The God Delusion - ongoing review

No they aren't, they just got past the hump to get into Heaven. As for their miracles, a word: intercessory.

I will agree with Dawkins that the whole saint thing is out of hand and silly, but it's hardly polytheism.

After all, doesn't he himself point out - in a stirringly misthought attack on monotheism and Trinitarianism, bless him - that Lord Brahma and Lakshmi and all the rest of the Hindu "pantheon" are really all different facets of the same god after all? But Jesus and the Holy Spirit and God are not, seemingly, according to Richard. Hmmmmm. :bugeye:

Now, I'm more a dualist than a triunalist, but it seems to me a strange sort of an unusual Razor he seems to be applying here. Definitely not an Ockham standard, that's for sure. It strangely seems to cut to different lengths in different places, and at different times. Many gods can be one god, but then they can't? Odd.

Fairly sure I'd chuck out a razor like that. Ah well; curious hypocrisy. Thankee, Richard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Best,

Geoff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah! We move on in the predicted direction.

"Excuse me!"

"Yes?"

"Are you a virgin?"

"...WOTt?"

"Are you a virgin? If it's not too personal a question."

"If it's not too personal a question? How much more personal could it get? None of your business! Get lost, the lot of you!"

*crowd mumbles, wanders away*

"...Yeah, must be."

"Yeah."

*general agreement from crowd*

Was Jesus' mother a virgin? Or did he have a human father? And is this not a strictly biological question anyway?

...well why is it, exactly? Look, producing dozens of loaves and fishes from SFA is a bit miraculous, but also could be argued as biological. Why this one to harp on, then? The centrality of it to Christian dogma? Ah - a little scratch on the surface and the whole thing is really blithely obvious. Of course that's why he picked it. But aren't all the miracles biological or medical or physical or chemical questions, ultimately? Dawkins mentions Lazarus and all the rest, but describes it strictly as a scientific question.

Again: it isn't really. He does make a point that Christians would be only too happy to swarm over the borders of Non-overlapping Magisteria if biological evidence came up that Jesus was, indeed (if not too heretical to say) "haploid", but in fact, isn't the issue the actual truth instead of the ongoing and pointless war between theists and atheists?

Oh, and the comments about why it is a mystery that any sophisticated people should remain in religion (notably, he says "church" rather than temple or mosque or anything else) was, frankly, absurd and insulting. He makes the point earlier himself that believers number among the realm of science (a point he seems a bit horrified by) and then backs off. He plays on the numbers game again about belief; but he misses the point that while one can damn belief as it extends into public life, the average belief of believers has nothing at all to do with the reality of supernaturalism, whether real or not. Extremist beliefs in a given religion have little, insofar as they are isolated from comparative theology, to say about whether or not they're right or what version of god should be accepted. I can go so far as to say that I have my own, personal belief, and that that is that. Anything more is pleading on a special version of argumentum ad popularum.

Best,

Geoff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's all for now. More tomorrow, Darwin willing. I must attend to my personal fitness, or be cast out of the gene pool.

Geoff

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi. As embarrasing as it might be I cannot unfortunately remember the source anymore, but don't let that dissuade you from addressing any assumptions you find contained within.

While that can be determined by looking through the relevant text and dating, it could certainly be called an assumption - but it must at least be recognised that the 'assumption' has good grounding based upon knowledge of humans in general. There is nothing to suggest that these people, (humans), wouldn't be prone to the very thing we are all guilty of at some stage in our lives. That Chinese whispers is observed and attested to and is by it's very nature progressive makes the notion perhaps slightly more than an assumption.

Ok, I apologise for butting in but I wanted to just express that I always have a slight chuckle when someone debating religious matters uses a 'court of law' to somehow support what he says. Let me be frank in saying that if a man walked into any court of law, or indeed any law establishment, and brought up a god, demons, prayers or miracles as a factor he would be considered either a liar or a lunatic and summarily put in a place appropriate for 'those kind of people'.

As such I would simply ask that we leave courts of law out of the issue, not only because of the above but they work in a manner not really suitable for these discussions.

