主播大秀

That's a typically agressive press release from the humanists. On day one of the new assembly, while the whole country is enjoying the sense of new possibility, the humanists put out a press statement attacking the DUP. They have absolutely no sense of occasion or "the moment".

Since when was refusing a book by Richard Dawkins an indication that someone opposed equality? That's ridiculous.

When will the NI humanists go get some anger management help? They are constantly pissed off about one thing or another. Dare I say it: messiah complex?

Well, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

I don't think of it as rejecting equality, however. TGD is not an atheist bible; if Sammy is so insecure in his own "faith" that he perceives it as dangerous, then so much the better. Maybe he's already read it :-)

The humanist groups in Northern Ireland have always seemed to me to be a parody of the religious fundamentalists they so despise: aggressive, inward, paranoid, closed-minded, shrill, and with an enormous victim complex.

Just an observation.

SG

I quote the Press Release: " It was, therefore, both disappointing and ironic that the DUP鈥檚 Sammy Wilson rejected out gift [sic], saying 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want any of that nonsense鈥�. Not so promising for the future of our new government."

Perhaps it's a certain arrogance of humanism that assumes a book like The God Delusion is inherently worthwhile reading material for a politician, but I'm willing to bet that Sammy Wilson doesn't see things that way. I don't see how that fact changes how promising the new NI government is.

Well, it's not as if the God Delusion is a political tract calling for equality for a secular minority. It's a badly "argued" pseudo-philosophical polemic in which Dawkins treats religions and religious believers as if they're mindless, idiotic, and even dangerous. Equality? You can hardly bitch about equality while advocating this insulting text.

Pete.

Amen:

I don't think he sees it as dangerous - "nonsense" is how he sees it.

And, I agree with him.

SG

Just a few quick observations. Has Sammy read the book at all? I somehow doubt it, but if he has, as an ex-teacher of Economics, he ought to appreciate its lucidity and rationality. Describing the book as 'nonsense' is way off beam, surely? Only a Christian fundamentalist would go that far.

As for this charge of aggression, for a large part of my early life I was subjected to a barrage of what a miserable sinner I was and how there would be hell fire and brimstone and wailing and gnashing of teeth etc, if I didn't repent. Pretty aggresssive stuff, that, surely.

We Humanists could never hope to emulate it. Indeed, on the contrary, in any case, we have no desire to instil fear into people, as most orthodox religions do.
We prefer reason, love and compassion to fear.

We also think that a sceptical outlook is sane and sensible. There is a lot of euphoria in NI at the moment. If it works, well and good, but there is nothing wrong with a note of caution, especially when you consider the history of the two main parties to the deal. Generally, humanists are divided about the prospects for the Assembly working: some are optimistic and some are more pessimistic. We don't all think with one mind.

The fact that the DUP would appear as a party to have rejected our gift, while the other three main parties accepted it, seems lost on David, who thus finds himself allied with the DUP, the party which includes a fair number of Christian fundamentalists, including the leader who continues to preach 'aggressive' Christianity in his own church.

I have said on this blog before that we also presented the parties with a booklet outlining our own POSITIVE proposals for progress in Northern Ireland, but that is usually ignored because some Christians seem to have an obsessive desire to rubbish Dawkins's book at every opportunity, perhaps because it is actually rather good and rather persuasive. It has hit its target all too well.

The book was ultimately a means of drawing attention to a secular constituency which has a right to be heard and consulted. How can anyone disagree with that? Unless, you believe in a theocracy.

Cursed are the peacemakers for they shall destroy the earth.

I was in for a shock some months ago. Someone wrote a book that was presented on C-Span2 with the thesis that Woodrow Wilson was by far the worst President in the history of the United States. The worst part of it wasn't that it ran contrary to everything I'd ever read or been taught about him but that it made perfect sense. Had Wilson not meddled in World War I in Europe, World War II probably never would have happened. This was the first time any American President had gone against the wise counsel of George Washington not to get involved in European affairs. I think if people are determiend to kill each other, outsiders should keep out of it. Do-gooderism is rarely appreciated and often just leads to worse violence down the road. Had Senator Mitchell whom you rarely even hear mentioned in regard to the NI peace process anymore not gotten involved, NIers might still be shooting it out on the streets of Belfast and the backwaters just like the Hatfields and the McCoys. Why should anyone get involved with Iraq until they are so tired of killing each other that all sides would beg for someone to come put a stop to it no matter what concessions it takes on their part. Dawkins is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, he should stop diverting the Catholics and Protestants from going at each other by setting himself up as an alternate target. And frankly, I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why the IRA surrendered its cause although I hope nobody infers that I take their side, no sir not for one second as I view both sides with equal contempt. If a few million foolish people want to continue to fight it out over how King Henry VIII had to arrange his affairs to create an heir to the throne of England 400 years ago, who is anyone from the outside to stop them?

Mark,

Your kind of historical ignorance is extremely dangerous.

BRENDAN HILL; well how dangerous could it be, I haven't shot anybody....yet.

I am chuffed that today was such a positive success for HUMANI - I was sorry that I couldn't join you, but Congrats to Brian, Alan et al ....
However, on reading the above comments I think some people are unaware of the original pledge, which reads as follows:

Religious and faith-based organisations have a privileged position in the UK, often being granted special status under the law, and exemption from legislation which other organisations must adhere to.

I do not believe churches should be given special status - indeed they ought to play by the rules like everyone else. Faith should not exempt one from being guilty of (for example) discrimination.

Motivation for this pledge originally came when I heard that head of the UK Catholic Church, and subsequently other churches, had asked the UK parliament to exempt their adoption agencies from being forced to consider applications from homosexual couples equally. This issue has thankfully been put to rest, but many other examples exist.

Richard Dawkins, as Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, is well placed to make this argument, and his book "The God Delusion" (costing 9 pounds on-line) does so convincingly.

By pledging, you agree to purchase a copy of this book, and have it delivered to your MP of choice.

As these important issues are among the many that concern many Humanists, and that is how today came about.

P.S. It may also come as a surprise to many that YES, we do have differences of opinion from time to time, but NO, it is not a Battle Royale as is the impression given on this blog. As the ensured success of our next Summer School entitled "The Joy of Humanism" will prove.

Judi- Comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have no argument with your assertion that churches should "...play by the rules like everybody else." You appear to be furthering another typically humanist false dichotomy (as Brian McClinton does in the final paragraph of his post #7).

Basically, if I can be so bold as to attempt to sum up the criticisms of this press release of the first six comments, we find humanists arrogant to assume that any politician who doesn't feel instant gratitude at being handed a copy of a book whose title calls his belief system a "delusion" is somehow a less promising part of a new government because of it.

I don't understand the choice of book or the aggressive and arrogant way it's being circulated... and it seems that, of those who have posted on this thread so far, only the NI humanists disagree! Go figure.

Brian:

I'm not a fundamentalist. I think the book was nonsense and I'm not aware of anyone who has been persuaded by it. There are many much better books on the market written by atheist philosophers. Dawkins book is in many places pseudo-philosophical claptrap with a great big dollop of bluster. Just which argument in the book do you think is a good one?

SG

I agree with those who say that the book won't persuade a large number of MLAs, certainly none of the Christian hardliners. But I still think that making them aware that there are those who are agnostic or atheist is worthwhile. The number of non-religious people is growing, so our representatives should at least pay attention to the extent of recognising we are there.

The idea of an agnostic or humanist oriented party is appealing. Although I must admit, propably over-ambitious for now.

I agree with those who say that the book won't persuade a large number of MLAs, certainly none of the Christian hardliners. But I still think that making them aware that there are those who are agnostic or atheist is worthwhile. The number of non-religious people is growing, so our representatives should at least pay attention to the extent of recognising we are there.

The idea of an agnostic or humanist oriented party is appealing. Although I must admit, propably over-ambitious for now.

John (12),

I don't think any humanist is demanding 'instant gratitude' for the book. No humanist is demanding that MLAs even agree with the book. It represents a point of view that it is legitimate to hold, irrespective of what you might think of its author's character (why do so many Christians resort to arguments ad hominen?). That point of view is entitled to a HEARING. Surely a Christian's belief is strong enough to withstand criticism?

The parties who received the book are showing respect to the people who have a non-religious perspective. They are not saying that they agree with it. Sammy Wilson dismissed the book as 'nonsense'. Now, if he hasn't read it, that is contempt prior to investigation, not very rational, surely?

The non-religious generally represent 14% of the Northern Ireland population. This is a sizeable and growing minority. It is entitled to be consulted in the legislative process. So far, it hasn't.

Not all humanists agree with everything that Dawkins says, but one of the things he says about Northern Ireland is that segregated education amounts to child abuse. Is this not a fair point? Humanists want to see children educated together so that they can learn to love one another. Is this not a reasonable request?

Stephen G (13)

In the first chapter of The God Delusion, Dawkins focus on the words 'God' and 'religion'. As he suggests, if the word 'God' is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is appropriate for us to worship.

As for the word 'religion', Einstein frequently described himself as a 'deeply religious' person, though the idea of a personal God was quite alien to him. He meant a feeling of awe at the mystery and beauty of the universe, something that our mind cannot grasp. Dawkins says that in this sense he too is religious but, reasonably enough, he prefers not to call himself religious because it is misleading.

On the supernatural as opposed to this Einsteinian religion, in chapter 2 he draws up a spectrum of probabilities, ranging from (1) 100% theist to (7) strong atheist and counts himself in category 6, very low probability, but leaning towards 7.

Chapter 3 is an examination of the arguments for God's existence. Here Dawkins is in sparkling form and has great fun exposing the nonsense and stupidity displayed by the theologians who fooled themselves and millions of others into believing that God's existence is a rational hypothesis.

Aquinas's 'five proofs are given short shrift and rightly dismissed as 'vacuous'. Anselm's ontological argument can readily be twisted to 'prove' that God does not exist. The arguments from beauty, personal experience, scripture and admired religious scientists are also subjected to merciless scorn. Pascal's wager is shown to be an argument, not for believing but for feigning belief.

The argument from design or improbability is, as Dawkins says, the 'big one, and he devotes chapter 4 to a spirited defence of Darwinian evolution. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. Do those who describe his book as 'nonsense' think the same about his other books on evolution?

Where does such a flawed yet powerful belief as religion come from and why has it survived so long? Chapter 5 is an examination of the roots of religion. He discusses the psychological benefits of belief, group selection theories, whether religion is a by-product of something else and whether there is a god gene.

Dawkins then proceeds to the roots of morality, which he thinks lie in our Darwinian past. This may be a simplification of a more complex process, but there is no doubting its relevance. Dawkins also shows that the kind of morality taught in 'Holy Books' like the Bible is highly immoral by our modern standards: murder, slavery, racism, ethnic cleansing are all sanctioned in the Old Testament and the New Testament, although in some ways an improvement, adds the obnoxious doctrine of atonement for original sin.

The rest of the book focuses on the harm that religion does, especially the fundamentalist forms, not only in a wider canvas as in the Troubles in Northern Ireland but at the level of mental abuse of children. There is even a convincing rebuttal of the notion that atheism leads to Stalin and Hitler.

In fact, one of the great strengths of The God Delusion is its comprehensiveness. It is more wide-ranging than Dennett's recent Breaking the Spell and, in my view, a greater pleasure to read. Both books have clarity, humour and anger but Dawkins is more sharply focused on the issues.

Stephen, can you give some examples of these other atheistic books to which you allude?

cheers,
Brian

Brian:

Thank you for the overview, but I know what Dawkins says in the book. I've read it. That wasn't my question. I asked you which particular argument you think theists should have been persuaded by. Which argument was new, which was formulated better than any one else has managed to thus far? To me there was nothing new and much that has been said many times before and said much better than Dawkins says it. My own background is philosophy and theology and I was incredibly unimpressed - not only with the lack of academic rigour, but the tone of the book grated terribly on me. I'm surprised to find that you were impressed by his treatment of the arguments for God's existence. My own first year university papers were better than Dawkins' treatment.

As for better works - read anything by post-conversion-to-deism Antony Flew, Kai Nielson, and particular JL Mackie. To me Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism" remains the best piece of atheist philosophy ever written. Dawkins' petulant, jejune little rant looks amateurish next to it. If humanists want to read atheistic philosophy of religion then read atheist philosophers - not the pseudo-philosophical ramblings of a scientist.

SG

This thread is very interesting on several levels. First it is clear that the humanists are only aping the activities of various Christian groups trying to get their message across. Secondly the humanists are making valued judgements about people based soley on a reaction to the ofeer of a book. Again the same way some Christians make valued judgements based on whether people take tracts or not. Finally the overall attitude which pervades the humanist threads is that they are the only true tolerant people in society and all others should resemble them, quite evangelical if i can say. It all reminds me of the old quote there is none less tolerant than the liberal. Maybe in this case it could be rewritten there is none less religiuos than the non religious!

Stephen, you do like the term "jejune", don't you? Dawkins is writing for a popular audience, not a bunch of philosophers so far up their own arses that they are literally *in* their jejuna.

So why pour scorn on poor old RD, and not (for instance) on Plantinga's painfully crap review of TGD? I would expect *my* first year students to give a more technical roundup of some features of genetics than I would expect to find in a popular book by Steve Jones, but I would not expect them thus to communicate to a wider audience. Furthermore, you yourself seem to be guilty of lambasting jejunosity wherever you see it, but you don't seem to be capable of actually addressing any of the points.

For instance, I don't think anyone is convinced by the patently lame ontological argument, *other than* people who get sucked into it and miss the howling absurdity. When something is this crap, it *needs* jejune treatment.

It's the "courtier's reply" all over again, I'm afraid.

-A

Stephen G,

I too studied philosophy, but I also taught Politics and Economics, and I know that abstract philosophical arguments often go round in endless, esoteric circles, divorced from all connection with the real world. They also tend to get recycled in new clothes which obscure the reality that nothing really new is being said.
The beauty of Dawkins鈥檚 book is that, far from being a 鈥榩etulant, jejune little rant鈥�, it makes the philosophy relevant to the actual world in which we live. Moreover, it is not only a work of 鈥榩hilosophy鈥� but also a multi-dimensional tome in which the arguments are presented so lucidly that the 鈥榓verage鈥� reader can understand them. That鈥檚 why it has become a bestseller and won major awards, unlike, say, works by Flew, Mackie and so on. Perhaps, Stephen, you should try to sell your first year papers and see how impressed the public are by your own arguments.
I agree that many of his dismissals are succinct, but that doesn鈥檛 make them any less effective. The point is that most of these traditional 鈥榩roofs鈥� were exposed by philosophers like Kant and Hume hundreds of years ago but, like the flu virus, they keep resurfacing in a different strain. So Dawkins adopts a different approach and has a bit of fun with them, for example quoting Gasking鈥檚 use of the ontological argument to 鈥榩rove鈥� that God does NOT exist.
Which particular argument should theists have been persuaded by? This assumes that theists have an open mind. No doubt many do, because many have been converted to non-belief, but I think this is a development that takes time. No single argument does it; it is a combination of several arguments, influences and a growing maturity. Dawkins鈥檚 book can make a contribution to that process.
His argument on design and the laws of probability, as I said, is the 鈥榖ig one鈥�, for the simple reason that the other arguments are so easily dismissed. The creationist argument says that living things are highly complex, so that even the simplest organisms, like bacteria, are far more complicated than anything found in the non-living world. That such organised complexity could arise by natural means鈥攚ithout the intercession of a designer mind鈥� is absurd, according to creationists. In particular, the probability that life could assemble itself spontaneously is extremely close to zero. Thinking that life could arise by natural means is like thinking a tornado could tear through a scrapyard and assemble a Boeing 747. Such an event is not strictly impossible but it's so extraordinarily unlikely that it is, according to creationists, unworthy of serious consideration.
Dawkins claims, however, that rejecting natural means to explain life and instead invoking a designer God leaves us with a hypothesis that's even more improbable than the naturalistic one: a designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. In short, only complicated objects can design simpler ones; information cannot flow in the other direction, with simple objects designing complicated ones. So God would have to be more complex 鈥攁nd thus even more improbable鈥� than the universe he was supposed to explain. This argument, Dawkins concludes, "comes close to proving that God does not exist". In Dawkins鈥檚 view, of course, intelligence begins simply and becomes more complex through an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.

