I comment on these matters as a public service. X-)

Yeah, portraying themselves as "persecuted" by some secular humanist position or other is a continually repeated rhetorical ploy among American evangelicals.

And they long enjoyed priveleged immunity from any pushback regarding their claims. One of the points of teh New Atheists was that religious propositions are not priveleged, and should be submitted to the same kind of scrutiny, open discussion, and challenge as any other propositions. So, of course, the evangelicals portray challenge as religious "persecution."

I have been trying to advocate a middle-path approach which is neither fundamentalist nor materialistic, apparently without success.

I bet most religious folks I know would be unacquainted with that, too. — Terrapin Station

Indeed.

What the believers in the pews actually reveal they believe is notoriously at odds with the theologians. One fascinating book about this is "Theological Incorrectness--Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn't" By "shouldn't" here, he means what is inconsistent with the formal theology and even doctrines of their faith

I find it interesting that some Christians adduce that bus ad as evidence of Dawkins' radicalism and hostility to religion. While Dawkins' view is much more hostile to religion than mine and I cringe at some of the things he says, that bus ad campaign stood out to me as an excellent example of restraint, moderation and positivity. I see it as one of the best and most nuanced things he's done in his religious campaigning - a good 'middle path'.

I have been trying to advocate a middle-path approach which is neither fundamentalist nor materialistic, apparently without success. — Wayfarer

Ah, a middle path.

As in "The New Atheists Are a Bloody Disaster" and "the decline in Americans' general critical thinking ability is partly because of New Atheist arguments" (which you misrepresent as alleging to "prove" God doesn't exist.)

Notice the quotation from Michael Ruse. He represents a perfectly satisfactory middle path as far as I'm concerned.

For the record, I find the New Atheist debates, with the possible exception of Sam Harris, quite off-putting, even obnoxious, discourteous, and disrespectful. But this refers to personality and rhetorical style, not substantive content.

Well what the dickens are we arguing about? Anyway, most of their books don't contain any 'substantive content', they are more school-yard atheists. I prefer the old school scientists who had the humility to recognise that science wasn't gospel.

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. — Max Planck

I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. — Albert Einstein

And that's definitely it from me for Colin's Omnibus Thread.

Except for this current article (31 Oct 2016) on how Richard Dawkins Misrepresents Science, according to British scientists.

Well, if the summation of human understanding is just bat-and-ball God or no God, then we may as well pack up and go home. That to me is so tedious and boring and not what I want. No philosophy, no questioning, no reflections, except on a convoluted belief system. No thanks.

It's also very important to understand that far more Americans believe in God, than in the literal account of evolution. And I think this is a real problem - it is one of the indicators of the general decline in general critical thinking ability. But that is at least partially because the evangelical atheists - and you can't deny they exist - use the arguments we are discussing here to 'prove' that God doesn't exist. — Wayfarer

That is quite a remarkable claim right there. (As well as a straw man, as Brainglitch noted, and which you have presumably conceded).

Are you seriously blaming dogmatic atheists - which is what I assume you meant by your oxymoronic term "evangelical atheists", whose existence can indeed be denied on that basis - for the fact that far more Americans believe in God than evolution?

No, I'm not blaming dogmatic atheists. But it is a fact that many Americans don't believe in evolution, and so arguing that 'science proves that God doesn't exist' is only going to be pouring fuel on the fire. Go back and read that citation I provided from Michael Ruse - he is an academic phillosopher and an articulate advocate for naturalism and against anything like intelligent design. It was Ruse who pointed it out.

The OP referenced both 'conviction on the basis of religious experience' and 'Richard Dawkins'. So how is that 'a straw man'?

Except for this current article (31 Oct 2016) on how Richard Dawkins Misrepresents Science, according to British scientists. — Wayfarer

That summary is very misleading. From the article (bolding mine):

"The Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study includes a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the United Kingdom, 1,581 randomly sampled scientists participated in the survey, and 137 of them also participated in in-depth interviews.
Although the researchers did not ask questions about Dawkins, 48 scientists mentioned him during in-depth interviews without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists believe that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements. This group included 23 nonreligious scientists and 15 religious scientists. Approximately 20 percent of scientists interviewed – 10 scientists all identifying as nonreligious – said that he plays an important role in asserting the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. One biologist surveyed said Dawkins has “quite an important place in society” in his criticism of creationism and intelligent design."

So, in other words, of 1,581 surveyed scientists (in the UK), 137 participated in in-depth interviews, 48 of whom mentioned Dawkins without prompting, 80% of whom held a negative view of him. So, of 1,581 surveyed UK scientists, <drum roll> a whopping 38 of them (15 of whom are religious themselves) badmouth Dawkins (for mostly spurious reasons, as judged by the article), and from this the authors of the study and the summary (and yourself) conclude that "Dawkins Misrepresents Science." Cherry-pick much?