You'll find I really don't use the word 'proof' in any context, including a scientific one because there's aint no such thing. Last time I used the word proof was with relation to a bottle of lemon vodka.

The picture is merely a case of suggestive evidence and would show itself as quite appealing in that court of law you mentioned.

Quite possibly not, (although he covered everything else

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). Indeed I would even submit that it should be dismissed altogether as it is not a claim to history but one man's personal opinion.

Oh, I do not doubt that there were christians bothering other people at their homes 8 am every Saturday morning and handing out leaflets in the town square. If there are earlier versions then maybe they'll be found and we'll know what they say. For now we have to go with what we have.

No no, the time point goes along the top. The 1-9 on both sides is amount of extraordinary claims.

Not so much degradation, more 'distortion'. Anyway, if it offends you have my apologies, it isn't used as an insult in my country, indeed it's no more harmful than saying 'French fries'.

I think perhaps the term is used slightly differently, but it is generally the case that additional data is added. When that story passes on the same occurs and so on. The time scale in the graph would indicate such a thing.

I'm asking you. At what stage would you accept a persons claim to having been abducted by aliens?

Exclude? Do you mean reserve belief in until convincing evidence is given? If so then yes, that is the business of logic.

And that most certainly is not the business of logic, it is however the business of emotion.

The "messiah" story is not an original. Indeed the myth of jesus comes on the back of many earlier stories regarding ressurrections, virgin births, december 25th etc etc and so on. The same is true of Adam and Eve that featured thousands of years beforehand as Adamu and the tree of enlightenment. The same is true of the ram caught in the thicket, the same is true of a boy being put in a basket and floated down stream where he was then taken about by royalty. You will find that as far as the majority of the bible goes it's about as original as a 'why did the chicken cross the road' joke and thus is its ultimate downfall.

It is not to say that the story isn't based on a real instance, but then to get a more accurate version of that instance would you go to the source or read the version written 1,500 years later?

I guess that's all about personal perspective.

 

Well if your version is not abridged then possibly you have simply forgotten the paragraph early on where he explains his choice of examples. And as far as the tone - your description doesn't match the written version. I think the advantage you claim may be one of pushing yoru own buttons somehow - not what I would call an advantage. Does he have a naturally supercilious soundign accent, to an American ?

You seem to have missed the point, of his unfairness certainly.

Then you badly misstated it. You stated the 0 was on the timeline, and wondered at its placement there and what it could mean.

Or a different environment - one in which the miracles were not core features of the mission, and not yet things that would even be known to that audience, however strong in their new faith.

So?

The analogy appears to have confused the issue. The question is the appearance of the legendary material in the Bible, not the degradation of material that has appeared. All failures to exhibit such material in contexts allowing for it are data points.

Not persistence (tht is explained by the writing) -successive inclusion. Possibly invention, or borrowing, or compilation, but all over time.

The analogy breaks down when used like that. Don't do it. Drop the analogy entirely.

That wasn't the point of the apparently confusing attempt to use it here. Not degradation, but elaboration, is being explained.

I think it has been common for legends to acquire anecdotes and expansions and exaggerations from various sources over time - or for two differently sourced histories to merge into one more complicated and somewhat altered one after landing on the same scribe's desk. - various histories of Vlad the Impaler come to mind, or the gold of El Dorado.

Or sincere belief incorporating different stories, visions, ecstatic revelations, etc, into one account ? .

We don't have Oxford professors taking them as literal history or physical fact, or accepting the storyteller's spiritual authority over modern scientific and political life, either. If the clerics and theists of the modern industrial states want their selves and stories to be treated by Oxford professors - not Dawkins or his ilk, the more "respectful" ones - as the shamans and oral historians of the less industrialized world have been, they have only to speak up, I think.

The last estimate I saw agreed with the graph here.

 

Actually, he directly explains that he isn't out to pick on any particular religion, but thus far appears to be doing a volte-face on that committment.

I reiterate: at what point in the written version does he deal with Thor and Hera? Isis and Osiris? Zeus? Ki? Uller? Freya? This is a point that doesn't depend on the audio version at all. What is his range and scope of attack in the written version? Your seeming hesitance to comment explicitly suggests to me that his bias is also quite specific in the text version as well.

