Posted on 01/07/2006 10:26:53 PM PST by LibWhacker
Scientist compares Moses to Hitler, calls New Testament 'sado-masochistic doctrine'
Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler," calls religion a "virus" and faith-based education "child abuse" in a two-part series he wrote and appears in that begins airing on the UK's Channel 4, beginning tomorrow evening.
Entitled "Root of All Evil?," the series features the atheist Dawkins visiting Lourdes, France, Colorado Springs, Colo., the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and a British religious school, using each of the venues to argue religion subverts reason.
In "The God Delusion," the first film in the series, Dawkins targets Catholicism at the pilgrimage site in Lourdes. "If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics," he says.
Dawkins, using his visit to Colorado Springs' New Life Church, criticizes conservative U.S. evangelicals and warns his audience of the influence of "Christian fascism" and "an American Taliban."
The backdrop of the al-Aqsa mosque and an American-born Jew turned fundamentalist Muslim who tells Dawkins to prepare for the Islamic world empire – and who clashes with him after saying he hates atheists – rounds out the first program's case for the delusions of the faithful.
In part two, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins attacks the teaching of religion to children, calling it child abuse.
"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"
"Sectarian religious schools," Dawkins asserts, have been "deeply damaging" to generations of children.
Dawkins, who makes no effort to disguise his atheism and contempt for religion, focuses on the Bible, too.
"The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist," he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament "St Paul's nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin."
John Deighan, a spokesman for the Catholic Church, took issue with Dawkin's denunciation of religion, telling the Glasgow Sunday Herald, "Dawkins is well known for his vitriolic attacks on faith, and I think faith has withstood his attacks. He really is going beyond his abilities as a scientist when he starts to venture into the field of philosophy and theology. He is the guy with demonstrable problems."
Madeline Bunting, a columnist for the Guardian, who reviewed the series, wrote: "There's an aggrieved frustration that [atheist humanists] have been short-changed by history – we were supposed to be all atheist rationalists by now. Secularization was supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even more grating, what secularization there has been is accompanied by the growth of weird irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything."
Dawkins, perhaps best know for his much-cited comment that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist," appeals to John Lennon in a commentary he authored for the Belfast Telegraph on the eve of his program's premiere: "Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."
Another kook secular humanist on the loose.
Sure I can, and it's the same reason your toaster is an appliance, not furniture, the same reason a banana is a fruit, and not a vegetable, the same reason a Ford Mustang is a car and not a bus.
This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions.
Nonsense. The only way that even remotely makes sense is if your next sentence is to claim that our perceptions tell us nothing about actual reality. That sort of dorm-room solipsism may be fun to contemplate, but you'll have a devil of a time proving it.
I have found this to be true too. But it's not true in every case. For example look at the number of wars and cruel deaths that occurred in the 20th century, and the way that diseases have become a weapon of warfare. Look at how computers and the internet have become a worldwide source of sin, corruption and evil. It's also become a way for governments to 'watch' their citizens and trace their activities. I truly beieve that sin/evil has spread all over the earth in an unprecedented manner today.
You misunderstood. The point is simply that Social Darwinists and Nazi eugenicists, among others, draw their moral conclusions directly from the proposed mechanisms of evolution. If (as these do) one interprets evolutionary processes in terms of moral precepts (which is what Rand says objectivists are supposed to do), then that is relavant. You can take up the propriety of interpreting evolution in moral terms with the ones making the link. The problem, if one disagrees with their moral calculus, is to demonstrate that they're wrong.
I really think you'd better prove that statement, rather than simply asserting it.
Natural selection operates on the basis that, statistically speaking, the specimens that are most physically fit for a specific environment have a reproductive advantage. "Physical fitness" is observably very often manifested in terms that are best described in terms of "initiation of force" in one form or another. For example, male apes often kill the offspring of the "former" head male. The claim has been made (on this thread and elsewhere) that initiation of force is "evil," despite the fact that it is observably successful in nature. I presume you agree that nature is not "evil," so the problem is fairly obvious: how can something that's not "evil," become evil when applied to humans?
how does the assumption of a Creator lend itself to "objective" morality? You've simply set the problem back a bit
A fair question. I suppose the most obvious answer is that the Creator is the one who makes the rules, and we're the ones subject to them. To us, the rules are objective, much as we are subject to the rules imposed by, say, the creators of a software compiler.