No, I'm not blaming dogmatic atheists. — Wayfarer

So, you have changed your mind? If not, I find that odd, and would ask that you please explain that part of your quote where you appeared to do just that:

It's also very important to understand that far more Americans believe in God, than in the literal account of evolution. And I think this is a real problem - it is one of the indicators of the general decline in general critical thinking ability. But that is at least partially because the evangelical atheists - and you can't deny they exist - use the arguments we are discussing here to 'prove' that God doesn't exist. — Wayfarer

But it is a fact that many Americans don't believe in evolution, and so arguing that 'science proves that God doesn't exist' is only going to be pouring fuel on the fire. — Wayfarer

But remember that that is only relevant to the topic of Dawkins if he has actually made that argument. That claim has been disputed, and it seemed that after one failed attempt to show that that is representative of Dawkins' argument, you had given up.

And how can you square the above quote with your denial that you are blaming dogmatic atheists? (Blaming in part is still blaming, if that is your issue. Or perhaps it is that you are just blaming some dogmatic atheists, namely those who make the sort of argument you have described).

Go back and read that citation I provided from Michael Ruse - he is an academic phillosopher and an articulate advocate for naturalism. It was Ruse who pointed it out. — Wayfarer

It might be an interesting and worthwhile read, but you seem to have trouble with relevancy. You posted it in reply to a comment with which it seems to bear no relevance. The challenge was to show that you are not guilty of attacking a straw man, and I don't see how quoting a review will successfully meet that challenge. You should instead quote Dawkins.

The OP referenced both 'conviction on the basis of religious experience' and 'Richard Dawkins'. So how is that 'a straw man'? — Wayfarer

Talk about taking things out of context!

But it is a fact that many Americans don't believe in evolution, and so arguing that 'science proves that God doesn't exist' is only going to be pouring fuel on the fire. — Wayfarer

But this is what Dawkins believes. What should he do: lie in order not to scare the rubes away? He's a scientist (or at least a science writer), not a politician. (By the way, you continually misrepresent Dawkins's view by saying he believes that science "proves" that God doesn't exist: for someone who's seemingly obsessed with his misrepresenting the notion of God and religious practice, you're notably sloppy in summarizing his positions.)

No, what Dawkins should do, is realise that whether God exists or not, is not a matter for science. It's really very simple.

Talk about taking things out of context! — Sapientia

I am not saying 'dogmatic atheists are responsible for the non-acceptance of evolution by many Americans'. But I am saying, the Dawkins/Dennett/Coyne style of argument contributes to that, by making false claims that the empirical evidence proves the case one way or the other.

The only thing that the fossil evidence proves is that biblical creationism can't be true. But if you've never believed biblical creationism to be true, then the fact that it's not true has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

"People believe what you want, so long as you're not doing XYZ harm," let alone advocate the respect and prominence that people like Wayfarer want to give to religious belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But they think that religious belief does cause harm (Hitchens rather stridently thought that "religion poisoned everything").

As for "respecting" religious beliefs, please spare me this baloney. Beliefs are not deserving of "respect" (assuming that they're even the sort of thing which can be "respected"). Beliefs are either believed for good reasons or for bad reasons, and every belief put forward in the public square is fair game for critique in an open society, religious beliefs included. Anyone who doesn't like that should go find a nice theocracy to move to.

No, what Dawkins should do, is realise that whether God exists or not, is not a matter for science. It's really very simple. — Wayfarer

I read that as: my preferred notion of God is one in which science has no say!

Are you saying that science can or cannot prove whether a divine intelligence exists? Do you think if you pointed the Hubble Telescope in the right direction, you might find it? What would constitute 'evidence' in such a case? What, in fact, is at issue?

There is so much confusion and prejudice at work here, it's not worth having the argument. But please do note, I have supported all of my assertions, arguments, and positions, with references to reviews, other philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, and with reference to the issues as they have been aired in the last ten years or so. So I can't be bothered playing whack-a-mole with anti-religion arguments, but please don't take that as any kind of concession. Instead, do some more reading.

Are you saying that science can or cannot prove whether a divine intelligence exists? Do you think if you pointed the Hubble Telescope in the right direction, you might find it? What would constitute 'evidence' in such a case? What, in fact, is at issue? — Wayfarer

Well, as I have said before, the devil is in the details. It will depend, will it not, on the particular conception of God or divine intelligence that is being considered? And, reading between the lines, you think that this should be your preferred conception to the exclusion of others.