As I am not an American, I would have little idea. I imagine my own accent may sound supercilious also at times, although I also slip into my father's rougher mannerisms when pressed, which is hardly RP. Again: I could do a far fairer job than that, and possibly even include something about theology without its wholesale dismissal, as well.

Disagreed. The range of opinion on the thread so far covers both fair and unfair. So is he then fair or unfair? He criticizes theists as having lower IQs than atheists, which I thought was a point curiously evocative for someone on such close speaking terms (his "good friend", I think it was) with James Watson, keeping in mind some of the latter's commentary on race and intelligence. His attacks are unfair; possibly coloured by intolerance directed at him and evolutionary theory by theists, but which do not absolve him of the obligation of fairness.

My apologies for the confusion, but I meant to attribute neither a quantitative nor qualitative value to the point as given. Clearly, if "0" or "O" is not defined on the chart, then it cannot be objectively analyzed, except at the greatest inference.

This is possible, but the claim of support is as strong on the disbeliever as the believer. Paul does explicitly mention "miracles", as I recall. The comparison being made at that point in the graphical plot does not prove correspondance, but it cannot be used as evidence for the "telephone" scenario relating to the Gospels. It is a disconnect.

I restate: so if the target audience and issues are not at all the same in the case of Paul vs. the Gospels, why would you expect Paul's letters to the Romans to deal with the issues of the miracles of Christ? One is a collection of stories, the other a warning about the nature of mortality and sin.

How shall I explain this? Bill Clinton sits down to write a letter at his desk. He is writing to the Iraqi Ambassador. He does not mention the "Cigar incident" with Monica Lewinsky, even though his present correspondance is well after this incident is purported to have occurred. Has it then not occurred? Or is that subject matter too far removed from the present missive? Any number of analogies could be conceived with a similar structure, but I think you get my point. The issue of relating the miracles of Christ were not particularly pertinent to the morality of the Romans in question per se. Does a parking ticket in Philadelphia come attached to a complete codex of the parking laws of Pennsylvania? Or is the recipient already assumed to be familiar with the latter? The comparison of Paul to the Gospels is, by description, a dead letter.

Not persistence (tht is explained by the writing) -successive inclusion. Possibly invention, or borrowing, or compilation, but all over time.

*bows* I would dearly love to do so, but it is not my analogy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are we then dispensing with it altogether, since it cannot fit the facts?

Well you could argue both, since the state of the Gospels relative to Paul's Epistle - and from the chart - both includes the "gain" of material and the "loss" of old material. Yet the methodology is incorrect, as I've pointed out: accidental gain or loss of information via a "telephone" scenario (which I note you are refuting, yes) should have fragmentary loss and gain, which is not evident. Again: it would be difficult to have the incidental transformation of a written source, although I don't know why you haven't brought up the virgin vs. maiden issue. You could certainly argue that, I think.

No, but the issue here is faithful and accurate transmission without mutation.

From the wiki entry, the second oldest copy of Luke is in the area of 200 years AD:

"Probably to be dated earlier" does not sound very early to me. I submit that the Luke point is incorrect, and requires revision.

Best,

Geoff

 

Snake and Bells:

Thanks for your comments.

Snake: I agree that the "telephone" effect occurs, naturally, but even as a generality in humans I'm leery about assigning it to this specific event. Not because of my attachment to it, but because of the perceived importance. You might call that a modification of Pascal's Wager, but it's a serious and important issue all the same. I don't think the evidence holds up for it. If we're going by the number of events, and if we accept - as we should - that Paul's Epistle is simply unrelated to the recounting of miraculous events, that still leaves the issue of the Angels for Mark. If the others were indeed added after the fact, the existence of a written record in Mark would reduce the available choices for variance in the latter books to falsification or veracity. Also, I appreciate the interest in miraculous recounting, but what is the tally for non-miraculous similarity among the books? Are they more or less related in message? I think this would be revealing of something, at least. I think we need to ascribe a reason for the presumed differentiation of Luke, Matthew and John to decide further, however. I'm glad we agree that Paul is unrelated to the issue of the later Gospels, at least, on a correlative scale, if I've read you right. Sorry I don't have time for more: tempus fugit.