Of course, you might still insist that such a complicated 'God' might exist. But he is hardly 'God' in the traditional monotheistic sense,

Cheers,
Brian

Brian: Did you get a response from Reg Empey? and are you going to contribute to the other debate about the humanist civil war?!?!

Dear Humanists,

What are the top three acts of lawmaking from the new Northern Ireland government that you would like to see result from the delivery of The God Delusion?

Thank you very much.

Dawkins was lucky he wasn't disolved on the steps of Stormont. When some people don't like the message, their first inclination is to shoot the messenger. Dawkins delusion is that he can persuade anyone of anything. To those who agree with him, he is preaching to the choir while to those who don't...he's also preaching to the choir, it's just a different choir. I posted awhile ago that someone should write a book called The God Delusion Delusion in which Dawkins futile efforts to detheofy anyone is the result of his naive appeal to reason and logic of diseased minds. I think he'd have better luck with thorazine...or the rack.

Dear John (21),

A good question. As an ex-teacher, the three acts that immediately spring to my mind are, in Blair's immortal words, education, education, education:

1. A law which stipulates that existing schools must have a certain minimum percentage of pupils of 'the other religion' and none by a certain date.

2. The replacement of RE by Religious and Moral education (RME) so that ethics is not taught from a purely religious perspective.

3. The inclusion of Humanism as a lifestance on the RME Syllabus along with the major traditional religious faiths.

Many Humanists don't want religion removed from school altogether, but it should be taught as a lifestance along with the alternative secular perspective so that young people can make a reasoned judgment for themselves what they want to believe about life, its meaning and purpose.

Points 2 and three are already in operation in much of Europe and large parts of the UK.

Cheers,
Brian

Amen:

I am well aware that Dawkins is writing for a popular audience. That doesn鈥檛 excuse sloppiness. You accuse me of being unable to address any of the points. But I鈥檓 trying to find out which points of the God Delusion you actually think are good arguments against theism? I can respond to arguments - it鈥檚 something I have done a lot of. What I can鈥檛 respond to is a bunch of bluster masquerading as good reasons. I need premises entailing conclusions before I can respond to an argument. You refer to the 鈥渙ntological argument鈥� - which one do you mean? Which version? There is no 鈥渙ntological argument鈥� - there are a group of arguments which are broadly 鈥渙ntological鈥� in nature. Many criticisms of ontological arguments are actually misunderstandings. In any event, it's hardly a good example of the kind of argument most believers would cling to. Many don't even understand it.

Brian:

I disagree with you that Dawkins makes philosophy relevant. He abuses it and his clumsy treatment is laughable. You claim that the arguments are 鈥減resented so lucidly that the 鈥榓verage鈥� reader can understand them.鈥� Really? I couldn鈥檛 find too many arguments - not as I understand the word argument - a series of premises that entail a conclusion. Can you give me an example of a good argument from Dawkins book - or even just an argument? With premises and a conclusion. Dawkins doesn't seem to deal in formal arguments. But for any discussion to be worthwhile we need to have that. Can you help out your hero?

鈥淚 agree that many of his dismissals are succinct, but that doesn鈥檛 make them any less effective.鈥� I鈥檓 afraid this is dead wrong. His treatment is nowhere near detailed enough to allow anyone to claim that a proper treatment had been given. Perhaps the arguments are succinct because the extent of his knowledge and engagement with modern day literature is appallingly lacking. He doesn't seriously engage with many philosophers of religion past or present. What do you want me to do? Applaud him for writing off the arguments given by philosophers 800-1000 years ago? Congratulations Richard, well done. Perhaps next time he should lambast science on the basis that scientists 800-1000 years ago gave dodgy arguments. Dawkins fails to engage properly with almost any recent treatment of theistic arguments. His treatment was tired.

I agree with you to an extent about Dawkins on the argument from design - simply because this is where Dawkins is largely on home territory. He is much more competent. However, this misses the fact that most modern day proponents of design arguments are evolutionists - not creationists. Perhaps he likes to think of the world as a neat little good versus evil struggle - a secular version of Armageddon - but seemingly he hasn鈥檛 read a modern formulation of such arguments - he certainly doesn't indicate that he has in TGD. There is little that Dawkins says that applies to any design argument I have seen come out in the past 20-30 years - which do not rely on the old notion of complexity at all.

Am I irrational in not accepting Dawkins鈥� 鈥渁rguments?鈥� I realise that humanists have been cumming in their pants ever since TGD was published, but from what I can see those who have been persuaded by it are few and far between. Perhaps it鈥檚 just not that persuasive to those who aren鈥檛 already persuaded. Perhaps all he has accomplished is to bolster the faith of fellow atheists. Perhaps that was really his purpose - was the confidence of the faithful lagging? Did they need a rallying call? I suspect this is the case - since the book is not written in a way that would persuade. It's written to mock and ridicule. I think atheists need to think long and hard before standing behind Dawkins and letting him speak for you. That could yet prove a very big mistake.

SG

Brian - I think John's point was what policies you think will result FROM the delivery of the God Delusion. The policies you mention are important and I agree with you (despite not being an atheist) but is giving politicians a copy of Dawkins book going to make that more likely? I would hardly think so. So, why then does it matter that the DUP failed to take a copy? Does that mean the cause of humanism has been set back years? No. Of course not. I think you need to get over yourselves and stop whining about having your ever so generous gift refused.

Pete

Hi Pete,
I keep pointing out that we also gave them other literature, much of which is about education. Ulster's Third Way has a whole chapter arguing for these very points. Dawkins's book was only the occasion for the event. People on this blog are reading far too much into the handover of a particular book. Nor are we 'whining', as you put it about the DUP's refusal. Is a criticism a whine? If it is, practically everyone who makes a comment on this blog is a whiner. One DUP Westminster MP has also returned the book. You're not telling me there's no connection between their negativity about Dawkins and the dominance of religious fundamentalism in the party, are you? If you are, I think you're wrong.

Hi Stephen,
Why do you keep insisting that only a 'professional' philosopher can adequately discuss the existence of a god? Surely there is a certain arrogance here. Dawkins's book is not meant to be a philosophical treatise but a multi-disciplinary approach which uses philosophy as well as biology, physics, psychology, sociology and so on to present its case. I would put it to you that this is a better way in which to discuss the whole topic than merely indulging in dry verbal obtuseness. It also makes it more atttractive to read and helps to explain why it has become a bestseller. Why do you think it has become a publishing phenomenon, whereas a book like Mackie's never would? Is it merely public stupidity, or is it something far more significant, namely that people are looking away from narrow specialisms and trying to make connections with other fields of knowledge?

Cheers,
Brian

Brian:

I'm not merely complaining about the popular nature of the book nor the fact that Dawkins is not a philosopher.

I'm simply asking you to show me an argument - if not a good argument - presented by Dawkins that should persuade me away from theism, which is afterall what Dawkins thinks his book should do.

I haven't heard of anyone who has been convinced by Dawkins - just a load of bluster from the already-converted atheist faithful.

Why is that? No doubt many humanists will take the easy option of writing us theists off as a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool faith heads. But, wouldn't that be a tad childish? Why are so many people unconvinced? Why has Dawkins got so much of a critical ass-kicking from other scholars? They're all just thick?

Or, more plausibly, is there something inherently dodgy about Dawkins book that you and a minority of humanists and die-hard atheists simply haven't noticed?

Cheers,

SG

funny how amenhotep criticises people for not addressing Dawkins points but simply writing his argument off when (1) that is what Dawkins himself does to many scholars in his book, and (2) that is exactly what Amenhotep does to Plantinga.

kettle

pot

black

Tommy

Well, folks, I hate to spoil a good jejune-fest, but TGD is quite squarely levelled against the so-called evidences *for* god, and every single one is shown to be rubbish. Stephen, the Ontological Argument to which I was referring is of course St Anselm's. Yes, there are others, and they're no more convincing. The existence or otherwise of a giant omnipotent pixie is a question for science, and as a hypothesis, it is pathetically lacking.

Theists are fond of asserting that they do not need evidence to propose a god, yet if that god is supposed to be Special, then it sure as heck *needs* an explanation - our own existence (and the contingencies thereof) cannot be adduced as evidence for that.

However, in the absence of any such explanation, our theist pals resort to the sorts of silly ad Dawkinsem attacks that they do so well: "shrieking fundamentalist", "intolerant atheist", "obnoxious ranter", "jejune neophyte" and similar guff - all the while complaining that atheists have no explanation for the existence of the universe! Someone less jejune might call that "irony".

Stephen,
So-called 鈥榮cholars鈥� and 鈥榚xperts鈥� are often wrong. Adam Smith dismissed the antislavery campaign on the grounds that slavery 鈥榟as been universal in the beginnings of society鈥�. Edmund Burke said that opponents of slavery were 鈥榥aive beyond measure鈥�. Scores of publishers rejected Orwell鈥檚 Animal Farm. The first book of Dr Seuss, whose works have sold 200 million copies, was rejected by twenty-eight publishers.

Consider examples from films. The critic John Simon dismissed Annie Hall as 鈥榩ainful and unfunny鈥�; Bosley Crowther called The Big Sleep a 鈥榩oisonous picture鈥�; Francis Hackett labelled The Birth of a Nation 鈥榓ggressively vicious and defamatory鈥�; Graham Greene called The Bride of Frankenstein 鈥榩ompous and badly acted鈥�; Manny Farber thought Casablanca was 鈥榮illy hokum鈥�; Allen Bishop described Gone with the Wind as a major disappointment.

You have to accept the fact that many newspapers/magazines asked believers and theologians to review Dawkins鈥檚 book. Terry Eagleton, for example, was bound to look at it unfavourably. The fact of the matter is that the public have voted for the book by buying it in huge numbers. How do you explain this phenomenon yourself, Stephen?
Take the 'jejune' ontological argument, which Amenhotep rightly rubbishes. You are not claiming that it is sound or that it has persuaded anybody of God鈥檚 existence, are you? Come on, Stephen. Do you think that it proves God's existence? Of course, you make great play of there being ontological arguments in the plural, thus turning a quibble into a point of monumental significance. As Dawkins says, it has been restated in different forms since St Anselm (e.g. Descartes: you are not saying his formulation is fundamentally different, are you? Or Plantinga鈥檚 鈥榤aximal greatness鈥�, for that matter?). As Dawkins also says, it is an infantile argument. It goes: existence is a perfection; God is perfect; therefore God exists. The argument is fallacious. Existence is not a predicate or property of objects but of concepts, as Kant pointed out. We cannot deduce from the existence of a concept in our head a reality which corresponds to that concept. We can all dream dreams of perfect love, perfect sex, perfect peace, etc, but it is invalid to suggest that they exist outside our imagination merely because we think of them. At the moment, like Gaunilo鈥檚 鈥榩erfect island鈥�, I have a vision of a perfect beach, full of golden sand, stretching for miles and miles, beside a turquoise sea, in which floats a solitary fishing boat, than which no other beach could be better or more perfect or of more 鈥榤aximal greatness鈥� or more 鈥榰nlimited鈥� (or whatever other superlative you substitute), but it is only a dream, Stephen. God is like that, a piece of wishful thinking, as Dawkins suggests.
I don鈥檛 think Dawkins is my hero. I don鈥檛 think his book is perfect 聽聽鈥� far from it. But when I read theists sneering arrogantly at it, and proving themselves guilty of the very accusations they level at him and other humanists, then I will defend it to the hilt

Cheers,
Brian

Amen:

You claim: 鈥淭GD is quite squarely levelled against the so-called evidences *for* god, and every single one is shown to be rubbish.鈥�

If only this was true. I didn鈥檛 see a refutation of many theistic arguments. I did see a lot of 鈥渞ubbishing鈥� - but that isn鈥檛 the same as giving a good counter-argument. You refer to 鈥淪t Anselms argument鈥� - perhaps unaware that there are two different arguments in Anselm鈥檚 writings. In fact, strictly speaking Anselm never presented these as 鈥榓rguments鈥� for God鈥檚 existence at all. They were reflections on the existence of God. But, I鈥檒l ignore this mistake of yours (and Dawkins). Anyhow, 鈥渞ubbishing鈥� St Anselms argument is not the same as giving a good counter-argument or philosophical critique, much less the same as defeating every other ontological argument. I think Anselm鈥檚 鈥榓rguments鈥� are faulty - when taken as arguments. But even Dawkins doesn鈥檛 manage to defeat them. I think some other philosophers have done a much better job. Which other versions have you read? What other versions has Dawkins read? Are we to give him a hearty 鈥淲ell done鈥� and a slap on the back for trying to defeat an argument, which wasn鈥檛 even intend as such, given almost 1000 years ago. Or would not a slap on the face and a 鈥渨ise up鈥� be more appropriate?

You still haven鈥檛 given me an argument from TGD that should convince me. Premises that entail a conclusion please. I鈥檝e asked this several times of you and Brian and still no answer. I鈥檓 sorry to ask for actual arguments to be brought this, I understand that grates at times.

Brian:

Who would disagree with this: 鈥淪o-called 鈥榮cholars鈥� and 鈥榚xperts鈥� are often wrong.鈥� Including Dawkins, eh? I鈥檒l say.

鈥淭he fact of the matter is that the public have voted for the book by buying it in huge numbers. How do you explain this phenomenon yourself, Stephen?鈥�

Massive public interest. I bought it myself. What does that prove? I was interested in what he had to say on a subject of great importance. Does it mean everyone or even most who bought it gave a hearty amen after putting it down? Not from what I can see - I haven鈥檛 heard of anyone who has been persuaded by it. That鈥檚 a massive question mark hanging over it surely. The massive sales of TGD no more show atheism on the rise than the massive sales of the Bible each year testify to a massive Christian revival.

鈥淭ake the 'jejune' ontological argument, which Amenhotep rightly rubbishes. You are not claiming that it is sound or that it has persuaded anybody of God鈥檚 existence, are you?鈥�

Like I said above, 鈥渞ubbishing鈥� is a different concept from 鈥渃ounter-argument鈥� or 鈥渄efeater.鈥� Amenhotep like Dawkins has rubbished an argument - neither has defeated an argument or given a counter-argument.

There are versions of the ontological argument which I would regard as valid and sound arguments. I wouldn鈥檛 regard them as rationally persuasive - certainly not - and I agree few come to believe in God because of them. Does it prove God鈥檚 existence? No. But, I鈥檓 not sure how you are using the word 鈥減roof.鈥� What do you mean by 鈥減rove?鈥� In any event, I haven鈥檛 heard of anyone converting to theism because of such arguments. I do know one person who bases his theism at least partly on some versions of the OA. Does this mean Ontological Arguments - 1 The God Delusion - 0.

鈥淥f course, you make great play of there being ontological arguments in the plural, thus turning a quibble into a point of monumental significance.鈥�

Wrong. One ontological argument can be very different from another version and critiques that apply to one do not apply to others. I thought you had studied philosophy? Plantinga鈥檚 version is different from Anselms (which wasn't intended as an argument or proof - see above), which differs from that of Normal Malcolm, which differs from that of Stephen T. Davis, which differs from Descartes (which to me is the worst of them all). The version you give is close to that of Descartes (even if a bit of a caricature of it). And I agree it is obviously fallacious. But the criticism of Kant has little effect against many of the modern formulations, and it is arguable whether or not it even applies to versions based on Anselms writings.