- now we argue about which of us is "objectively" correct about the nature and desires of the presumed "Creator",
Also fair; however, at this point we've tacitly accepted the existence of the objective rules. This is different from a philosophy the logical implications of which are that there are no such rules. At that point, we can argue about things like "optimal results" from a non-utilitarian perspective.
and the inherently subjective interpretations of two thousand year old texts.
Perhaps subjective, but perhaps not. For example, the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit provides a direct, even if tenuous, bridge between Creator and created. Most Christians can point to times when they've experienced, what can only be described as, well... "non-subjective" interpretations, direct from the Source.
Given that there are - at least - tens of thousands of Christian sects and denominations alone, which one of them is "objectively" correct?
IMHO, all of them, and none of them: the denominations are all searching for truth about something that is bigger than they can understand. It's not possible for anybody to get it all correct. It's obvious that there are points of disagreement; the practical questions have to do with how one responds to those differences, and (as is currently at issue in my own denomination) how does one define the limits of what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" difference.
While I realize it's rather convenient to claim that atheistic moral systems suffer from the crippling handicap of subjectivity, the reality is that all moral systems have that in spades.
Probably correct; and for that reason we should all strive toward humility in our own moral claims. OTOH, that simply makes Ayn Rand a fraud: she claimed to have acorner on objective truth -- something she shared with the leaders of the French Revolution, Communist Russia and China, and perhaps even Mr. Dawkins himself, if this article is representative of his views. If history shows anything at all, it is that "avid moral certitude" of any stripe tends to have unpleasant results for those who defy it.
The Catholic Church, (through Pope Pius XII), has stated that the theory of evolution can be debated and researched, but that's all. Pius XII also stated that the theory of evolution tends to diminish the faith of Christians, and hence it should not be thought of in any other light other than a 'theory'.
In light of this and other writings by Pope Pius XII on this issue, I believe he wisely tried to avoid secular attacks on the Church through them resurrecting the tired old lies about Galileo and the Church's "anti-science" attitude. He believed that the theory of evolution would soon enough be proven false, and then let Darwin and his 'evolution' live forever in the dust bin of anti-Christian history.
For the record, Darwin's writings include his desire to prove the Bible wrong. He also wrote that unless the unbroken line of fossils can be found, his theory would never live on. This is why some have tried to make fake fossils, (like Piltdown man). It's why they jump on every thing that could possibly help their theory, before they follow it through with investigation. It's why when their precious Galapigos bird's beak grew in length for survival purposes they pointed to this as proof of evolution. But after some real scientific research they found that the beak returned back to normal size, hence it was merely the bird's innate ability to "adapt". They've lost their faith in the eternal God and placed it in Darwin, who rots in his grave.
bookmark
They're not here, so you'll have to do. In which case, I seem to remember someone posting on how we musn't blame the idea itself for the excesses of those who claim to be acting on its behalf. Sound familiar? ;)
Natural selection operates on the basis that, statistically speaking, the specimens that are most physically fit for a specific environment have a reproductive advantage.
And? How does "more fit" translate into "morally superior"? More importantly, how and why is that translation a necessary consequence of the theory itself?
The problem is that, like all scientific theories, evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive - it tells you how things will be, given some particular set of circumstances. Theories of gravity are much the same way. It does not, however, follow from those descriptive theories that it is somehow incumbent upon us to make those circumstances come about. We are not required to demonstrate our fealty to the laws of gravity by throwing things from high places. Nor would we give much credence to someone who came along and claimed that we should (or must) act in obedience to the laws of gravity by, say, throwing the elderly and infirm from bridges, because the idea is grossly stupid on its face - the conclusion does not follow.
And yet, there is a certain variety of creationist who is all to willing to accept the equally absurd when someone comes along and makes the exact same claim, but happens to substitute "evolution" for "gravity". "Ah, well, he's right about that, so evolution must be wrong." It does not follow, and no such conclusion can be rightfully claimed as honestly come by. So let's not.
Also fair; however, at this point we've tacitly accepted the existence of the objective rules. This is different from a philosophy the logical implications of which are that there are no such rules.
Really? What is the practical difference between a set of objective rules that wind up being unknowable, and no such set of rules existing at all? It makes us feel better at night, when it's dark and quiet? Heck, at least in the latter case, there'd be one less thing to fight about, insofar as we'd know that nobody has the inside track to God's right hand.
Most Christians can point to times when they've experienced, what can only be described as, well... "non-subjective" interpretations, direct from the Source.
