an assumption then uses verbs like "affects", "commences", "continued", and "crowned".These are perfectly valid observations of the affects of faith but not a definition. t A typical definition used by a mainstream Anglican theologian, Griffith-Thomas (Wycliffe Hall, Oxford) is as follows:’Faith affects the whole of man’s nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned with the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.
Benjamin,
That not a definition of faith. Griffith-Thomas starts with an assumption then uses verbs like “affects”, “commences”, “continued”, and “crowned”.These are perfectly valid observations of the affects of faith but not a definition.
t

]]> By: Sal http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2873 Sal Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:44:11 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2873 Just to add a point on faith: Somewhere at a starting point of the theory of evolution, a "cannot be challenged" tenet or assumption has been made which cannot be supported by science: in this case, the absolute refusal to believe that God can play a role in the equation (because science can neither prove nor disprove God - inferences of judgement can be made, but not 100% conclusions). Proponents of evolution like believe that do not have faith. But they do. The only difference is what is the OBJECT OF THAT FAITH. A religious person would say God. A person who believes in evolution would claim "no faith", but in actual fact, faith exists - just not in a Creator being. Perhaps in Darwinism, scientific processes, mankind's superiority, or whatever label you chose to put on it. Benjamin - "Essentially the problem with Dawkins is not that he criticises a range of ‘religious’ practises from suicide bombers to anti-condom propaganda by catholics - I find such things just as abhorrent - but rather that he extrapolates to the whole of religion". I agree. EXTRAPOLATION seems to be the name of game here. I was commenting on another thread (http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/17/second-part-of-the-root-of-all-evil) and could not resist putting my thoughts. :) Peace, ~Sal Just to add a point on faith: Somewhere at a starting point of the theory of evolution, a “cannot be challenged” tenet or assumption has been made which cannot be supported by science: in this case, the absolute refusal to believe that God can play a role in the equation (because science can neither prove nor disprove God - inferences of judgement can be made, but not 100% conclusions).

Proponents of evolution like believe that do not have faith. But they do. The only difference is what is the OBJECT OF THAT FAITH. A religious person would say God. A person who believes in evolution would claim “no faith”, but in actual fact, faith exists - just not in a Creator being. Perhaps in Darwinism, scientific processes, mankind’s superiority, or whatever label you chose to put on it.

Benjamin - “Essentially the problem with Dawkins is not that he criticises a range of ‘religious’ practises from suicide bombers to anti-condom propaganda by catholics - I find such things just as abhorrent - but rather that he extrapolates to the whole of religion”. I agree. EXTRAPOLATION seems to be the name of game here.

I was commenting on another thread (http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/17/second-part-of-the-root-of-all-evil) and could not resist putting my thoughts. :)

Peace,
~Sal

]]> By: Benjamin http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2872 Benjamin Sat, 21 Jan 2006 02:12:43 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2872 "Rational thought involves making a reasonable conclusion based upon evidence" I go along with that "A central tenet of religion is the idea of faith - that which cannot be proven but must simply be accepted" I contest this definition you have of faith. What is your evidence for this definition? Can you find me an incidence of a Christian writer using this definition? Dawkins certainly agrees with you. He defines faith as 'blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence'. As far as I am concerned such a faith would be worthwhile criticising but if no serious christian ever uses this definition then how does this constitute an argument against christianity? A typical definition used by a mainstream Anglican theologian, Griffith-Thomas (Wycliffe Hall, Oxford) is as follows: 'Faith affects the whole of man's nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned with the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.' The key point here is that it is not 'blind' it is not 'in the absence of evidence' and it is therefore not simply accepted'. With this in mind the blanket criticism of religion as inherently irrational is clearly wrong. Furthermore attacking the spurious beliefs and reasoning of those in the fringes of religions and their weak grasp of such concepts is like picking holes in a GCSE students ideas of biology. In other words that a GCSE student cannot make a convincing case for evolution does not mean that the whole field is rubbish. Essentially the problem with Dawkins is not that he criticises a range of 'religious' practises from suicide bombers to anti-condom propaganda by catholics - I find such things just as abhorrent - but rather that he extrapolates to the whole of religion. And it is particularly galling that he does so without evidence - that is to say his definition the concept of faith is not backed up by evidence. “Rational thought involves making a reasonable conclusion based upon evidence”

I go along with that

“A central tenet of religion is the idea of faith - that which cannot be proven but must simply be accepted”

I contest this definition you have of faith. What is your evidence for this definition?

Can you find me an incidence of a Christian writer using this definition? Dawkins certainly agrees with you. He defines faith as ‘blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence’. As far as I am concerned such a faith would be worthwhile criticising but if no serious christian ever uses this definition then how does this constitute an argument against christianity?

A typical definition used by a mainstream Anglican theologian, Griffith-Thomas (Wycliffe Hall, Oxford) is as follows:

‘Faith affects the whole of man’s nature. It commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned with the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.’

The key point here is that it is not ‘blind’ it is not ‘in the absence of evidence’ and it is therefore not simply accepted’. With this in mind the blanket criticism of religion as inherently irrational is clearly wrong. Furthermore attacking the spurious beliefs and reasoning of those in the fringes of religions and their weak grasp of such concepts is like picking holes in a GCSE students ideas of biology. In other words that a GCSE student cannot make a convincing case for evolution does not mean that the whole field is rubbish.

Essentially the problem with Dawkins is not that he criticises a range of ‘religious’ practises from suicide bombers to anti-condom propaganda by catholics - I find such things just as abhorrent - but rather that he extrapolates to the whole of religion. And it is particularly galling that he does so without evidence - that is to say his definition the concept of faith is not backed up by evidence.

]]> By: Krypto http://wongablog.co.uk/2006/01/09/in-defence-of-dawkins/#comment-2871 Krypto Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:32:10 +0000 http://wongablog.djcounsell.org/?p=1525#comment-2871 Rational thought involves making a reasonable conclusion based upon evidence. A central tenet of religion is the idea of faith - that which cannot be proven but must simply be accepted. Surely this is completely contrary to rational thought? Rational thought involves making a reasonable conclusion based upon evidence. A central tenet of religion is the idea of faith - that which cannot be proven but must simply be accepted. Surely this is completely contrary to rational thought?

]]>