But, we digress. If we are to continue our discussion I must ask, again, for an argument given by Dawkins that I should be persuaded by. Amen and yourself seem quite reluctant to do so. But, if you can find me a argument in TGD that can be stated as premises which entail a conclusion, an argument which is valid, sound and rationally persuasive then we have something to discuss.

Lastly, I鈥檓 sorry if you think I鈥檓 sneering arrogantly at Dawkins. I certainly don鈥檛 mean to be. He鈥檚 an exceptional writer and many of his other books are utterly absorbing. But this time he鈥檚 out of his depth. He has substituted good argument largely for rhetorical skill. Amenhotep keeps criticising me for pointing this out and refusing to deal with the arguments made by Dawkins. But, he doesn鈥檛 understand that I can鈥檛 make out many arguments to be reckoned with. I鈥檓 an honest person Brian, if there鈥檚 a good argument in there I鈥檒l reckon with it. But I sure as hell can鈥檛 find it. So, can you guys help me out?

SG

Okay. If we're onto the topic of assessing Dawkins' book and Plantinga's reply, allow me to offer two sides of weakness:

Plantinga's greatest weakness (in his response to Dawkins' The God Delusion):

Dawkins asserts the hypothesis of a multiverse (multiple universes) as a possible way of explaining why the physical constants are set precisely so that they are hospitable to life (answering the so-called fine-tuning argument). He says that if there are so many universes, perhaps an infinite number, then it seems very likely that some of them will be tuned for life - since we're here talking about it, we must be in one of those tuned for life (the anthropic principle).

Plantinga responds that, "...even if it's likely that some universes should be fine-tuned, it is still improbable that this universe should be fine-tuned." This is a weak response. If one imagines a set of knobs which are used for tuning the constants in a universe, and they are randomly set each time a universe is created, given the high number of universes it stands to probability that there will be a number of them with the necessary values to accommodate life. Yes, this universe is fine-tuned, but one (or two, or five, or fifty) are very likely to be. The anthropic principle is absolutely adequate to explain why we must be in one that is. Plantinga's response is like approaching a lottery winner and exclaiming, "How could you have won the lottery? It's extremely improbable that you did!" The answer is simply that someone would probably win, and the cheque in this man's hand is proof that he did. Here, I find Plantinga's response weak and uncompelling.

Dawkins' greatest weakness (in his book The God Delusion):

Dawkins rejects the possibility of God because God is a concept that has not been proven, yet the only way he can refute the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is by appealing to the existence of a multiverse, another concept that has not been proven! With a choice before us, then, of two concepts that cannot be proven, who can do as Dawkins has done and reject out of hand one of those concepts while appealing to the other to support that very position????

Plantinga's theism, then, is more rational than Dawkins' atheism, and my agnostic theism is more rational than both. :-)

I think Plantinga's response on that point wasn't great. But, remember he is conceding the multiverse hypothesis - which he doesn't hold. Moreover, I have seen him elsewhere arguing that even if our universe is fine-tuned for life that doesn't mean life WILL arise. Fine-tuning is a NECESSARY condition of life - not a SUFFICIENT condition - so the odds of life even in a fine-tuned universe are still incredibly low.

Anyhow, you should realise that Plantinga's theism is NOT based on a design argument - much less a fine-tuning argument. So, to judge his theism based on these few paragraphs (when he is giving examples of Dakinsian thought rather than arguments for theism) is a little unfair.

SG

Stephen- I love Plantinga's writing and he's without doubt a philosophy heavyweight. The response I'm referring to was weak, but, as you point out, it was only relevant after he conceded the multiverse, which, as I point out in the second part of my comment, it is at least as speculative as the God Dawkins is trying to deny the existence of!

In other words, the point of my post was to say that, while Plantinga may not be above reproach, Dawkins is on much shakier ground philosophically speaking. As Henry Neufeld puts it: Having discovered that complexity can come from simplicity without any demonstrable guidance, Dawkins seems anxious to move forward and make claims about things he can鈥檛 possibly know. Of course, making claims about things you can鈥檛 possibly know is a time honored religious tradition."

I think it's reasonable to suggest that Dawkins' atheism is at least as 'religious' a conviction as my theism!

Stephen- I love Plantinga's writing and he's without doubt a philosophy heavyweight. The response I'm referring to was weak, but, as you point out, it was only relevant after he conceded the multiverse, which, as I point out in the second part of my comment, it is at least as speculative as the God Dawkins is trying to deny the existence of!

In other words, the point of my post was to say that, while Plantinga may not be above reproach, Dawkins is on much shakier ground philosophically speaking. As Henry Neufeld puts it: Having discovered that complexity can come from simplicity without any demonstrable guidance, Dawkins seems anxious to move forward and make claims about things he can鈥檛 possibly know. Of course, making claims about things you can鈥檛 possibly know is a time honored religious tradition."

I think it's reasonable to suggest that Dawkins' atheism is at least as 'religious' a conviction as my theism!

Re #32

Dawkins rejects the possibility of God because God is a concept that has not been proven, yet the only way he can refute the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is by appealing to the existence of a multiverse, another concept that has not been proven! With a choice before us, then, of two concepts that cannot be proven, who can do as Dawkins has done and reject out of hand one of those concepts while appealing to the other to support that very position???? Plantinga's theism, then, is more rational than Dawkins' atheism, and my agnostic theism is more rational than both.

John:

This is the point Maureen and I spent numerous posts in another thread trying to get across to Les Reid asking if he did not agree it is reasonable and rational to practice one's worldview based on the best evidence one has that one explanation is more realistic than another.

Elsewhere I have been enjoying a discussion on Spong's latest book 'Religionless Christianity'

My bet is that Dawkins would offer little objection to Spong's approach to Christianity! Would you agree?

Regards,
Michael

Michael- I'm not familiar with Spong or his work, actually, though it sounds like the kind of thing I'd find interesting reading.

Stephen,
'Massive public interest' is not an explanation but a statement. Why was there massive public interest in this book and not the countless other books on religion, including those by Mackie, Plantinga, etc? Was it the provocative title, which included the word 'delusion'? Maybe a little, but I would put it to you that the main reason is the book's readability. Unlike the others, it is not written in mystical mumbo jumbo but in language that the layman can understand.

I mean, who really wants to read a book that tries to argue that 'of maximal greatness' is somehow significantly different from 'perfect'. If you think that there are important differences between the various takes on the ontological argument because different writers substitute another word(s) for 'perfect' which amounts to the same thing, then I think you really are deluded. Whatever word is used to describe the god, the fact is that they are all concepts and you cannot leap from a concept to a reality corresponding to the concept. Are there perfect or unlimited fairies? The whole thing is a complete nonsense.

It is also a destraction from the possibility that there may be forces which inaugurated the universe, forces for which the descriptions of 'perfect' or 'limitless' are not relevant. 'More clever', 'more advanced', 'more powerful' etc may be the relevant terms. On a perfect god (which embraces 'all loving'), I am an atheist, but on the force(s), I am agnostic. No one knows. But I think the latter is really the more relevant and more interesting question. The idea of a 'perfect god is surely way out the window by now?

Cheers,
Brian

Re #36. At 06:02 AM on 11 May 2007, John Wright wrote:

Michael- I'm not familiar with Spong or his work, actually, though it sounds like the kind of thing I'd find interesting reading.

There is a video on my blog - a couple of minutes with it will let you see where he is going. 100% metaphorical approach to the bible and Jesus is placed within the Jewish liturgical tradition e.g. atonement being understood within the liturgical practices of Yom Kippur.

Regards,
Michael

Brian- How readable or appealing to popular culture a book is has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it contains valid arguments based on good premises. The latter is the only relevant concern; the former a mere sociological curiosity.

Michael- The shameless plugs for your blog on #35 and #38 aside, I'd certainly be interested in the video! I'm not sure about the claim of "100% metaphorical" (I'm convinced that the key to understanding how to read the bible is instead in the fact that it cannot be read as one book, or one-hundred percent anything; it is instead many genres, many books, many authors, etc. and therefore it's more likely that some of it could be said to be metaphorical, some of it literal, etc.), but seeing Jesus entirely within the Jewish tradition is an interesting POV.

Brian:

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you completely that TGD was popular because of its readability. No doubt about it. Aimed at a popular level it was always going to sell many more books than specialist audiences reading Plantinga and Mackie et al. What鈥檚 your point? That academic philosophy books are written in mumbo jumbo language? Only mumbo jumbo to those who don鈥檛 understand them. Or was your point that Dawkins arguments are good because of their readability? Oh dear oh dear.

You think I鈥檓 deluded because I see a difference between different versions of the ontological argument? Really Brian can鈥檛 you better than to insult me? Is this what your argument has come down to? I must say that it is quite unnerving how reluctant so-called rationalists are to deal with actual arguments; preferring polemic, rhetoric and insult.

Why have you and Amen still not provided me with an actual argument from TGD to discuss? Do you just prefer to deal in insults? Your lack of an argument - when given plenty of opportunity to give one - is a damning indictment not only on TGD but on you.

Cheers, I think,

SG

Stephen and John,

The point about the readability of Dawkins's book is that it can be readily understood by those who do not study 'philosophy' in the narrow, specialist sense and therefore the arguments reach a wider audience. And they are generally sound, like the ontological argument. No one is saying that Dawkins has a new disproof of this argument but his coverage is fine and dandy as far as I can see. I refer you to pages 80-85). The fact that you and I have heard much of it before is neither here nor there. Most people haven't until now; that's the crucial point.

Let's keep to the ontological argument. This is definitely ONE argument, though there are different versions of it (you just cannot define God into existence). Thus Flew (Introduction to Western Philosophy) talks of 'the' ontological argument' (pp183-191 in my edition);The Oxford Companion to Philosophy talks of 'the' ontological argument (p634); the Concise Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy talks of 'the' ontological argument (p317); Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy talks of 'the' ontological argument (p410-411 in my edition); John Hick in The existence of God heads his first section 'the' ontological argument; Carl Lofmark) in Does God Exist talks of 'the' ontological argument; Richard Norman in On Humanism talks of 'the' ontological argument (p27); Mackie in The Miracle of Theism talks of 'the' ontological argument (pp41-63 in my edition); Simon Blackburn in Think talks of 'the' ontological argument.

It's not insulting an individual to point out that the various 'ontological arguments' are really quibbles over words. Again, the onus is entirely on you to show that 'unlimited' or 'maximal greatness' are improvements on, or 'materially' different from, 'perfect'! How is Plantinga's argument 'new'?

Indeed, if you want to be sticklers for logic, the onus is entirely on both of you to produce a single 'valid' argument that a god exists; it is not necessary for the sceptic to do so. Being 'logical', Stephen, we agnostics/atheists start from a position of doubt, not belief. You both seem to have missed this simple point.

Nevertheless, ALL the so-called proofs of a god's existence are nothing of the sort. I haven't seen a single 'proof' that is remotely plausible. Give us a valid version of the ontological argument, for example.

Cheers,
Brian

400 hundred years ago, Francis Bacon left Cambridge without taking a degree because he thought it wasn't teaching him anything. The philosophy taught there was Aristotelian: it spun its own cobwebs of abstract ideas but bore no relation to reality. 400 years later, some philosophy (esp. philosophy of religion) seems to have reverted to the pre-Baconian paradigm, with the added dimension of sorcery: only the initiated are let in on the secrets. The rest of humanity are ignorant souls and we who are 'in the know' can have a little fun mocking their lack of real understanding. In this analysis, Dawkins is 'out of his depth' because he doesn't get drawn into the esoteric waffle which poses as insight. Isn't it ironic that the proofs of god's existence are known only to the high priests of the philosophy of religion! God is a closed book except to
the pinhead-dancers!

In truth, the popularity of the God Delusion is that it does what Francis Bacon's philosophy did 400 years ago: it brings the basic ideas about the meaning of life (which is what religion is all about) down to earth and understandable by the intelligent seeker after truth.
That is much more relevant and meaningful than 'jejune' debates about whether a definitional ontological argument is diferent from a conceptual argument and whether both are different from modal arguments.

Either 2+2=5 or God exists; not 2=2=5; therefore God exists. Dawkins refers (p85) to a well-known website where there are over 300 parody 'proofs' of god's existence:

Cheers,
Brian

Brian:

You still haven鈥檛 given me an argument from TGD that should convince me as Dawkins claims they should. You simply declare his arguments to be 鈥済enerally sound.鈥� That鈥榮 a statement, not an argument.

鈥淟et's keep to the ontological argument.鈥�

Fine by me, but you鈥檙e dodging the issue. I have already stated that few are convinced of belief because of such arguments. You seem to think there are no relevant differences between various versions of this argument. There most certainly are. For instance, you think that they all boil down to various connotations of the word 鈥減erfect鈥� but this is patently false and shows me you haven鈥檛 taken much time to read what modern advocates of ontological arguments have written. Take Descartes argument: roughly speaking he talks of existence as a perfection. You criticise this, along with Kant, for making existence a predicate. I鈥檓 going to grant that Kant鈥檚 criticism is a valid one (which, it isn鈥檛) and ask does this apply to other versions. Take Norman Malcolm - his version has nothing to do with perfections or greatness. His argument is grounded on the notion of 鈥渘ecessity鈥� - that if God exists he is the sort of being that cannot come into nor go out of existence. He proceeds to show that such a being does in fact exist. Take Plantinga also. You mistakenly think he simply substitutes 鈥減erfection鈥� for 鈥渕aximal greatness.鈥� But he doesn鈥檛. His argument does not turn on such definitions. His argument, like that of Malcolm, is based on notions of necessity and possibility - in Plantinga鈥檚 version the notion at stake is that of possible worlds. Neither philosopher is defining God into existence - not if you are understanding their arguments properly. Plantinga does not try to define God into existence by saying God is maximally great, whatever is maximally great exists, therefore God exists. His argument is different in form from that of Descartes - which you caricature as defining God as perfect, and whatever is perfect must exist because to exist is more perfect than not to exist. I can only conclude that you either haven鈥檛 read or haven鈥檛 understood Malcolm or Plantinga. Moreover, you mistakenly think Plantinga thinks he is offering a good persuasive argument for God鈥檚 existence. But Plantinga doesn鈥檛 think he is. If you had read his argument you would have found that he says it wouldn鈥檛 persuade people who do not believe in God to believe in Him. In addition, Plantinga does not base his theism on the ontological argument. The purpose of his essay was simply to show that many of the popular confusions in the minds of critics (such as Kant) actually do not apply or at least are not as strong as commonly thought. On this point Plantinga is correct.

You challenge me to produce a single 'valid' argument that a god exists. Pardon me but I feel a little Logic 101 lesson is in order. A valid argument is simply one in which the conclusion follows from the premises. As someone who has apparently studied philosophy I鈥檓 sure you鈥檒l understand that valid arguments do not amount to much. The following is a valid argument:

(1) All Englishmen are black
(2) Tony Blair is an Englishman
(3) Therefore Tony Blair is black

But as a valid argument it doesn鈥檛 amount to much. What you probably meant to ask for was for an argument that is valid, sound and rationally persuasive. Validity means simply 鈥渁n argument in which if the premises are true it is impossible for the conclusion to be false.鈥� Soundness is a little trickier - it involves the premises being true, or probable, or more probable than their denial etc. Rationally persuasive is even more of a grey area - and involves a lot of subjectivity and a persons background evidence and experiences.

Now, just what are you asking me for here Brian? Are you asking me to prove TO YOU that God exists? Are you asking me to prove TO EVERYONE that God exists? Who am I to direct my arguments to? And what if I fail to persuade you, does that mean my arguments are flawed and my own belief irrational? What is your definition of 鈥渞ationality?鈥� What counts as a 鈥減roof?鈥�

When addressing these questions I would be eternally grateful if you would answer the question that I have asked now 4 or 5 times: please tell which argument in Dawkins book should move me from theism to atheism in your view. This is, after all, the topic of discussion.