You can certainly describe them as such, but that hardly makes it so. "Reason by revelation" is inherently self-contradictory - while we may, as humans, excel at rationalizing self-contradiction, I see no need to positively embrace it just yet ;)
It's not possible for anybody to get it all correct.
Ah, but is that opinion objectively correct? How do we know it's possible for anybody to get any of it correct?
If history shows anything at all, it is that "avid moral certitude" of any stripe tends to have unpleasant results for those who defy it.
Well, hell, I'll drink to that :^)
Not quite. I said that I will not blame a belief for the acts of somebody who violates its tenets.
But there's another side to this: what if you come upon a fellow who does "evil" things, in accordance with the tenets of his moral philosophy? This is where the idea of Social Darwinism, say, comes into the picture. Here we're faced with a philosophy that explicitly attempts to base human interactions on what we can observe of nature -- it's precisely what Ayn Rand says we should do. The problem before you is entirely different: you've got to tell us why it's not morally permissible to act according to what we can observe. See the difference?
And? How does "more fit" translate into "morally superior"? More importantly, how and why is that translation a necessary consequence of the theory itself?
Ah, yes -- the first and fundamental problem with objectivism, which is: how does one objectively define "good?" Still, I suppose the best approach to this would be to find a scientific definition. One such scientific definition -- which happens to be in accord with the way evolution proponents think things really happen -- would be that of natural selection. If we take the objectivist approach, drawing an equivalence between "natural selection" and "moral good" is obvious -- though it happens also to be rather noxious to our normal standards of good and evil.
The problem is that, like all scientific theories, evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive - it tells you how things will be, given some particular set of circumstances.
Weelllll, sort of.... Objective moral philosophies are supposed to be in accord with reality. I believe Dawkins makes this very point. If we accept this as true, and if we deny the existence of any supernatural or irrational basis for moral principles, it follows either that there is no such thing as morality, or that morality must have a scientific basis. It follows from the latter that any scientific description of "how things really are" must also have moral implications. Dawkins says evolution is "how things are," and if we are to formulate a rational moral philosophy, we must take that into account.
Nevertheless, you're basically taking the first of the paths I described above, which leaves you with the problem of how a morally neutral act (such as killing your rival's offspring, which confers obvious reproductive advantages) can possibly be considered evil if humans do it, but still be morally neutral otherwise. Can it be both, and still be objective?
And again: objectivists essentially claim that moral principles are like laws of nature, and that they're accessible to reason and observation. But again: what we can observe (e.g., in the processes of evolution), and the conclusions we must draw from those observations, are not compatible with what we would usually call moral behavior.
You can certainly describe them as such, but that hardly makes it so.
And your dismissal of same hardly makes it false.
"Reason by revelation" is inherently self-contradictory
"Knowledge by revelation" is not, however.
- while we may, as humans, excel at rationalizing self-contradiction, I see no need to positively embrace it just yet ;)
You might want to defer embracing smug dismissals, also. ;-)
"Kinda like Steven Pinker. :^)"
Smile, but he is a mere flesh being.
Well of course, Just mythoughts. But don't try telling that to Pinker. I imagine he may think he can get very far with the "Adonis look."
Considering that one child in four dies sacrificed to Moloch in this country maybe criticizing voodoo practitioners strikes one as a bit, well, disingenuous.
LOL, that song 'You're So Vain' just popped into my head.
I think you got just the right song, Just mythoughts! LOLOL!
Yes, and John Paul II stated that it's now "more than a hypothesis" and that there is a compelling amount of evidence that has been amassed in its favor. Science has progressed a lot since 1950.
"Pius XII also stated that the theory of evolution tends to diminish the faith of Christians,
Really? Where? Please provide a citation.
and hence it should not be thought of in any other light other than a 'theory'.
And that's precisely how it is taught.
[Pius XII] believed that the theory of evolution would soon enough be proven false, and then let Darwin and his 'evolution' live forever in the dust bin of anti-Christian history.
Really? Where did he say this? This is the first I've heard of it.
For the record, Darwin's writings include his desire to prove the Bible wrong.
Wow. I must have missed those writings. I didn't see it in either the Origin of Species or the Descent of Man. Please do tell me to which writings you are referring to.
And what do we make of someone who, contrary to all evidence, claims moral tenets for something that doesn't appear to have any? Not to be too much of a bastard about it all, but it appears to me that if you're a creationist, you agree with the fascists about the existence of said moral tenets, and it's left to the dirty atheists to try and hold the line somehow. And if that's the case, I have to say I'm somewhat underwhelmed by "objective" morality.