Wayfarer, I am with you all the way on this topic. I left a philosophy forum on fb because I grew very tired of the convoluted one-way streets of many of the posts. The simplistic dogmas got so tedious. I got off fb altogether at the same time.

"Talk about taking things out of context!"
— Sapientia

I am not saying 'dogmatic atheists are responsible for the non-acceptance of evolution by many Americans'. But I am saying, the Dawkins/Dennett/Coyne style of argument contributes to that, by making false claims that the empirical evidence proves the case one way or the other. — Wayfarer

You know, when you don't quote comments via the more convenient 'highlight and quote button' method, the person you're quoting won't automatically be notified of your reply, and it is therefore more likely for that person to be unaware that you have replied, and means that they have to manually keep track of your activity in order to check for replies from you.

Anyway, I guess "style" is the key word in the quote above which allows you to evade a charge of attacking a straw man. Well played.

The question is, can you show that this is a contributing factor, or is it just your opinion? In any case, it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me, but I do question the significance of the extent to which this effects nonacceptance of evolution by Americans.

The only thing that the fossil evidence proves is that biblical creationism can't be true. But if you've never believed biblical creationism to be true, then the fact that it's not true has no bearing on whether God exists or not. — Wayfarer

I think that it proves more than that, but thinking in terms of proof might be to miss the point - whether it be these unnamed atheists who allegedly make arguments in the style of others and which haven't been presented here, or ID proponents, or people like Colin who claim to have experienced God, or self-identified agnostics who arrogantly think of themselves as free from the follies of both sides, or whoever.

Wayfarer, I am with you all the way on this topic. I left a philosophy forum on fb because I grew very tired of the convoluted one way streets of many of the posts..the simplistic dogma's got so tedious..I got off fb altogether at the same time.. — David J

Well, if you plan on posting here, please: one full stop is sufficient. I don't want to keep editing your posts.

Sapientia, it is my usual way of writing: something I do naturally now, however I try and curtail it for this forum.

Wayfarer, it is interesting how deconstruction is a very useful tool at times.

I am not saying 'dogmatic atheists are responsible for the non-acceptance of evolution by many Americans'. But I am saying, the Dawkins/Dennett/Coyne style of argument contributes to that, by making false claims that the empirical evidence proves the case one way or the other. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that the empirical evidence (fom biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, geology, climate science, oceanography, radioactive dating, paleontology, anthropology, molecular biology, etc.) is insufficient to warrant subscription to the theory of evolution as the best explanation of species, or are you saying that they do not "prove" evolution in some absolutist sense?

The only thing that the fossil evidence proves is that biblical creationism can't be true. But if you've never believed biblical creationism to be true, then the fact that it's not true has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

But, as I've already noted, one of Dawkins' primary targets is Biblical creationism. His book is titled "The Blind Watchmaker," remember? Realize that the context in the U.S. is one in which creationists have repeatedly attempted to get creation taught in the public school as a scientifically legitimate alternative to evolution.

The recalcitrance of evangelicals to accept evolution is transparently because they don't like what it entails about their literalistic reading of the Bible, especially the Book of Genesis. The existence of all the world's species, in their worldview, is evidence for the existence of the biblical Creator. So, if, as evolution demonstrates, no creator is required, then they have much less evidence for their religious beliefs, and must either reject the science, or reject or significantly reinterpret what their Bible says. Ultimately, they surely will eventually morph into reinterpreting Genesis less literally, and redefine the Creator as one who intervenes and directs evolution--as, in, fact, some have already done.

Good to hear that you're feeling well, colin.

The expressed certainty ought to warrant some caution and some attempt to minimize bias, though; especially since what you claim implicitly applies equally to everyone (and more or less literally everything, for that matter).

Recall, purely phenomenological experiences are part of the experiencer, not something else. That's also the reason there's no such thing as telepathy, and why these "special" experiences are private.

if anything significant differentiates perception and hallucination, then it must be the perceived — Searle (paraphrased)

Personal revelations are notoriously incompatible and incoherent, yet sometimes engender making quite extraordinary (or universal) claims. Say, if someone claimed they were abducted by aliens, would you then take their word for it (you might think they were lying or being honest about their belief alike)?

We already know that some kinds of experiences can be induced by a variety of simple means. We also know that mere inwards self-examination has inherent limits. We're hardly perfect perception-organisms (and cats jump at shadows).

I suppose relevant questions might include if these experiences directly influence your decision-making and social interaction? And why you think there's a personified (extra-self) being of sorts involved? How did these experiences inform you, and of what...? (Have you honestly given other options a chance? Compared them with your current thinking? Perhaps spoken with various other people?)

I'm happy for you Colin, if you're still reading the thread, although that might not be a good idea. Or perhaps actually it affirms your new discovery. I've been there I know how good it feels.