Cheers,

SG

SG- Logical, beautiful, and just plain good.

:-)

Re 46

I agree. Let me add this partial quote to stir the pot some more:

"I cannot tell anyone who God is or what God is. Neither can anyone else .... The reality of God can never be defined. It can only be experienced ... Theism is an inadequate human definition of God that needs to be surrendered..... When I seek to speak of my experience of God, I can do so only with (inadequate) human analogies. Insects cannot tell anyone what it is like to be a bird. Horses cannot tell anyone what it is like to be human. Human beings cannot tell anyone what it is like to be God"

Regards,
Michael

Stephen
I have already made it clear that this topic is not about an argument that will convert anybody. As I have said, we usually change our minds about things as a result of a cumulative process over time.

But what we have seen about the ontological argument is that you are desperate to hold on to it, to the extent of actually saying that it is valid and sound, even though most great philosophers since Anselm dismiss it as nonsense. They all knew that it was a logical 锟絫rick with mirrors锟�, distinctly fishy if we substitute more telling words like 锟絘ll-loving锟�, 锟絘ll-just锟�, 锟絘ll-merciful锟� for 锟絧erfectly great锟� or 锟絬nlimited锟� or whatever other anodyne superlative we can conceive. It begs the question by proposing a God锟絪 existence in the premises. it doesn锟絫 prove that god exists; it assumes that God exists.
Here are my 锟絧roofs锟� that Utopia both exists and doesn锟絫 exist:

UTOPIA EXISTS:

1. Utopia is the most perfect or 锟絞reatest' society conceivable.
2. It is of necessity more perfect or 'greater' to exist than not to exist.
3. Therefore, Utopia exists.

UTOPIA DOES NOT EXIST:

1. Utopia cannot be conceived as existing contingently;
2. Everything that exists can only be thought of as existing contingently;
3. Therefore Utopia does not exist.

You call in aid Malcolm again (I shall leave the obscurantist depths of Alvin Plantinga for another posting):

锟絋ake Norman Malcolm - his version has nothing to do with perfections or greatness. His argument is grounded on the notion of 锟絥ecessity锟� - that if God exists he is the sort of being that cannot come into nor go out of existence. He proceeds to show that such a being does in fact exist锟�.

What utter nonsense! He shows nothing of the sort. The 锟絥ecessity锟� springs from the notion of 锟絤aximum greatness锟� or 锟絧erfection锟� or 锟絬nlimited锟�. Where else would it come from, for goodness sake! It derives from some concept of god, as all versions of the argument do. They ALL leap from an abstraction/definition/ concept/idea of a god in our minds to the existence of that abstraction/definition/concept/idea in reality. I have before me Malcolm锟絪 own words:

锟絎hat Anselm did was to give a demonstration that the proposition 锟紾od exists锟� is entailed by the proposition 锟絞od is a being a greater than which cannot be conceived锟� (which is equivalent to 锟紾od is an absolutely unlimited being锟�)锟�.

This, of course, is pure poppycock. Malcolm himself quotes a number of philosophers 锟斤拷 Ryle, Crombie, Smart, Findlay etc 锟斤拷 all of whom rightly rubbish the argument on the grounds that existential statements are contingent, that no existential proposition can be logically necessary and that the notion of a logically necessary being is indeed self-contradictory. Malcolm锟絪 answer, a la Wittgenstein, is that it is a language game. He quotes the 90th Psalm and then says: 锟絀n these complex systems of thought, those 锟絣anguage games锟�, God has the status of a necessary being锟�. This is what passes for modern philosophy? This is logic? Heavens above! Later, he falls back on Kierkegaard: 锟絋here is only one proof of the truth of Christianity and that, quite rightly, is from the emotions锟�. So much for philosophy; so much for logic.

Dawkins mocks the ontological argument because that is what it deserves. He quotes Gasking锟絪 锟絧roof锟� that God does not exist. I will offer that as the argument that you keep asking for:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

Ergo:

7. God does not exist.

Cheers,
Brian

Hello Michael, you wrote

"I cannot tell anyone who God is or what God is. Neither can anyone else .... The reality of God can never be defined. It can only be experienced ..."

and

"Insects cannot tell anyone what it is like to be a bird. Horses cannot tell anyone what it is like to be human. Human beings cannot tell anyone what it is like to be God"

I welcome the first statement. I've never experienced anything that to me indicates the presence of any god(s), and have never seen a shred of credible hard evidence either. Your position is a welcome alternative to those who attempt to rubbish or distort science because science says there is no reason to believe.

I'm afraid I don't see so much point to your second statement. While a horse can not tell what it is like to be human, he can note the absence of any humans around him. Similarly, we can observe or measure through any sense or apparatus at our disposal and conclude there is no impartially observeable reason to assume the presence of any god(s). Surely you're not suggesting man should first have a complete understanding of the way a god would think before concluding there is none?

Re #49

Hi Peter:

I hope it was clear that this was a quote and is not mine. I was quoting Spong from his latest booke "Jesus for the Non-religious" which I have mentioned before in this thread.

On another matter - some time ago on another thread we were discussing the failure of physics to give a credible physical explanation for the nature and origin of the universe i.e. the present problem with string theory etc.

You may be interested in an article by AC Grayling entitled "Bad Vibrations - a Report on the Battle for the Soul of a Science" which appeared in the March/April 2007 issue of the British 'New Humanist magazine'.

Grayling makes the same points as I was making to you in our earlier exchange.

I recommend this article (and the magazine too - it is very well written) as well as the Spong book.

Also Free Inquiry magazine published by the Council for Secular Humanism has an excellent article entitled 'Humanism as Existentialism' which I think you would also enjoy.

Happy reading!

Regards,
Michael

I recommend this article (and the magazine too - it is very well written)

Peter: I meant to say that I recommend the Free Inquiry magazine not the New Humanist.

Regards,
Michael

Brian

*sigh*

I鈥檒l make this quick.

鈥淚 have already made it clear that this topic is not about an argument that will convert anybody.鈥�

No, but providing just one (preferably good) argument from TGD is all I am asking. You still haven鈥檛 done that. I give up.

鈥淏ut what we have seen about the ontological argument is that you are desperate to hold on to it, to the extent of actually saying that it is valid and sound, even though most great philosophers since Anselm dismiss it as nonsense.鈥�

Oh dear. Firstly, I am not desperate to hold on to the ontological argument. I have already said that I agree it doesn鈥檛 convince anyone to start believing in God. Secondly, I am not saying it is valid and sound - I鈥檓 saying some ontological arguments are and others are not. Thirdly, I don鈥檛 particularly care that 鈥渕ost great philosophers鈥� have dismissed it as nonsense (In fact, most philosophers have NOT 鈥渄ismissed it as nonsense - perhaps 鈥渞eflected on and rejected it鈥� would be more accurate). Anyhow, I鈥檓 sure you鈥檒l agree that arguments stand or fall by themselves and not by how many agree or disagree. Unless you advocate truth by democracy.

鈥淚t begs the question by proposing a God鈥檚 existence in the premises.鈥�

That is still debated to this day particularly with respect to one version based on Anselm鈥榮 writings and the version of Descartes. I think some versions of it do beg the question - undoubtedly in my mind. However, many versions do not - Malcolm, Plantinga and Hartshore have all produced versions that cannot be charged with question begging I鈥檓 afraid. And, in fact, I have failed to find a critique of any of these writers charging them with question begging, let alone a persuasive one. Stephen T. Davis provides a good repudiation of critics who charge such arguments with begging the question. You should read him on the point.

Regarding Norman Malcolm you write off my musings as 鈥渘onsense.鈥� I鈥檓 afraid all I did was outline the jist of his argument and how it works. There was nothing incorrect in anything that I said - that is that is doesn鈥榯 suffer from the flaws of Descartes version in that it doesn鈥榯 move from some notion akin to 鈥減erfection鈥� to the conclusion that existence is a perfection and therefore the being in question must exist. Malcolm doesn鈥檛 regard existence as a predicate and nor do any modern versions of the OA that I have read. Yet you embark on a bluster-ride nonetheless proving nothing but your own ignorance of modern versions of the argument. Malcolm is reflecting on a 鈥渘ecessary being鈥� - he is not 'defining God into existence.' In fact, arguably he isn鈥檛 proving God at all - just the existence of a 鈥渘ecessary being.鈥� I鈥檓 afraid it is simply factually incorrect to say that modern versions of the ontological argument 鈥渓eap鈥� from definitions or ideas in the mind to existence in reality. None of the above writers "leap" from anything to anything. They have produced arguments. I can understand why these arguments are rejected - particularly by atheists. But the premises of the arguments can be accepted by rational people. To that degree they are valid and sound, even if of limited use except as intellectual exercises.

You finish your post with Gasking鈥檚 disproof of God as if that placates my demand for an argument from Dawkins that should play some part in convincing me away from theism. Have you not noticed that I have been fairly explicit that my own theism - like that of Plantinga - does not rest on any version of the OA even though I agree there are valid and sound versions (using 鈥渧alid鈥� and 鈥渟ound鈥� as philosophical technical terms). We're only discussing it because you insisted. Anyhow, is this the best you can do to show the power of TGD - quote an argument which isn鈥檛 even Dawkins own? Quote an argument against an argument that doesn鈥檛 persuade anyone anyway? My oh my, TGD is weak indeed!

Well, I鈥檝e already written more than I intended.

SG

Hi Stephen,

1. Nonsense in my dictionary is defined as 鈥榣anguage without meaning鈥�, 鈥榯hat which is manifestly false鈥�. By these definitions the ontological argument is clearly nonsense. It is neither valid nor true (鈥渋t certainly is not valid鈥� 聽鈥� Flew). It is mere wishful thinking in philosophical dress. You cannot conjure a god into existence out of your own brain. It is just ridiculous. The reason I took this argument is that it is a good example of how theists try to convert their dreams about a perfect being into reality without a shred of evidence.

2. I agree that the truths of fact and logic are not determined by counting heads. But it is YOU, Stephen, who are primarily guilty of the name-dropping. You constantly refer to Malcolm and Plantinga (and now Hartshore) as if they had discovered the Holy Grail of theistic justification when in truth they haven鈥檛 added anything new at all. I think I prefer to accept the wisdom of Hume, Kant, Russell, Ryle, Flew, Blackburn and co. to your 鈥榡ejune鈥� list.

3. You have not demonstrated that there is more than one ontological argument, rather than variations on the same theme that a God鈥檚 existence can be deduced from an analysis of the concept of a God.

4. You have not demonstrated that any of these variations are valid and sound.

5. What on earth is the 鈥榥ecessary being鈥� that Malcolm has arguably proved? (Hold the Front Page! Norman Malcolm 43 years ago in 鈥楰nowledge and Certainty鈥� proved the existence of a 鈥榥ecessary being鈥� but nobody noticed).

6. You don鈥檛 seem to realise that the disproof of the argument doesn鈥檛 require intricate or esoteric analysis. It IS really that simple. Dawkins rightly calls it an infantile argument and translates it into the language of the playground where it truly belongs:

鈥淏et you I can prove God exists鈥�.
鈥淏et you can鈥檛鈥�.
鈥淩ight then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible鈥�.
鈥淥kay, now what?鈥�
鈥淣ow, is that perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it exist?鈥�
鈥淣o, it鈥檚 only in my mind鈥�.
鈥淏ut if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I鈥檝e proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All atheists are fools鈥�.

Putting it in this form weakens its impact and lets it defeat itself. Dawkins adds further comments, e.g. 鈥渢he very idea that grand conclusions could follow from such logomachist trickery offends me aesthetically鈥�, the absurdity of the notion that 鈥渁 grand truth about the cosmos should follow from a mere word game鈥� and his 鈥渄eep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world鈥�. I鈥檓 sorry, Stephen, but these are sound judgments on the argument and you have said absolutely nothing to indicate the contrary.

Cheers,
Brian

Brian:

You鈥檙e still dodging the issue.

Some points regarding Ontological arguments before I must ask you to get back to the point.

Firstly, you say nonsense is 鈥渓anguage without meaning - but even Descartes OA has meaning - that鈥檚 why you can give a philosophical critique of it. Secondly, you seem to agree that the OA is not valid, but as a philosophical technical term valid means 鈥渋f the premises are true then the conclusion cannot possible be false.鈥� Even Descartes version is valid on this understanding. Moreover, you cannot charge the OA with question-begging AND with being invalid. Why? Because question-begging arguments meet the philosophical definition of 鈥渧alid.鈥� So, ummm, you鈥檙e wrong :)

鈥淵ou cannot conjure a god into existence out of your own brain. It is just ridiculous.鈥�

Of course not, but many versions of the OA do not do this.

鈥淭he reason I took this argument is that it is a good example of how theists try to convert their dreams about a perfect being into reality without a shred of evidence.鈥�

But, don鈥檛 we agree that the theists who use this as a basis for faith are very few and incredibly far between? I鈥檇 be surprised if you ran out of fingers counting the number who have. Even Anselm and Plantinga don鈥檛 count, since Anselm wasn鈥檛 offering arguments at all and Plantinga doesn鈥檛 think the OA is persuasive. In fact, I reckon only Descartes took it as seriously as you charge theists with. You鈥檙e not exactly arguing against a straw man - but your position ain鈥檛 much better I鈥檓 afraid. You鈥檙e arguing against a position that hardly anyone holds.

Moreover, I鈥檓 not name dropping for the purposes of giving authority to my claims. I鈥檓 simply giving examples of philosophers who have given examples of OA鈥檚 that are not subject to the criticisms you make. Why do you continue to misrepresent my position? You say 鈥渋t is YOU, Stephen, who are primarily guilty of the name-dropping. You constantly refer to Malcolm and Plantinga (and now Hartshore) as if they had discovered the Holy Grail of theistic justification when in truth they haven鈥檛 added anything new at all.鈥�

Only I haven鈥檛 made this claim. I have constantly said I do not base my theism any OA. I have pointed out that neither do any of these philosophers. I have simply said that their versions are formally valid (if the premises are true the conclusions cannot possible be false) and added that they have a claim to soundness (in that a reasonable person could give intellectual assent to the premises).

鈥淵ou have not demonstrated that there is more than one ontological argument, rather than variations on the same theme that a God鈥檚 existence can be deduced from an analysis of the concept of a God.鈥�

I have pointed you to three versions that do not - see previous discussion.

鈥淲hat on earth is the 鈥榥ecessary being鈥� that Malcolm has arguably proved?鈥�

I never said he 鈥減roved鈥� anything. I said his argument was valid and sound. I could tell you the difference if you like but if you consult most introductions to philosophy you鈥檒l soon find the distinction.

Anyhow, I think we鈥檝e flogged the goat enough.

Can we please get back to the point?

You still haven鈥檛 given me a single argument from TGD that should play some part in convincing me away from theism.

Why have you failed to address this point?

Are there no good arguments in there? Are you simply unable to articulate them? It鈥檚 guys like you trumpeting the thing around town. Presumably you must see something of value in it. No one has yet told me what that is.

I would have much more respect for you if you just acknowledged that there aren鈥檛 any good arguments - only bluster - but that you just like the polemic of it all. But, you hide behind the illusion (delusion?) that there鈥檚 an actual argument in there. Where is it? What is it? Do tell. I鈥檓 not the only one here either - I鈥檓 not aware of anyone who has been convinced by TGD.

Your emperor has no clothes.

Cheers,

SG

Hello Michael,

"I hope it was clear that this was a quote and is not mine. I was quoting Spong from his latest booke "Jesus for the Non-religious" which I have mentioned before in this thread."

Yes, I understood it was a quote, but as you put in your post I assume you agree at least in part with it? Or was it purely to "stir the pot some more" as you put it?