Bells: epilepsy, you say? Interesting. I've always been suspicious of Paul, coming a bit after the Disciples as he did. His parts always strike me as being after the fact. I think I would have included different books; the canonization of his Letters smacks of regional politics.

Sorry: will write more later.

Geoff

 

Exactly, we have no reason for the cuase. Of course we have no framework for understanding God either. Who is to say that the whole universe is not God? Who is to say the first Big bang was God coming to conciousness? We do not have enough answers to make definative claim one way or the other.

So for now we are left with belief. You either believe there is some higher power or you believe there is not one. Some people can claim not to have made a decision but they have a leaning. This does not make any group any less competent than the others. The sooner people understand that the better.

 

He also directly explains why he doesn't do that, and how he is going to proceed most effectively (in his opinion) for his intended audience. It's not hidden, and not an about face - you are treating the matter as if he had pulled some kind of bait and switch.

Then you would be making a different, not fairer, argument.

The "0" is perfectly clear, as a quantiitative value, on the chart. You can read it off the vertical axis, if the label on the chart confuses.

What ?

For which he may well be counting his own conversion, and other such events not relevant to the chart. We don't know. The implications of the chart remain.

I do. It's not relevant.

I don't know about Philly, but a parking ticket in Minneapolis does come with reference to the laws of Minneapolis and Minnesota both - they being relevant to the fate of the victim. The miracles of Christ are quite often mentioned by later Christian counselors dealing with the issues Paul was dealing with - even to this day. I would be surprised to find any so extensive and so intended later collection of letters to be without a single mention of any of Jesus's miracles. They come in handy. But not for Paul.

Our expectations are beside the point. He refers to none of them - not as illustrations of points, not as encouragements for the wavering, not as arguments backing advice.

It is your badly confused and apparently self-confusing use of the analogy that should be dropped. It was apparently a mistaken approach, in the first place, but the arguer probably did not anticiapte your employment of it. Such as

The others were not necessarily copies of Mark, and there is no reason to assume they all trace back to a single written account.

Not really. Nobody is looking at mutations of the story of Lazurus, say - its appearance in the legend is what interests, here.

"Probably to be dated earlier" means that an earlier date should be assigned by anyone requiring a specific estimate - the one on the chart is what I've run into before as one of the standard, defensible estimates.

 

I read this book a few days and would recommend it to all theist and atheist alike.
It's good to see a well constructed argument against religion due to the fact that everyday life is pro religion.

Barry

 

Not in my field it isn't, Barry. It's viciously anti-religion.

Ice, it is a bait and switch. He says he won't go for any particular religion, since he's not biased against any religion, then immediately bares his jugulars for Christianity. What more shall I say?

I could certainly argue the issue more fairly, because I have no underlying bias against atheism. My father is an atheist. My brother is an atheist. I was once an atheist. By default, even, my treatment would necessarily be fairer. Please don't tell me I can't see bias; I can.

Now as for the "0" or "O" - if it's a quantitative point, why is it a red numeric, the same colour and font as the red letters which indicate factorial or unique statements rather than linear ones? If it's meant to be read against the right Y-axis, then by all means, let's have that. The chart is poorly constructed.

I must put the halter of onus on you for this statement:

Explain how the "Clintonian example" isn't relevant. You cannot perform wholesale dismissals without logical construction. This would be akin to me simply saying "You're all wrong." How? On what basis are you all wrong? It is an unfair statement.

They mention explicitly the importance of the laws, and the reasoning they're based on? I rather doubt it.

Ah - but they are preaching to those they perceive as the unconverted, rather than remonstrating the already converted for their behaviour. Not the same thing.

I would be far more surprised to find Paul's needless recitation of theology they were all familiar with. It's unreasonable. It doesn't follow; a non-sequitur of sorts.