Social Darwinism is not the theory of evolution, any more than Christian socialism is Christianity - neither social Darwinism nor socialism are necessary consequences of the theory of evolution or the New Testament.
Here we're faced with a philosophy that explicitly attempts to base human interactions on what we can observe of nature -- it's precisely what Ayn Rand says we should do.
Who? Ayn Rand? And we care what she thinks because...?
The problem before you is entirely different: you've got to tell us why it's not morally permissible to act according to what we can observe.
I don't have to do any such thing - I merely point out that all the shortcomings you observe in other systems are, in fact, omnipresent, even within your preferred system. I propose no alternative - I simply acknowledge the shortcomings of yours, much as you do with others.
Still, I suppose the best approach to this would be to find a scientific definition. One such scientific definition -- which happens to be in accord with the way evolution proponents think things really happen -- would be that of natural selection.
Why should we accept that? What makes that more "objective" than defining "good" as "that which gives us the most physical pleasure"?
Personally, I'm not in much of a hurry to defend Objectivism as an ethical system, but if you are, be my guest ;)
Objective moral philosophies are supposed to be in accord with reality. I believe Dawkins makes this very point
I'm sure, but I dispute that it's wise, or even possible, to spin scientific theories into moral systems. I suspect I'll get more votes than Dawkins, if it comes right down to it.
If we accept this as true, and if we deny the existence of any supernatural or irrational basis for moral principles, it follows either that there is no such thing as morality, or that morality must have a scientific basis.
No, it really doesn't follow at all. If morality isn't handed to us on a silver platter, all that really follows is that we're responsible for rolling our own. If it amuses us to make a "scientific" morality - not really sure what that means, but whatever - so be it. If we choose to make a moral system exalting the desires of r9etb over all else, so be it. In any case, it's not an either/or thing - either God does it, or all we're left with is fecundity as a moral imperative.
You can certainly describe them as such, but that hardly makes it so.
And your dismissal of same hardly makes it false.
Indeed. And the really nice thing about that argument is that it works equally well for the existence or non-existence of lots of things. Santa Claus, for example. On the other hand, if you wish others to join you in affirming Santaism, you're probably going to have to lay some actual cards on the table eventually. And asking to see them, or a bit more than "the check is in the mail", is not entirely unreasonble, I think.
You might want to defer embracing smug dismissals, also.
"Smug"? Sure. "Dismissal"? Gotta give me something to dismiss first ;)
Well, I guess that's your problem, then -- except it's not, because you get to sponge off of those who believe that Judeo-Christian moral tenets are real and correct.
Not to be too much of a bastard about it all, but it appears to me that if you're a creationist, you agree with the fascists about the existence of said moral tenets, and it's left to the dirty atheists to try and hold the line somehow.
You'd only be a bastard about it if this statement was logically sound. But it's not.
And if that's the case, I have to say I'm somewhat underwhelmed by "objective" morality.
Fine -- then you have no legitimate complaints about anything at all.
Social Darwinism is not the theory of evolution, any more than Christian socialism is Christianity - neither social Darwinism nor socialism are necessary consequences of the theory of evolution or the New Testament.
The problem, however, is that something like Social Darwinism is as close to a "scientific" moral system as you're likely to get. The problem for those who disagree with it is to show why it's wrong, despite the fact that it's in accord with the scientific evidence. Those who take a more atheistic approach to life have a much harder time doing this. Of course, as Mr. Dawkins shows, he has no problem using the word "evil," but as Diamond pointed out earlier, the word has no meaning within Dawkins's worldview.
Who? Ayn Rand? And we care what she thinks because...?
Because she claimed to have arrived at an objective moral system. She was a fraud, of course, but the basic claim is still touted, even on this thread.
I propose no alternative - I simply acknowledge the shortcomings of yours, much as you do with others.
Fair enough.
Why should we accept that? What makes that more "objective" than defining "good" as "that which gives us the most physical pleasure"?
Again, I agree with you: it's the problem with objectivism (and that's the context in which the comment was made).
I'm sure, but I dispute that it's wise, or even possible, to spin scientific theories into moral systems. I suspect I'll get more votes than Dawkins, if it comes right down to it.
Which leaves an atheist in something of a muddle when it comes to the point of a) knowing right from wrong, and b) defending right and opposing wrong.
Unfortunately, I haven't time to respond to your full post. Maybe later....
Dawkins sounds like Christopher Hitchens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.