"You may be interested in an article by AC Grayling entitled "Bad Vibrations - a Report on the Battle for the Soul of a Science" which appeared in the March/April 2007 issue of the British 'New Humanist magazine'.

Grayling makes the same points as I was making to you in our earlier exchange."

I remember the discussion with Maureen, who actually already linked to the article you mention on the Science Delusion thread:

/blogs/ni/2007/04/robert_winston_and_the_science.html

As I pointed out in posts 15 and 16 of that thread, Graylings article does not appear up-to-date with the latest developments. String theory has made a testable prediction and it will be tested by the Gamma-ray Large Area Telescope, see

NASAs launch schedule is at

"Also Free Inquiry magazine published by the Council for Secular Humanism has an excellent article entitled 'Humanism as Existentialism' which I think you would also enjoy.

Happy reading!"

I looked a their site and found quite a few articles that would seem interesting, but I couldn't find the one you mention. Do you have a url (and sorry to be ignorant)?

greets,
Peter

I must say Brain McClinton should be a politician with his rather splendid ability to dodge questions, go off on tangents, and address moot points instead.

Perhaps you should run against Gordon Brown with skills like that?

Pete

Hi Stephen,
Sure, we are flogging a dead horse, i.e. the OA. But at the risk of doing a sadistic Mel Gibson, let鈥檚 have one more crack of the whip. A basic version of the argument goes something like this:

1. God is a being than which nothing more perfect can be conceived.
2. Things that exist in reality must be greater than things which exist only in the intellect.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. The first premise assumes what it tries to prove (God is a perfect being). It should read 鈥榯he idea of the Christian god is of a being than which....鈥�. It also doesn鈥檛 by itself explain what 鈥榩erfect鈥� means. It could mean 鈥榩erfectly bad鈥�, or 鈥榩erfectly beautiful鈥�, or 鈥榩erfectly foolish鈥�. We need a further premise explaining exactly what 鈥榩erfect鈥� is.
2. The second premise is distinctly dodgy. It is a normative statement, or value judgment, not a positive statement of fact or logic. We could also argue its opposite, that reality is limited in its potential: 鈥淟ife is an illusion beyond which lies the reality of dreams鈥�. Indeed, the whole basis of religion is that reality is so unsatisfactory that we need another, more perfect, life after this one to make up for it. In any case, many great artists and writers will confirm that their conception was better than their execution. What was in their head was perfect; it came out imperfect. And since reality is actually less good than what we desire, 鈥渢he function of art is to make life better鈥� (Santayana). Baldwin said: 鈥淭he purpose of art is to lay bare the questions which have been hidden by the answers鈥�. To apply Pete鈥檚 comment, this second premise is actually a very 鈥榗onservative鈥� one. A liberal, progressive or socialist would maintain that it is effectively a defence of the status quo.
3. What does 鈥榚xists鈥� mean? Exists as in 鈥榣ife exists鈥�? Presumably not, since life also ceases to exist. I exist now, but sooner or later I will not exist. If an immortal god 鈥榚xists鈥�, the nature of his 鈥榚xistence鈥� is clearly different from mine. Language in this sense becomes inadequate: 鈥淲hereof we cannot speak...鈥�.

If we follow Malcolm and Plantinga, we have:

1. There is a possible world, W, in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
2. A being has maximal greatness in a world only if it exists in every possible world.
3. Therefore, in every world there is a being with maximal greatness.
4. Maximal greatness implies maximal excellence.
5. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
6. Therefore, God exists.

Yet, although he has defined 鈥榤aximal greatness鈥�, his second premise is still a value judgment (鈥榤aximal greatness鈥� may mean something different in different worlds) and his alleged attributes in 5 contradict one another. Here is another syllogism.

1. The idea of god is of a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.
2. The world which he allegedly created is imperfect and contains much evil and suffering.
3. Therefore, god does not exist.

Can perfection create imperfection and remain perfect? I know that writers like Brian Davies (Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion) think that Plantinga鈥檚 argument is sound because part of perfection is that it 鈥榥ecessarily exists鈥�, i.e. 鈥榞od exists鈥� is self-evident, but I鈥檓 afraid that he wrong.

1. it is not a logical contradiction for God to not exist on any possible world.
2. If god does not exist on any possible world, then he does not exist necessarily.
3. Therefore, God does not exist on any possible worlds, including the actual world.

These are some of the reasons why the ontological argument is meaningless nonsense.

As for another Dawkins argument, I suggest you read chapter 7: 鈥楾he Good Book and the Moral Zeitgeist鈥�. The argument presented is not in the form of a syllogism with all its snags and hidden flaws but is instead a sustained empirical critique of the Bible鈥檚 immorality. That, in my view, is the best kind of argument, because it contains EVIDENCE. (it has a good quote from Sean O鈥機asey: 鈥淧olitics has slain its thousands, but religion has slain its tens of thousands"). The crucial fact about the use of pure logic to prove the existence of a god is that it is a non-starter. You cannot prove or render probable the existence of anything without empirical evidence. This is Kant鈥檚 damning indictment of the OA, and it still stands. If we try to free reason from the constraints of experience, it becomes merely self-induced delusion, precisely what Dawkins argues.

Stephen, no argument is likely to convince you since in the end I think you agree with Plantinga that religious faith is to be understood as 鈥渁 special source of knowledge, knowledge that can鈥檛 be arrived at by way of reason alone鈥�. In other words, you will employ philosophical argument when it suits your case and appears to hold together, but will argue that it is not necessary when it is shown to be flawed. You want to have your philosophical cake and eat it.

Cheers,
Brian
Ps
Incidentally, you did say (45) that Malcolm proved a 鈥榥ecessary being鈥�: 鈥淗e proceeds to show that such a being does in fact exist鈥�. Perhaps, you need to rephrase that statement.

Brian- It seems to me that you are avoiding a real discussion here. Allow me to illustrate by quoting from Stephen G in this thread:

SG #13 - "Just which argument in the book do you think is a good one?"

SG #17- "I asked you which particular argument you think theists should have been persuaded by. Which argument was new, which was formulated better than any one else has managed to thus far?"

SG #25- "I鈥檓 trying to find out which points of the God Delusion you actually think are good arguments against theism?"

SG #28- "I'm simply asking you to show me an argument - if not a good argument - presented by Dawkins that should persuade me away from theism..."

SG #32- "You still haven鈥檛 given me an argument from TGD that should convince me. Premises that entail a conclusion please. I鈥檝e asked this several times of you and Brian and still no answer. I鈥檓 sorry to ask for actual arguments to be brought this, I understand that grates at times."

SG #42- "Why have you and Amen still not provided me with an actual argument from TGD to discuss? Do you just prefer to deal in insults? Your lack of an argument - when given plenty of opportunity to give one - is a damning indictment not only on TGD but on you."

SG #45- "You still haven鈥檛 given me an argument from TGD that should convince me as Dawkins claims they should."

SG #52- "...providing just one (preferably good) argument from TGD is all I am asking. You still haven鈥檛 done that. I give up."

SG #54- "You still haven鈥檛 given me a single argument from TGD that should play some part in convincing me away from theism. Why have you failed to address this point? Are there no good arguments in there? Are you simply unable to articulate them?"

That's nine times that you've been asked to provide a single argument from TGD given by Dawkins to substantiate atheism. Stephen G has been asking you this question since May 9th, and you still find the ontological argument (which is a straw man since SG doesn't rely on it for his theism) more worthy of discussion.

Is this fact not utterly damning in and of itself?

Brian:

We鈥檝e gone over these points ad nauseum. We鈥檙e not going to solve our fundamental differences over various versions of the OA on a blogsite. I鈥檓 still amazed that given all I have said about the argument that you still wish to discuss it as if its relevant to the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is whether there is some argument of value in TGD. Your first attempt was, lets face it, a bit of a disaster. Basically your point was that Dawkins 鈥渞ubbishes the OA.鈥� My point is that even if he has (and I think there are good reasons to suggest he hasn鈥檛) it is of no relevance since no one seems to actually use OA鈥檚 as a basis for faith. Rather than provide an argument from TGD you insisted on a discussion of OA鈥檚 as if it was relevant to the reasons people actually give for being theists. Your next attempt, after another irrelevant and unnecessary discussion of OA鈥檚, is to point me to chapter 7 of TGD. So, this is where I might find that seemingly elusive argument, eh? OK鈥ets see what鈥檚 in there shall we? A sustained critique of the Bible鈥檚 immorality? Should I be impressed by this? Has Dawkin鈥檚 struck a blow against theism? Is this the argument against theism of which none greater can be conceived? This chapter is wholly irrelevant to belief in the existence of God. If I was a fundamentalist, evangelical or conservative Christian then I might have to answer some awkward questions about reconciling the contents of some Bible passages with belief in an all loving and just God, but that鈥檚 about it. As an argument against theism or religious belief generally it, well, sucks doesn鈥檛 it? Or does it blow? Mmmmm鈥ne or the other to my mind. So, once again we find there just isn鈥檛 a good argument in there, and if this is 鈥渢he best鈥� then is it any surprise no-one has been convinced by TGD?

鈥淪tephen, no argument is likely to convince you since in the end I think you agree with Plantinga that religious faith is to be understood as 鈥渁 special source of knowledge, knowledge that can鈥檛 be arrived at by way of reason alone鈥�.

I鈥檝e studied Plantinga quite closely and I can put that quote into context. You make him sound like a fideist when he is nothing of the sort. In fact, it鈥檚 a fairly mundane claim to say that knowledge can鈥檛 be arrived at by reason alone. Who would deny that? Experience is at least as important when it comes to arriving at knowledge. And I know it plays a crucial part in Plantinga鈥檚 theism. Why do you think no argument can convince me? I鈥檝e been convinced by many arguments for many different positions - religious and non-religious - ever since I started thinking and reading about them. Am I just another 鈥渄yed-in-the-wool faith head?鈥� That seems to be typical humanist line when you fail to convince non-humanists of your case. There couldn鈥檛 possibly be something wrong with your case could there?

Along with this dubious assumption you make another unwarranted claim: 鈥測ou will employ philosophical argument when it suits your case and appears to hold together, but will argue that it is not necessary when it is shown to be flawed. You want to have your philosophical cake and eat it.鈥� I鈥檓 interested in why you think this. What is your evidence for this claim about my philosophising? I鈥檓 a bit confused because I don鈥檛 know you from Adam (pardon the analogy with the Genesis story!). I know you鈥檙e a humanist. I know you publish a magazine called Humani (I鈥檝e bought it several times in the past). But beyond that I have no idea what goes on in your head. So, I鈥檓 interested to know why you seem to have such knowledge about me. Telepathy perhaps?

Let me broaden the discussion a little since this thread isn鈥檛 just about TGD as you claim but also about humanist principles being lobbied to politicians. I鈥檝e read what humanists believe about a lot of issues. I wonder are you surprised to hear I agree with most of what you would like to see. Take education - humanism taught alongside religion? Amen! Separation of church and state? Hallelujah! No special treatment for religious people and organisations? Preach it brother! But, the problem I detect in humanist circles is that you often behave in a way not dissimilar from religious fundamentalists. I wouldn鈥檛 join a humanist campaign for any of these things because I wouldn鈥檛 want to be associated with a group in which I detect a serious victim-complex; paranoia on a par with any religious fundamentalist; and the same black and white view of the world as fundamentalists. It is this last feature that I find most distasteful about many humanist groups I have come across. In fact, this good versus evil, black-and-white view of the world is deeply imbedded in the mind of Dawkins as shown in TGD. It鈥檚 a secular 鈥渋f you鈥檙e not for us you鈥檙e against us鈥� mentality. We鈥檙e the rationalists! If you disagree then you're irrational - a dyed-in-the-wool faith head! Insofar as religious fundamentalists engage in rather horrible demonisation of 鈥渢he other鈥� many on this 鈥渙ther side鈥� adopt a similar approach. Ironically Dawkins charges religion with causing conflict through their treatment of 鈥渢he other鈥� - but Dawkins, and many of his advocates - humanists, atheists and agnostics - are guilty of this same thing. Clinging to a ranter like Dawkins will alienate you from many people - atheists and theists - who would otherwise be sympathetic to your political goals and ideals. I鈥檓 afraid one of the greatest stumbling blocks to the advancement of humanism is humanists. With a spokesperson like Dawkins that won鈥檛 change anytime soon. Perhaps rather than cling so desperately to TGD like it鈥檚 some Secular Grail you should read 鈥淗ow to Win Friends and Influence People.鈥�

Regards,

SG

Hi John,

The fact that Stephen keeps repeating this point is neither here nor there. Both of you seem to be hooked on a particular meaning of the word 'argument'. An argument is evidence, a reason or series of reasons. Every chapter of Dawkins's book is an argument. His book substantiates atheism in several ways 锟斤拷 in terms of philosophy, science, ethics, biblical criticism, history, sociology and psychology.

If you want a syllogism, I have supplied his 'infantile' playground argument (53). If you want a more detailed argument, I referred to chapter 7 in my last posting.

Instead of summarising it, let's take his chapter on 'The Roots of Morality'. He argues that our moral sense has a Darwinian origin, predating religion. This might lead us to believe that goodness is incompatible with the selfish gene. Not so, argues Dawkins. This is a common misunderstanding of the theory. For example, genes frequently ensure their own survival by influencing organisms to behave altruistically. A gene that programmes individual organisms to favour their genetic kin is statistically likely to benefit copies of itself. Such a gene's frequency can increase in the gene pool to the point where kin altruism becomes the norm. Being good to one's children is the obvious example, but it is not the only one. In general, animals tend to care for, defend, share resources with, warn of danger, or otherwise show altruism towards close kin because of the statistical likelihood that kin will share copies of the same genes.

Then there is reciprocal altruism. This principle is the basis of trade and barter in both animals and humans: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". The Golden Rule, which predates Jesus and is found in Confucius, is based on this principle. Natural selection favours genes that predispose individuals, in relationships of asymmetric need and opportunity. to give what they can, and to solicit giving when they can't. It also favours tendencies to remember obligations. bear grudges, police exchange relationships and punish cheats who take, but don't give when their turn comes.

Dawkins calls kinship and reciprocation the twin pillars of altruism. These principles are derived from our nature as social beings and don't need religion to support them.

All the classical theistic 'proofs' are failures. Evolution and natural selection drive a further nail in the coffin of theism. Astronomy, archaeology and geology deliver further blows. Biblical criticism is yet another fatal weapon of the non-believer.

Both you and Stephen have avoided the essential point: that the onus is not on the atheist to prove his case but on the believer. Dawkins's excellent book adds further support to the idea that we have no need of the god hypothesis and that it is a dangerous fantasy.

John and Stephen, If Dawkins is unable to do it, then perhaps you can tell us what argument or occurrence would constitute for you proof or probability that a God does not exist?

Cheers,
Brian

Brian:

鈥淭he fact that Stephen keeps repeating this point is neither here nor there.鈥�

Oh but it is. There is something VERY telling in the fact that you haven鈥檛 been able to do this. Your first example failed rather splendidly - like most straw men arguments do. Your second argument looks like its being dropped now in embarrassing silence - fitting for any argument that鈥檚 actually irrelevant to the question. So, third time lucky? Let鈥檚 see.

鈥淓very chapter of Dawkins's book is an argument.鈥�

And yet for all the arguments you claim he gives you are unable to articulate a single one that should persuade theists. You name a bunch of academic disciplines: 鈥渋n terms of philosophy, science, ethics, biblical criticism, history, sociology and psychology.鈥� It鈥檚 worth pointing out Dawkins lack of specialism in all but one of these disciplines and its shows in his reluctance to engage properly with academics and current debates in these disciplines. He rants and raves his way through most of it. I can鈥檛 see an argument that any theist should worry about. Again I must ask - who has the book persuaded? It seems it鈥檚 failed by Dawkins own standards.