Our expectations in the scientific process are everything. They are the impressions of hypothesis. How can you say our expectations - guidelines of purported reasonability, I might add here - are unimportant in this case?

This is a remarkably fair point, and I thank you: that the similarity among the Gospels doesn't imply identity by descent. I also believe that they were independent observation of related events. But if you in this argument make this point, how then can one invoke the "telephone" analogy at all, whether or not it has been overextended? How can the graph be of any importance or evidentiary to anything, if we are admitting to independence among Mark, Luke, Matthew and John?? You naturally see the importance of your statement here to the argument.

As for the dating, I got it from wiki.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So there.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Geoff,

As an individual who has read the book the I would have hoped that you learned something from the first chapter. Why should religion be put on such a high position, who cares if it's anti-religion, there are tons of religion things that are anti science...

 

Which, I might add, I also disagree with. Many of them are founded on utter ignorance; a fact that seems to have sadly coloured his bile.

I don't see the need to either attack religion or science specifically in aid of or defense of either view. If nothing is to be put on a high pedestal, and then uniformly derided, then why not Richard himself and his work? And his wife? After all, and as Richard himself alludes to, we honour only that which provokes our sense of fair play, lives, loves, wives and children all. So what is to prevent me from - quite rightly - opining that Lalla Ward is nothing more than a slightly fancier version of a Hammer Horror wench? Yet, it can be indisputably said that my treatment of his writing is far fairer than his treatment of religion, since I'm both religious and an evolutionary biologist.

Anyway, we are moving on as soon as I have the wherewithal to review more of the audio version.

Geoff

 

Oh, and by the by, Barry: let's have an end to the "learning" condescension. This is a polite thread - at least, among its occupants. Richard is fair game.

 

Reminds me of this talk I attended by Francis Collins. He was very amused at the condescension from the "intellectual elite" that comprise the Dawkinians.

 

Religion has caused great harm to mankind and continues to do so. The cycle of cult indoctrination is a form of child abuse. Religions don't pay taxes.

You see no good reasons for attacking religion? :shrug:

 

It was not my analogy, and I have recommended dropping it rather than using it as anything other than the heuristic apparently intended. One cannot argue from it.

But our choices are not merely two - all the Gospels descend in an unbranched chain directly from one original: the Gospels are independent accounts each based on first hand observation.

There is also the possiblity that the Gospels are similar in nature to what they resemble in life - elaborated, fantastical legends with a variable and increasingly less coherent foundation in some past event or person.

As someone with Scot ancestry, I can proveide you with any number of such legends - compare Mel Gibson's movie of William Wallace and Mel Gibson's movie of Jesus Christ with the more likely physical facts, for example. Or the various accounts of Count Dracula.

You shall attend to his explicit dealing with exactly that objection, and show why it does not explain his approach or announce his intentions.

They make enumerable reference to specific laws, such as would appear on the chart, and such as do not appear in Paul.

They are preaching and writing to members of Christian churches and fellow believers. Exactly the same thing.

OK: that particular expectation is irrelevant. It is based on a description of the New Testament different from the one used by the makers of the chart.

A condescension he has by turns exaggerated and earned, as well as displayed.

There is another source of the flaw of condescension in arguments, besides the a priori assumption of elite status and unwarranted arrogance by one of the arguers. There is also the exemplified debasement of argument and adoption of nonsense by the other, and the too easy presumption that such foolishness extends throughout their understandings.

 

Are we talking about Francis Collins? If so, that is not the man at all. In fact, IIRC, he substituted John Watson in the HGC due to (the lack of) these very qualities.

I'm curious, between the theist Collins and the atheist Dawkins, who has advanced the understanding of science further, in your opinion?

 

Dawkins, easily. Collins has not dealt much, if at all, with science itself - or even evolutionary theory, within science - from an understanding or philosophical viewpoint. To the extent he has, I haven't seen anything from him more "advanced in understanding" than the medieval Constantine Reply: "it's a divine mystery".

His advances in genetics, especially his technological employment of genetic theory, are of course of the highest order - far beyond anything Dawkins has accomplished in that field.