Anyhow, back to your attempt to pursue a good argument from TGD that I or any theist should find persuasive. The roots of morality. Morality can be grounded in evolution - it has a Darwinian origin. Even if we grant this is true what follows about the existence of God? Sorry Brian but it seems you鈥檝e introduced another irrelevant argument. Again this provides no evidence for atheism or against belief in God.

You end your post with a claim that evolution and natural selection further kill off theism as do astronomy, archaeology and geology. Holy crap Brian that鈥檚 like a gazillion academic disciplines in one post. You must really be an expert! Did some archaeologist dig up the biggest stone in the universe with the words 鈥渢here is no God鈥� on it? Have astronomers gazed beyond the universe only to see that it sits on the back of a giant turtle?

I suspect though that you鈥檙e not actually talking about theism. I suspect you鈥檙e talking about a certain form of theism - particularly young earth creationism and minority interpretations of Christianity that rely on a literal reading of the Bible and a doctrine of inerrancy. Why do I think this? Because I cannot see how any of these disciplines remotely begin to disprove the existence of God (archaeology? Come on!). But I鈥檓 not an expert in any of them - since you are you could maybe tell me. You鈥檙e a good argument for reincarnation because it would take several lifetimes to master all these disciplines and yet you appear to have scaled each and every one in order to make such a sweeping claim. Brian McClinton BSc, BTh, BA, MA, M.Phil, Dip.Sc, Ph.D seemingly.

So, still no argument from Dawkins that even begins to accomplish what Dawkins hopes it will. You ask what argument could convince me. Well, if I could think of one I wouldn鈥檛 be a theist anymore would I? But perhaps if I found a logical inconsistency in my belief system. Or perhaps if one part of it contradicted another. Or maybe if I discovered some piece of evidence that cast doubt on something I thought I knew to be true. Nothing in Dawkins rant even begins to do any of that and you have failed rather miserably to defend him.

Fourth time lucky?

SG

Brian:

鈥淭he fact that Stephen keeps repeating this point is neither here nor there.鈥�

Oh but it is. There is something VERY telling in the fact that you haven鈥檛 been able to do this. Your first example failed rather splendidly - like most straw men arguments do. Your second argument looks like its being dropped now in embarrassing silence - fitting for any argument that鈥檚 actually irrelevant to the question. So, third time lucky? Let鈥檚 see.

鈥淓very chapter of Dawkins's book is an argument.鈥�

And yet for all the arguments you claim he gives you are unable to articulate a single one that should persuade theists. You name a bunch of academic disciplines: 鈥渋n terms of philosophy, science, ethics, biblical criticism, history, sociology and psychology.鈥� It鈥檚 worth pointing out Dawkins lack of specialism in all but one of these disciplines and its shows in his reluctance to engage properly with academics and current debates in these disciplines. He rants and raves his way through most of it. I can鈥檛 see an argument that any theist should worry about. Again I must ask - who has the book persuaded? It seems it鈥檚 failed by Dawkins own standards.

Anyhow, back to your attempt to pursue a good argument from TGD that I or any theist should find persuasive. The roots of morality. Morality can be grounded in evolution - it has a Darwinian origin. Even if we grant this is true what follows about the existence of God? Sorry Brian but it seems you鈥檝e introduced another irrelevant argument. Again this provides no evidence for atheism or against belief in God.

You end your post with a claim that evolution and natural selection further kill off theism as do astronomy, archaeology and geology. Holy crap Brian that鈥檚 like a gazillion academic disciplines in one post. You must really be an expert! Did some archaeologist dig up the biggest stone in the universe with the words 鈥渢here is no God鈥� on it? Have astronomers gazed beyond the universe only to see that it sits on the back of a giant turtle?

I suspect though that you鈥檙e not actually talking about theism. I suspect you鈥檙e talking about a certain form of theism - particularly young earth creationism and minority interpretations of Christianity that rely on a literal reading of the Bible and a doctrine of inerrancy. Why do I think this? Because I cannot see how any of these disciplines remotely begin to disprove the existence of God (archaeology? Come on!). But I鈥檓 not an expert in any of them - since you are you could maybe tell me. You鈥檙e a good argument for reincarnation because it would take several lifetimes to master all these disciplines and yet you appear to have scaled each and every one so as to make such a wide sweeping claim. Brian McClinton BSc, BTh, BA, MA, M.Phil, Dip.Sc, Ph.D seemingly.

So, still no argument from Dawkins that even begins to accomplish what Dawkins hopes it will. You ask what argument could convince me. Well, if I could think of one I wouldn鈥檛 be a theist anymore would I? But perhaps if I found a logical inconsistency in my belief system. Or perhaps if one part of it contradicted another. Or maybe if I discovered some piece of evidence that cast doubt on something I thought I knew to be true. Nothing in Dawkins rant even begins to do any of that and you have failed rather miserably to defend him.

Fourth time lucky?

SG

Hi Stephen,

Perhaps only a logical inconsistency in your belief system wouuld convince you?! The point surely is that there is no logical consistency in theism! Give me one argument, come on. Do what you have accused me of failing to do. Persuade me with one of your (Plantinga鈥檚?) logically rigorous syllogisms. And what about empirical evidence from all those disciplines you superciliously accuse me of being an expert in? Is it not relevant? Which god(s) do your syllogisms prove? (The Christian, Hindu, ancient Greek etc?).

I think the charge of fideism against Plantinga stands. Your deference to him even extends to the use of the arcane word 鈥榡ejune鈥� and his reference to Dawkins鈥檚 philosophical arguments failing in a sophomore philosophy class (both in his review of Dawkins鈥檚 book in 鈥楥hristianity Today鈥�). Now, there is no doubt that Plantinga is a Calvinist and that he mixes theology and philosophy. He follows Calvin in believing that among our cognitive faculties is a sensus divinitatis, a faculty which, when operating properly, will provide us with the basic belief that God exists (Warrented Christian Belief, OUP, 2000, pp167-186). But why doesn鈥檛 everyone have this awareness of God? Because, he says, sin has corrupted this faculty in some people and so it no longer functions properly (pp184-5). Unbelief is therefore a product of epistemic malfunction, just as blindness can result from damage to the eye. Since Plantinga defines 鈥榬ational鈥� in terms of proper function and atheism is a result of malfunction, atheism cannot be rational.
BUT he then actually proceeds to say (p191) that there is a sensus divinitatis, IF GOD EXISTS, very probably not, IF THERE IS NO GOD. So, if there is no God, there will be no sensus divinitatis (or it will be merely an illusion). Thus it is clearly necessary to demonstrate that belief in a god is warranted by adducing reasons, arguments and evidence. Indeed an atheist can argue that the fact that theistic belief is not warrant basic shows that there probably is no god. Such are the knots into which one gets twisted when mixing theology with philosophy.

Incidentally, Plantinga鈥檚 review of The God Delusion is itself weak. He mocks Dawkins鈥檚 portrayal of the God of the Old Testament and says that Dawkins seems to have chosen him as his sworn enemy (鈥淟et鈥檚 hope for Dawkins鈥檚 sake God doesn鈥檛 return the compliment鈥�). But, hey, didn鈥檛 this God: drown nearly everybody in a flood, kill Job鈥檚 children, turn Lot鈥檚 wife into a pillar of salt, order Abraham to make a burnt offering of his longed-for son Isaac, incite Moses to attack the Midianites and kill all the boy children and all the women who were not virgins, sanction the hanging of the heads of the Moabites against the sun, and climax it all with the ordering of Joshua鈥檚 murderous conquests of Jericho, Ai, Lachish, Eglon and Hazor and the various slaughters of the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, not to mention 31 kings? Dawkins is not the first to state that it is the story of murder and mayhem, sanctioned by a supposedly all-loving god. John Toland, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell and others have done it before, and they are right.

As for humanism, your view is a complete travesty. We certainly don鈥檛 have a black-and-white view of the world. Only last week we had a talk on euthanasia, and we were not agreed on whether we should support it (voluntary euthanasia, that is). I have made it clear on this blog that as far as the Christian god is concerned, I am atheist (such a being simply could not exist), but as for force(s) out there I am agnostic. I don鈥檛 know if Jesus existed; Christians do (who, then, is more dogmatic or black-and-white?). I don鈥檛 know what happens when I die, Christians do (who is more dogmatic or black-and-white?). Humanists actually wish to encourage scepticism. We think it is others who have a black-and-white view of the world! We generally think there is too much belief and not enough doubt. On lots of issues, I am uncertain: animal testing (I can see both sides of the argument); global warming (is it just a cycle or are we to blame?), will a DUP-Sinn Fein executive work in NI (I change my mind from day to day); the right balance between freedom and equality? (sometimes I veer towards liberty, soimetimes towards equality).

I have already said that the presentation of TGD was a symbol and that we also presented to MLAs a copy of Ulster鈥檚 third Way: The Humanist Alternative Beyond Orange and Green, which advocates tolerance, freethought, compromise, integrated education and other positive values. But of course that is largely ignored by Dawkins bashers who are anxious to 鈥榬ant and rave鈥� at his splendid polemic.

Cheers,
Brian

Brian- I'll leave the rest of this debate to you and Stephen (and I'd recommend bookmarking the page so you can get to it later). But this sentence struck me as interesting: "Only last week we had a talk on euthanasia, and we were not agreed on whether we should support it (voluntary euthanasia, that is)."

So humanists share with churches a desire to harmonise their views collectively on most issues and derive a common 'humanist' policy, is that correct?

Hi John,

Humanists are essentially freethinkers. We intend to take a vote on whether we should have a campaign to support voluntary euthanasia, but we would never insist that all humanists have to support it. Probably a minority wouldn't and they are fully entitled to their view. We who support voluntary euthanasia would not argue that they were less 'humanist' for opposing it.

The same applies to Belfast Pride. The majority of Humani supported it last year. I myself participated. Some didn't support it, not because they are homophobic but for various other stated reasons which I personally didn't find convincing. But that is their right.

We don't seek to harmonise our views on 'most' issues either because, as sceptics, we do not have many strongly held views or because we disagree strongly about them! Tolerance of freethought is a humanist virtue.

In other words, there is no dogma in Humanism beyond a commitment to humaneness. I suggest you look at the Amsterdam and Brussels Declarations. You will see that they are very much statements of general principles. For example, the Brussels Declaration rejects violence and incitement to violence in the furtherance of disputes. But does this imply absolute pacifism in all circumstances? Probably not. The Iraq War is a good example. I opposed it; some members of Humani agreed with it.

Take TGD. Some humanists think it is too aggressive; others, myself included, enjoyed what, I think, Joan Bakewell in the Guardian called a 'spirited and exhilarating read' 聽鈥� a necessary antidote in an age of militant religion.

'Humanist' and 'policy' are 'almost' contradictory.
That, I suppose, is one of our basic problems. Far from having a black-and-white view of the world, as Stephen G suggests, we are a very loose collection of people with black, white and various shades of grey opinions on most things.

Cheers,
Brian

Stephen G & John:

I'd give this up. John looks like he has to a great extent. Stephen - I think you've embarrassed Mr McClinton enough. I can only guess you'll have another bash at him for yet again failing to answer your question and going off on another tangent. But, you don't need to. Your work is done!

Pete

Brian:

I never said that only a logical inconsistency would convince me. I said a logical inconsistency would be one of a number of ways I could be persuaded to give up my theism. Sorry to get all technical again, but theism is not generic - there are many forms. Some of them are very detailed theologies and others very general. My own is very general - bordering on the agnostic. I am not aware of any logical inconsistency in my theism. Being of such a general (and tentative) nature I'm not sure there could possibly be.

Next you ignore my question for the tenth time (I think, I've lost count now). Instead you try to slap a question on me - to prove to you with one argument. I don't think I can prove to you in 1 or 100 arguments. Moreover, I have no interest in trying to persuade you. You're not speaking to a proselytiser here. I couldn't care less if you're an atheist or not. It doesn't matter to me. I have no concern to persuade you as you do me and as Dawkins claims to be doing in TGD. That's the difference between us here. That's one more feature that makes you and Dawkins a parody of the religious fundamentalists you so despise: you both seek converts and, certainly in Dawkins case, demonise the other. My only concern is to do my best with respect to my believings. What you do with yours is of no relevance to me. What are we to make of my inability to prove the existence of God to you? That my belief is irrational? That hardly follows.

I'm not really sure what to say to the rest of your post. Failing to address the issue you fly into a tirade against Alvin Plantinga. Your charge of fideism is quite incredible. Fideism is the view that reason and belief are opposed to each other. Would you except a fideist to offer grounds for belief in God? Would you expect a fideist to engage in refutations of objections and criticisms to belief in God? Not to my mind, and yet Plantinga engages in all these philosophical tasks which according to the fideist can鈥檛 or shouldn鈥檛 be done, and he has done so for the best part of half a century. The charge is a false one I鈥檓 afraid.

You next accuse me of a deference to Plantinga. Mmmmm.....that's a bit of a loaded word. I have mentioned him quite a bit but only because my knowledge of him is greater than my knowledge of most other philosophers. Unlike some I try to limit myself to what I know about rather than venture into geology, archaeology, sociology, psychology, history, etc. My use of the word "jejune" is not a copy of Plantinga. I used it to describe Dawkins before I read Plantinga, but I must admit to have smiled a little when I saw Plantinga using it too.

Anyhow, Plantinga's philosophy is fascinating (that's why I have studied a lot of it). You are within your epistemic rights to reject it. I'm not so sure that Plantinga holds atheism to be irrational - certainly it isn't an obvious conclusion from a "reformed epistemological" approach. Certainly he believes atheism is false (as do I) but that is a very different concept from saying atheism is irrational. If atheists are doing their best with respect to their believings I cannot see how anyone can charge them with being irrational. What more can we expect of people? I certainly make no judgment on any worldview generally as being rational or irrational. The reason is that rationality is a category of the mind - not of abstract beliefs. Beliefs are not rational or irrational, they are either true or false. The person doing the believing is rational or irrational, and that varies from person to person. It is possible to rationally believe something that is false. Plantinga shares that concept of rationality.

I would also be careful before you charge Plantinga with blind allegiance to Calvin鈥檚 doctrine of the Sensus Divinitatus. He does make a lot of it but it isn鈥檛 the sole grounds of Plantinga鈥檚 theism. In Plantinga鈥檚 book 鈥淕od and Other Minds鈥� he argues that believing in God is, for some people, in the same epistemological boat as believing in other minds. In his classic essay 鈥淩eason and Religious Belief鈥� he argues further that believing in God can be, for some people, a basic belief - in other words a belief we hold that is not held on the basis of other beliefs. Towards the end of his essay he grounds belief in God in religious experiences (not just the sensus divinitatus) and if I was to criticise Plantinga for anything it would be for not giving a fuller account of this. However, other theistic philosophers have. William Alston has spent much of his philosophical life arguing for the centrality of religious experiences in the formation of rational religious beliefs. His work seems quite compelling and I hope to study him further on the matter. Lastly in Plantinga鈥檚 trilogy on 鈥淲arrant鈥� he is outlining a wider epistemology of belief. He starts out by criticising current theories, then develops his own and then applies it to religious belief. I appreciate that a lot of what he says seems bizarre to atheists, but I don鈥檛 see how that is relevant. Nor does Plantinga worry too much about it, after all are atheists supposed to be the arbiters of what is and is not rational?

Anyhow, after Plantinga the Old Testament God gets a bit of a rollicking in your post. I'll skip this bit with a simple: relevance?

Next, it's me in the line of fire:

"As for humanism, your view is a complete travesty."

A travesty? Maybe. But an observation nonetheless. From I can see there are many characteristics shared between many humanist groups and many religious groups. Now you imply that Christians are far more black-and-white. Maybe. But, but it's a matter of degree really. I see numerous similarities between you. Although these are just observations I have made I鈥檒l mention a sample:

1. Fundies see the world as heathen versus saved. If you agree you鈥檙e saved, disagree you鈥檙e heathen. Humanists as rational versus irrational. If you agree you鈥檙e sane & rational, if you disagree you鈥檙e irrational & deluded.
2. Fundies have scripture. Humanists are treating TGD in a similar way - defensive when attacked and passing it around like missionaries.
3. Fundies have prophets and saviours they defend right or wrong. Dawkins is a demi-god to humanists. Dissent is treated with contempt. I've been treated almost as a blasphemer for my views on Dawkins.
4. Fundies rant and rave at their opponents. Humanists behave similarly - as is testified on this blog.

Just my observations - I鈥檓 not claiming this to be true.

I'm glad you have finally admitted something though - that Dawkins book is "splendid polemic." You're right. So it is. And it isn't much more than that.

Finally!

Stephen G.

Hi Stephen,

Just a couple of things. First, to address your last four points in which you compare humanists with fundamentalists and mistakenly imagine that we are all in awe of Dawkins (some humanists are not keen on him at all!)

1. You say that Humanists see the world as 'rational versus irrational'. No; this is far too simplified. Rationality is only one of many values prized by humanists including love, compassion, tolerance etc.

2. You say that Humanists are treating TGD as scripture. Nonsense. It is, as you yourself admit, a 'splendid polemic' but, like all books and works of art, it is not perfect. For example, it is too Christo-centred. I would like to have seen more about other religions.

3. You say that Dawkins is a demi-god to humanists. Again, rubbish. He is a valuable ally, but there are many others, none of them in my view demi-gods. My heroes were all a product of my childhood. As for now, "no man is a hero to his own valet" (Montaigne and others).

4. 'Rant and rave' are facile terms. I could say that about some of your postings. I suppose it depends ultimately whether you agree with the 'ranter'.

My second point relates to an argument from Dawkins which might persuade you and which you say I have failed to deliver. Well, finally, here is one, and it is about your 'friends', the 'fundies'. Dawkins would largely agree with you about them. Perhaps here is common ground. I suggest you read chapter 8 of TGD.

"Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read it in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. the truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by 'truth'. But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that".

I don鈥檛 like 鈥榝undies鈥� either, but there are a lot of them about,

Cheers,

Brian

Hey,
You agnostic theists, Plantinganists, libertarian rationalists, theology students etc, John Wright indicated (58) that I didn't offer Stephen G a single argument from Dawkins's book that would convince him. Yet, if you look through the thread, you will see that I gave many arguments (19, 20, 31, 39, 48 etc), whether convincing or not. On the other hand, not one of you has given a single argument, convincing or otherwise, FOR God's existence. My case rests,

Cheers,
Brian

Brian:

OK鈥 see you鈥檝e now stopped even trying to give an argument from TGD, and I鈥檓 not surprised since your other attempts have thus far crashed and burned rather splendidly.

So, your only comments are against my four points - four points which I said myself are not necessarily true but amount to mere observation based on how humanists come across to me when I see them in the media and engage with them online.

First you tell me that 鈥渟ome humanists are not keen on [Dawkins] at all鈥�

Well, I鈥檝e never yet met one who isn鈥檛. But, it doesn鈥檛 matter as my points are addressed much more generally. The two humanist groups in NI have been cumming in their pants ever since TGD was published.

Anyhow, onto your responses to my four observations:

1. We have no debate that humanists also prize love, compassion & tolerance. That wasn鈥檛 my point. My point was that humanist divide the world into rational and irrational in a similar way religious fundamentalists separate it into saved & heathen. I rarely meet a humanist who doesn鈥檛 at some point tell me I鈥檓 irrational, talking nonsense or spouting rubbish simply by virtue of seeing the world differently. It鈥檚 black and white thinking. For or against us stuff. I have no trouble saying things like 鈥淏rian McClinton is intelligent and rational, even though I think he鈥榮 wrong on many points.鈥� Humanists rarely do this. If you disagree with them they are all too quick to slap a 鈥淒eluded鈥� label onto you. Again - this is just an observation.

2. Yay! I got a 鈥渘onsense鈥� from you again. Is that 4 or 5 now? Who鈥檚 keeping score? I鈥檓 not trying to say TGD is scripture for humanists. I鈥檓 simply observing that it鈥檚 being treated with some kind of special authority. Of course, humanists will admit it isn鈥檛 perfect, but they seem to have serious problems with dissenters nonetheless. And handing it out to local politicians around the country? That smacks of missionary activity to me.

3. Yay! A 鈥渘onsense鈥� and now a 鈥渞ubbish!鈥� You鈥檙e on fire! Anyhow, I鈥檓 not saying Dawkins IS a demi-god to humanist. I鈥檓 saying he鈥檚 being treated as such - as a figure with special authority. My experience of debating with humanists online tells me that the best way to get a prickly reaction is to question him. Again, just an observation.

4 OK, on now to 鈥渞anting and raving鈥� - yeah, you could say that about some of my posts. Certainly, it鈥檚 part of the spirit of debate. But sometimes you get a very special sort of person who seems to live in a perpetual state of 鈥渞ant and rave鈥� - religious fundamentalists and humanists. Again - just an observation.

And such a delight - we get a double posting. A quick answer will suffice:

鈥淛ohn Wright indicated (58) that I didn't offer Stephen G a single argument from Dawkins's book that would convince him.鈥�

And he would be 100% correct - you didn鈥檛, haven鈥檛, and show no signs of being able to do so.

鈥淵et, if you look through the thread, you will see that I gave many arguments (19, 20, 31, 39, 48 etc), whether convincing or not.鈥�

鈥淣ot鈥� was the conclusion - largely due to considerations of 鈥渟traw man鈥� and 鈥渋rrelevance鈥� - a rather pitiful performance for atheist book of the decade.

鈥渘ot one of you has given a single argument, convincing or otherwise, FOR God's existence.鈥�

You鈥檙e right. I haven鈥檛. But, I have already said that I don鈥檛 think I could convince you of the case for theism. In fact, a long long time ago I asked you to tell what would count as a proof to you. You never answered. I also asked what conclusion we should draw if I offered you such a proof and you rejected it - again you never answered my question. I also said that the difference between Dawkins & you on the one hand and me on the other is that I have no interest in converting you to theism. I鈥檓 only asking for an argument from TGD because Dawkins says that was his intention and humanists seem to agree with him that I should be convinced (which is presumably why you offered a few - if rather hopeless - attempts). If Dawkins and his humanist groupies wish to lambast me for not being persuaded then I have a right to ask just what it is precisely that should persuade me. It is you lot - not me - doing the preaching. I鈥檓 just asking you why I should accept what you tell me I should.

Cheers,

SG

Hi Stephen,
I think you鈥檙e rambling more than ever.

1. My quote from Dawkins about fundamentalists was one of his arguments. So was his 鈥榩layground鈥� OA.

2. 鈥淗umanists prize love, compassion, tolerance etc but...divide the world into rational and irrational鈥�. This makes no sense to me (what about goodness and badness, bravery and cowardice, beauty and ugliness etc etc?).

3. You won鈥檛 give an argument for God鈥檚 existence even though you have spent a week or two arguing with me about it. Why bother, then? Why bother to quote Malcolm, Plantinga, Swinburne etc? Why even describe yourself as a theist at all?

4. You keep changing the goalposts and altering your statements so much that I am dizzy with confusion.

5. You make observations which are not necessarily true??? What are they, then? False observations? Anyway, you shouldn鈥檛 believe eveything you read online.

6. You accuse humanists of being sticklers for rationality, but keep tryng to fault my reasoning!! What is more 鈥榬ationalist鈥� obsessive than trying to prove or unprove god by a syllogism, for goodness sake! Presumably, we both agree that a wise life is a life inspired by kindly or affectionate feelings and guided by knowledge and reason. In other words, reason is important but it is a guide, not the be-all and end-all of life.

7. Dawkins鈥檚 TGD is, in my book, not an 鈥榓uthority鈥�, whatever that means, but it is a good book. OK? Humanists generally reject 鈥榓uthority鈥� and prefer to try to think for themselves.

8. You ought to know full well that there is no 鈥榩roof鈥� either for or against a God. It is a matter of probability.

In my view the Christian God is highly improbable. Reasons include:

(a) In the absence of evidence for god, we should presume that god does not exist.
(b) The traditional arguments (ontological, cosmological, teleological, experience etc) are all failures.
(c) God鈥檚 鈥榩erfection鈥� is refuted by the imperfect world he allegedly created.
(d) God鈥檚 鈥榠ntervention鈥� in the form of Jesus 13bn years after 鈥榗reation鈥� is incoherent (鈥楪od so loved the world鈥�).
(e) Creationism conflicts with the facts of evolution.
(f) Evolution by natural selection explains the wonders of nature without the need for a god. As Dawkins put it in 鈥楾he Blind Watchmaker鈥� (p6): 鈥淎lthough atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectally fulfilled atheist鈥�.
(g) Morality is autonomous and does not require a religious foundation.
(h) Holy books such as the Bible and the Koran are inaccurate, obsolete and morally dubious. At times, they read like Holy War manuals.
(h) The abundance of 鈥榚vil鈥� and suffering in the world refutes the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good god. Auschwitz, the Gulag, the slaughters in the Sudan, the Congo and Iraq, the tsunami, Iranian earthquakes, 9/11, are all testimony to the non-existence of such a being.
(i) There is no more reason for believing in one god than for believing in millions/billions of deities.
(j) Orthodox religions not only provide false answers to the basic questions but also they have done more harm than good.

I agree with the words of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: "Remember your humanity, and forget the rest",

Cheers,
Brian

Hello Stephen G,

During your lengthy debate with Brian on this thread, the 'new atheists' thread has gone almost into oblivion. On it,

/blogs/ni/2007/05/are_the_prophets_of_new_atheis.html

I made the point that Buntings claim of any measureable positive effect of prayer was likely to be utter rubbish. You said you had read something in support of what she stated. I've looked around a bit and found a study that claims to be the most comprehensive one on the subject of the effect of prayer on patients, involving almost 2000 patients in 6 different hospitals. No positive effect was observed.

While I have little sympathy for any religion (except Pastafarianism of course, all hail to His noodly appendages) I don't reject all religious peoples views with equal intensity. One thing I certainly have no patience for at all is when the religious crowd start claiming science on their side, 'research shows that....'. In all debates I've had with religious people about tangible evidence it has sofar always lead to finding lies, distortions, and fabrications at the source of their stories. So it's either people ignorantly parroting the nonsense of others or making up the nonsense themselves. Therefore I would like to (politely) repeat my request for you to come up with some reference for the statement that prayer has measureable effect. Something that shows an effect greater than a placebo, published in a peer-reviewed journal that is indexed in scientific data bases, having a broad statistical basis etc.

It would be the most extraordinary finding that I would be very interested in to learn more about.

Brian:

In order:

鈥�1. My quote from Dawkins about fundamentalists was one of his arguments. So was his 鈥榩layground鈥� OA.鈥�

Yes, and both were rejected as decent arguments that should persuade a theist to give up theism. The goat has been flogged long and hard on here - you鈥檝e lost this argument I鈥檓 afraid.

鈥�2. 鈥淗umanists prize love, compassion, tolerance etc but...divide the world into rational and irrational鈥�. This makes no sense to me (what about goodness and badness, bravery and cowardice, beauty and ugliness etc etc?). 鈥�

Well, religious fundamentalists could claim to be concerned about all these things too, but ultimately they divide the world according to saved and heathen. Humanists seem to do something similar - if you disagree with them and are theistic or religious you鈥檙e irrational and deluded.

鈥�3. You won鈥檛 give an argument for God鈥檚 existence even though you have spent a week or two arguing with me about it. Why bother, then? Why bother to quote Malcolm, Plantinga, Swinburne etc? Why even describe yourself as a theist at all?鈥�

I brought up most of those philosophers in the context of OA鈥檚 - just to show that Dawkins treatment is rather inadequate and that there are versions that your criticisms do not apply to. Secondly, this debate was not about giving arguments for the existence of God. It was about humanists playing the missionary and giving out TGD like Gideons giving out Bibles. I then wanted to know what of value could be found within its pages - what argument does Dawkins provide that should persuade me. That is the point of this thread. You have failed to address it. Lastly, I never said there are no grounds or arguments for my theism. I said I probably couldn鈥檛 convince you to become a theist. There鈥檚 a difference, and I would question the rationality of my theism hanging on your acceptance or rejection of the grounds of my belief. Of course, I would first need to know what sort of things would convince you - but you haven鈥檛 told me.

鈥�4. You keep changing the goalposts and altering your statements so much that I am dizzy with confusion.鈥�

HA! You fail to answer my questions either adequately or at all - you go off on tangents - you attack straw men - you try to change the subject - and YOU are accusing ME of changing the goalposts (and earlier in your post of 鈥渞ambling鈥�)?!?! Hey Pot, this is Kettle - You鈥檙e black! I have been fairly consistent throughout this debate - asking the same questions over and over again because the answers just aren鈥檛 terribly forthcoming and when they do arrive they鈥檙e a little askew.

鈥�5. You make observations which are not necessarily true??? What are they, then? False observations? Anyway, you shouldn鈥檛 believe everything you read online.鈥�

What is wrong with saying that my observations are not necessarily the whole truth? I鈥檓 simply pointing to the fact that my experience of humanists is not exhaustive. They鈥檙e only generalisations based on observations - which are always limited in scope. My observations are simply 鈥減rima facie鈥� - based on limited evidence and open to correction when more comes my way.

鈥�6. You accuse humanists of being sticklers for rationality, but keep tryng to fault my reasoning!!鈥�

Where did I accuse humanists of being sticklers for rationality?

鈥�7. Dawkins鈥檚 TGD is, in my book, not an 鈥榓uthority鈥�, whatever that means, but it is a good book. OK? Humanists generally reject 鈥榓uthority鈥� and prefer to try to think for themselves.鈥�

Yes, and that鈥檚 the party line. But, very often they come across as mini versions of their heroes.

鈥�8. You ought to know full well that there is no 鈥榩roof鈥� either for or against a God. It is a matter of probability.鈥�

I agree. There is no proof. Not as I understand the word 鈥減roof.鈥� There are very few 鈥減roofs鈥� for any significant philosophical conclusion.

I have little doubt that your rejection of the Christian God is rational. Of course, saying that doesn鈥檛 mean you鈥檙e right. From what I can gather you are relatively open-minded on the question and would be convinced if you deemed the evidence good enough. Of course, many other rational people think differently. For instance a Christian might respond to you thus:

鈥�(a) In the absence of evidence for god, we should presume that god does not exist.鈥�

The important phrase here is 鈥渋n the absence of evidence鈥� - of course many rational Christians think there is evidence. They may not persuade you, but what are we to say of them if they have weighed the evidence as carefully as they are able and have come to a sincere conclusion. They might well be believing in something false, but they could well be rational nonetheless.

鈥�(b) The traditional arguments (ontological, cosmological, teleological, experience etc) are all failures.鈥�

To many people they are not. This is a highly contentious area of philosophy and I think humanists often gloss over that fact as if this was as obvious as gravity or that the earth is 鈥榬ound.鈥� I see atheists and theists who to me are very rational but come to different conclusions. I have no problem with this. People see the world different for a whole host of reasons - many of them non-rational. I have no great desire to simply slap people with an 鈥渋rrational鈥� sticker or charge them with talking 鈥渘onsense鈥� or 鈥渞ubbish鈥� just because I disagree with them and see things differently. I don鈥檛 like to think in such black-and-white terms when it comes to contentious questions.

鈥�(c) God鈥檚 鈥榩erfection鈥� is refuted by the imperfect world he allegedly created.鈥�

This statement is basically an allusion to the problem of evil and, as with the above, is a highly contentious area of philosophy. You are entitled to your conclusion, but to my mind it isn鈥檛 as obvious as you seem to think.

鈥�(d) God鈥檚 鈥榠ntervention鈥� in the form of Jesus 13bn years after 鈥榗reation鈥� is incoherent (鈥楪od so loved the world鈥�).鈥�

I鈥檓 not sure what is incoherent about it - so I have nothing else to say about this.

鈥�(e) Creationism conflicts with the facts of evolution.鈥�

Well, certainly literal Genesis young earth creationism does. But, are all forms of creationism?

鈥�(f) Evolution by natural selection explains the wonders of nature without the need for a god.鈥�

Well, not completely. It doesn鈥檛 explain why or how life and the universe is here in the first place. And the debate is about how adequate the explanation is. This point is debated.

鈥�(g) Morality is autonomous and does not require a religious foundation.鈥�

It doesn鈥檛 require a religious foundation. What humanists need to do is to give an account of morality that works: That tells me and others what is right and wrong, how I know that it is right or wrong, and why I should give a damn. What is your basis for morality?

鈥�(h) Holy books such as the Bible and the Koran are inaccurate, obsolete and morally dubious. At times, they read like Holy War manuals.鈥�

True, but many religious traditions have interpretative frameworks that blunt much of this type of criticism. One of the problems with writers like Dawkins is that he doesn鈥檛 engage with the work of theologians - he just dismisses it all. That鈥檚 far from adequate I鈥檓 afraid - you won鈥檛 convince anyone but the converted with such an approach.

鈥�(h) The abundance of 鈥榚vil鈥� and suffering in the world refutes the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good god.鈥�

See reply to C above.

鈥�(i) There is no more reason for believing in one god than for believing in millions/billions of deities.鈥�

Again, contentious.

鈥�(j) Orthodox religions not only provide false answers to the basic questions but also they have done more harm than good.鈥�

This is an statement of empirical fact and you would need to substantiate it - and I鈥檓 not so sure you can do so with such a wide reaching sweeping statement. Now, you can ramble on about the crusades etc ad nauseum but that wouldn鈥檛 establish your conclusion that religions do more harm than good. In any event I鈥檓 not sure how 鈥渞eligions do more harm than good鈥� allows you to conclude 鈥渢he Christian God does not exist鈥� - after all this is supposed a list of reasons why you reject the Christian God.

My point is not to agree with those who would reply to you in this fashion, or something like it. It is simply to point out that the questions and answers are not as easy an obvious as humanists and atheists tend to think.

Pardon me for rambling, I guess I just like the sound of my own keyboard.

Stephen G.

Peter:

Thanks for your post.

I鈥檓 sure you will recall that I said in that previous thread that it wouldn鈥檛 matter if people who prayed and/or were prayed for by and large recovered or performed better than those who didn鈥檛 pray and weren鈥檛 prayed for. It might be an interesting fact but it wouldn鈥檛 prove theism or any specific brand of theism to be correct.

The work I read on the point was some time ago - while I was still at university - and all I can remember was that it was in the context of part of a course on the psychology of religion. I can鈥檛 remember the book and I鈥檓 too busy to go looking for it. Since I don鈥檛 hang much on the outcome of such research I鈥檓 sure you鈥檒l appreciate my not giving a terrible amount of time over to hunting through my old texts and beyond. I have no interest. Now, perhaps if you paid me to do your research, that's a different matter :)

Regards,

Stephen G.

Hi Stephen,

Dawkins鈥檚 book is, as you agree, a brilliant polemic. It is in the worthy tradition of Celsus, Erasmus, Swift, Paine, Orwell, Marcuse, Chomsky etc. We did not give it like a Gideon Bible but wrote to the MLAs and asked them if they would receive it as an acknowledgement of their commitment to diversity, nothing more, nothing less (they don鈥檛 have to agree with it or even accept it). But it might surprise you to learn that I personally might not have chosen it as the book presentation. I might have picked something like David Held鈥檚 鈥楳odels of Democracy鈥�, which advocates the cosmopolitan model which I think is the one best suited to the modern world and to the NI situation. It is that form of democracy which I think is closest to the humanist ideal. It starts from the assumption that all of humanity belongs to one moral community. Therefore it would seek to look beyond Orange and Green towards the common humanity of all Irish people. It seeks to develop democratic institutions on global and regional level levels as well as the nation-state level. This means accepting that there are certain universal values which all advanced societies should promote, as well as allowing for diversity of cultures and traditions.

Let us turn to my points against a monotheistic deity. (a) There is no evidence for a god. (b) The traditional arguments ARE all fallacious. (c) A perfect creator IS refuted by an imperfect 鈥榗reation鈥�. (d) God鈥檚 intervention after 13bn years of an imperfect universe, 4.5bn years after the formation of the earth, and 3.5bn years after life first appeared doesn鈥檛 make sense because (1) it implies that he took all this time to realise that something was wrong and that he had to do something about it and (2) it also implies that he only wanted his intervention to be known to people who lived in a small area of Palestine!

(e) Yes, you are right: I meant literal Genesis young earth creationism. I accept that the universe could have been created 13bn years ago, though certainly not by the Christian god. (f) The same point applies to evolution by natural selection.

(g) Dawkins gives a reasonable account of the origins of morality (see my 60 posting to John Wright relating to kinship and reciprocation). I would add that what Lecky called the expanding circle of morality has been an evolutionary process, whereby concern for the family expanded to the tribe, then to the nation, then to the world, and then finally to our concern for other living things and for the planet itself.

(h1: I mistakenly included two!). I agree that only fundamentalists take Holy Books literally or at least select what they want out of them literally. But how far does a Christian allow liberality of interpretation? Is it acceptable for you to agree, for example, that God is 鈥榯he sum of all our values鈥� (Don Cupitt)? Or that we should keep religion out of ethics (ex-Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway)?

(h2) Evil and suffering contradict the idea of a god who is both omnipotent and all-loving. Either he will not prevent these things and is therefore not all-loving or he cannot and is therefore not omnipotent. (i) Why is it contentious to argue that there is no more reason for believing in one god than in billions of gods? (j) The crusades were a long time ago. So was the Inquisition and the burning of heretics or anti-semitic pogroms or the 17th century religious wars. So I will move closer to the modern era and cite the Ulster Troubles which are partly religious and partly political in origin. Or 9/11: ditto. Dawkins cites the way in which fundamentalist religion subverts science, its homophobia, its educational segregation (NI again), its opposition to abortion and voluntary euthanasia. While it would be wrong to attribute all the world鈥檚 woes to the influence of orthodox religion, it should bear a large share of responsibility. And when religion and nationalism combine, as in Ireland or the former Yugoslavia, the mix can be lethal.

Cheers,
Brian

Brian:

It's interesting that you weren't so sure that TGD was the most fitting book to have used as a platform for lobbying for humanist values. To me Dawkins book was about bashing religion - and religious people - and it was a mistake for Humani to use it. In TGD Dawkins is guilty of many of things you or I would criticise of the extremes in NI politics and religion - particularly demonising those who disagree. It's ironic that Dawkins criticises religion and, by extension, religious people for demonising "the other" when he in fact does the very same thing. Demonising people, as Dawkins RIGHTLY points out, is the first step on the road to persecuting and oppressing them. Why then does Dawkins do it himself? I think Humani should have listened to you and chose a different book. A long time ago in this debate I cautioned the use of Dawkins as a spokesperson for humanism. I would repeat that again. Many Dawkinsian sentiments and expressions do not sit terribly comfortably with humanist notions of compassion and tolerance. I think you will alienate yourselves further with such a move. How many hearts and minds will you win by refering to people as "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads."? The other book you mentioned would have been much more appropriate and relevant to give to a politician.

This thread is about the promotion of humanism, and the use of TGD to that end. I think the course of this discussion has shown that the use of TGD was a tactical blunder - because, as we have seen, there isn't a convincing argument to be had there, and because it sends out the wrong messages to many of those you would need to convince or at least dialogue with. But, the cause of humanism doesn't rest with the success or failure of TGD (and would probably be futher advanced if humanists distanced themselves, at least publically, from it).

So, having flogged a number of goat to death in the past week or two, perhaps we can continue the discussion about humanism and it's plans and values - as you pointed out TGD was not the only item on the agenda. So, I'm not getting into many of your reasons against believing in the Christian, or any other, God. Most of your points when unpacked will take us down some fairly technical philosophical avenues. So, perhaps a bit of focus is in order. How about taking one of your objections to the Christian God - one most relevant to humanism - that of the basis for morality.

I think one of the most pressing issues humanists need to face is in giving an account of morality. You point out that Dawkins gives an account of the ORIGINS of morality. Indeed he does. What he doesn't do terribly well is address the more problematic issue of grounding morality in reason. To put it another way - Dawkins tells us WHY men 'behave morally.' He doesn't do a good enough job of telling us why we SHOULD behave morally - or even what it means to "behave morally."

My own approach to morality is not based on religion or God - and in fact might seem as if it flies in the face of typical religious morality. Many people, perhaps even many humanists, would think of morality in terms of altruism. I think this is greatly mistaken. My viewpoint is broadly "egoist" - to do with rational self-interest. In my mind morality doesn't amount to anything else. At first glance you may think that egoism is pure selfishness - a doctrine of doing whatever the hell one likes and screw everyone else. But that is a misuderstanding. Although egoism is about self-interest - it is about RATIONAL self-interest. A rational egoist understands that cooperating with others can often be the best way to benefit oneself, and that even self-sacrifice can be in one's rational self-interest: I would give my life to save my son because I couldn't live with myself if I let him die to save myself. However, co-operation and sacrifice are NOT inherently virtuous. For instance, if I had to choose to save the life of my son or the lives of every humanist in Northern Ireland I would choose my son - much to the disgust of the utilitarianians amongst us. Egoism recognises that to value anything requires a valuer - a person with a mind who actually does the valuing. There is no such thing as objective moral values (contrary to most other interpretations of ethics).

What account of morality would you as a humanist give? And how do you see Dawkins theory as upholding that? Interestingly, from what I can see Dawkins account of morality best fits that of the egoist: we act in our own self-interest and co-operate when doing so IS in our own self-interest. Would you agree with that assessment? Or do you think Dawkins outlook is best seen as upholding some other ethical system - utilitarianism, duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, etc? What do you mean by morality? How do I know what is "right and wrong"? Why should I care about what is right and wrong? These questions need to be given coherent and persuasive answers - especially if you seek to convince "society" of your views. Take two values humanists typically trumpet: compassion and tolerance. I would argue that these are NOT universally or inherently virtuous. Do you think they are? If so: why? When showing compassion and tolerance is not in my rational self-interest, why should I show anyone compassion or tolerance?

Hopefully this might lead us to a more fruitful discussion.

Cheers,

Stephen G.

Wow Stephen! Another stimulating reply, and one which makes the step of pitching Dawkins' morality AGAINST the humanists'!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

BRILLIANT!!! HAHAHA!

Joey - I think you need to give Mr McClinton a chance to reply. Although, it has been amusing watching Stephen G run rings around him for the past few weeks.

Pete

Hi Stephen,

Christian theists who believe in compassion and tolerance are on a very sticky wicket when lecturing humanists on a book platform for their cause, since their Bible is a bloodthirsty catalogue of slaughter and sacrifice 聽鈥� indeed an absence of compassion and intolerance. Would you not agree? I mean, if you were promoting these worthy values, would you do it with a book that ordered Moses to sacrifice his own son or Joshua to massacre the inhabitants of Jericho, Lachish, Ai, etc, so that 鈥榯here was no one left to breathe鈥�, or who orders the death of anyone found working on the sabbath? Hardly. Nor do I think that Jesus makes up for it. Ok, there is some tolerance and compassion there, but there are also a lot of polemical attacks on the Scribes and Pharisees: Matthew 2, example, where his Jewish co-religionists are assailed as hypocrites, blind guides and fools, whitewashed tombs, snakes, and murderers of the prophets. Would you take as a model of 鈥榗ompassion and tolerance鈥� someone who condemns to the damnation of hell, 鈥榳ith wailing and gnashing of teeth鈥�, anyone who doesn鈥檛 agree with him?!

As for TGD, the pen is mightier than the sword. As you agree, Dawkins has written a great polemic. It is in the tradition of great polemical writings, which include the New Testament, The Rights of Man the Communist Manifesto, One-dimensional Man, and so on. In Lisburn鈥檚 Waterstone鈥檚 there is a stand filled with the book. The hardback has been their non-fiction bestseller of the last year. Let me make it absolutely clear. I was proud to use this book as a platform. I see nothing wrong in a post- 9/11 world, in which Bush, Blair and Islamicists have been fighting bloody crusades, in bashing orthodox religion, myth and superstition. They certainly deserve it. The only reason I personally offered Models of Democracy as an alternative was that it was more politically educational and therefore in my view a more appropriate primer for our politicians.
You also have to learn that repeated statements of a belief don鈥檛 make them any more true. You say that 鈥渢he course of this discussion has shown that the use of TGD was a tactical blunder鈥�. Quite wrong. Our membership has shot up in recent months and the sales of our journal are at an all-time high. Dawkins has lots of good arguments which, if not original, are expressed with great verve and clarity. As the Sunday Times reviewer of the paperback put it last week, 鈥淎fter a reading of TGD, an omnipotent and omniscient deity seems about as likely a being as the Tooth Fairy鈥�.
Incidentally, I think you are assuming a completely mistaken notion of tolerance. If we take Voltaire鈥檚 alleged remark: 鈥淚 disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it鈥�, there are two aspects of this statement. The first is often forgotten in discussions of tolerance. It is quite wrong to equate tolerance with silence. It is a principled concept in which one actually DISAPPROVES of whatever one is tolerating. Thus to lambast religion is not to be intolerannt unless you advocate censoring or banning the religious opinion (action). Indeed, to be tolerant you have to express disapproval, otherwise it might appear that you were totally indifferent and didn鈥檛 care one way or the other! But of course theists don鈥檛 like non-believers criticising religion, so they label them 鈥榠ntolerant鈥�, thus completely abusing an important principle.

Turning to morality, you say that Dawkins 鈥榙oes not tell us why we SHOULD behave morally鈥�. Nevertheless, your adherence to 鈥榬ational self-interest鈥� could be regarded as similar to his analysis of kinship and reciprocation as twin pillars. The trouble with a phrase like 鈥榬ational self-interest鈥� is that, as Hobbes suggested, there are as many reasons as there are persons. Shakespeare鈥檚 villains all tend to act according to rational self-interest. Hume wrote that 鈥渢is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger鈥�.
So I would say that morality is not based upon reason but on compassion, kinship, reciprocation, kindly human nature, and so on but that reason can be used to direct and control those feelings and instincts. Thus we should act morally because it is good for us, for our families, for people anywhere, for the earth we inhabit and for future generations. It is, in Kantian terms, our duty to do so, but in consequentialist terms, it also makes sense because it will ensure a better and a happier world.
Reciprocity and empathy, I think, are particularly important. Kant鈥檚 categorical imperative is, as Nagel says, the Golden Rule with philosophical knobs on. He says: 鈥淭he basis for morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people (or animals) is good or bad not just from their point of view, but from a more general point of view, which every thinking person can understand. That means that each person has a reason to consider not only his own interests but the interests of others in deciding what to do鈥� (What does it all Mean?).
Reason means taking into consideration not only the rights of others but all our relevant desires and not just the desire that happens to be strongest at the moment. In short, it involves us thing about the consequences of our actions. As Bertrand Russell puts it: A man is rational in proportion as his intelligence informs and controls his desires鈥� Can Men be Rational).
So I would say that morality evolves just in the way that Lecky described in his idea of the expanding circle (History of European Morals) and that Dawkins鈥檚 analysis is therefore useful while not going far enough.

Cheers,
Brian

PS to Pete,
You wouldn't be biased now, would you?