“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” — unenlightened

Yes, I am aware of that view. How does it follow that Dawkins (or scientists generally) believes that persons are nothing but the expression of genes?

I can't see how the whole question of what is or isn't art has anything to do with this thread, however, one criterion might be that an artistic work serves no other purpose than to satisfy an aesthetic, whereas a piece of trade-craft, such as plumbing or whatever, has a utilitarian purpose. — Wayfarer

I am inclined to agree. However, the non-utilitarian criterion would rule out, for instance, architecture as art (at least as it pertains to the overall design of a building; presumably certain architectural elements could still be considered art, provided they were non-utilitarian in nature).

What, do you mean to say that the optimal portrait (for purposes of identification, at least), would not be the one that represents the features of the subject most accurately; or in other words the most accurate portrait? If all you mean to say is that it is possible, in different contexts to make different distinctions between optimality and accuracy, well then, yes of course. In fact that is just what I have been arguing: that it is in fact also possible to make distinctions between different kinds of accuracy, as well as different kinds of art, and, for that matter, different kinds of knowledge, all of which is apparently contrary to your own much more simplistic view. — John

I'm not sure how my view is simplistic. My worldview distinguishes between "art" and "non-art." Yours claims that virtually everything is art, and is thus more parsimonious and thus simpler.

Recognizable by whom? That seems like a very loose subjective definition of accuracy.

Recognizable by those who know what the object of reference looks like.

I'm not playing games, as much as you might like to think I am merely on account of my questioning your very questionable definitions.

If you claim not to know what it means for a portrait or painting to resemble its subject, then yes, you are playing games.

It seems to me you are the one playing games, resorting to sarcasm instead of answering the questions that present difficulties for your narrow, "black and white" view of things. I'm not going to decide your arguments are intelligent just on the strength of your trying to make them sound intelligent, you will actually have to deal with the difficulties that are proposed by your interlocutors to be entailed by your standpoint, if you want to achieve any such accolade.

Again, you ask for concrete examples, and then complained that they were mundane. I never said that my definitions were not mundane.

I have no "black and white" view between art and non-art, as I offered no definition to that end, as any single definition which seeks to encompass something as ancient, variegated, and multifarious as "art" is doomed to inadequacy. I have merely denied that creativity is a sufficient condition for an activity qualifying as "art" (I believe that it is a necessary condition).

To think that art is not a knowledge generating endeavor is simply ridiculous beyond words. Instead of facing the reality of this mistake, and moving toward apprehending the true nature of art, and the role which it plays in human existence, you attempt to define "art" off into a corner somewhere where it becomes an irrelevant sideshow. — Metaphysician Undercover

Argument by assertion. You claimed that plumbers were artists, and that this view was generally accepted (which is entailed by the dictionary definition of "art" which you claim is the generally accepted one). To me, that says we are not even living in the same world, and thus there can be no hope of rational discourse here.

Well If one is going to attack the notion of a personal god, it is reasonable to ask what a person is. Now if it turns out that a person is nothing but an expression of genes, a mechanism, then the the idea of a personal god is ridiculous; a mechanical god is simply of no interest. One needs some idea of a person being an end in itself, or a locus of freedom, or a seat of consciousness, or some other rather unscientific term, or so it seems to me, so I am asking science what is a person. I don't think there is an answer, and if there is no answer, then science has nothing to say about a personal god, because it does not know whereof it speaks. — unenlightened

I've already answered: a personal God is a being with mental states, desires, intentions, and one is capable of hearing intercessory prayers and interacting with this world, including sending his son to die for the sins of mankind. How does any of this not qualify for personhood? And why must we ask science? The notion of personhood falls as much under the ambit of philosophy as science. Is science now hermetically sealed off from philosophical concepts? Because that's no science which I recognize.

In any event, you may want to ask the philosophers and theologians who believe God to be a person. If theologians can assert personhood for God, then atheists can attack it.

As for the notion of persons being "nothing but an expression of genes," I don't know where you are getting that from (or if you are just spitballing as to how you believe a scientist might define personhood).

Yes as far as I know, it's well accepted that these trades people are artists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense.

Yes, I've worked with plumbers in the past, they take pride in their work, and I believe they often consider their work to be art. I think it is common throughout the trades, to refer to one's work as art, it signifies that you take pride in what you do. Finish carpenters especially think of themselves as artists. I worked in foundations for some time, and we'd sometimes refer to our various constructs as "a work of art". In this context, we'd be emphasizing the aesthetic value of the work.

Is this the specialized form of creativity which would constitute your understanding of "art"? Things created for aesthetic, rather than pragmatic purposes would constitute art? — Metaphysician Undercover

You appealed to the "general acceptance" of the dictionary definition, which I had contested. I didn't ask whether plumbers are proud of their work: I asked whether it is likewise generally accepted that the work of plumbers constitutes "art".

I think the answers to those questions should be obvious to you. What delineates an artistic human activity from a non-artistic activity is creativity. And of course, the creative plumber who devises a new solution to an old problem, is artistic. I gave you the dictionary definition, and whether you like referring to such definitions or not, the dictionary generally indicates accepted usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you believe that it is generally accepted that plumbers qua plumbers are artists when they exercise creativity?

In music the optimum note, in painting the optimum tone and colour, in poetry the optimum word. We've already been over this. — John

You do realize that there's a difference between "optimality" and "accuracy", correct?

All but the first are the kinds of "prosaic, mundane or everyday" examples I already referred to, and which are simply matters of conventional usage, and thus uninteresting. Also, the latter two examples are more aptly thought of as being either correct or incorrect statements rather than as more or less accurate, as there is no obvious possibility of degree of accuracy in them; and degree seems to be intrinsic to the notion of accuracy, just as it is with perfection.

You asked for concrete examples, and I gave them. I'm sorry they weren't sufficiently exciting or avant-garde for you, but conventional usage tends to be mundane.

As to your first example; just what does "adequately resemble" consist in? I sense a looming circularity of reasoning...

Come now, let us not play games. A portrait adequately resembles its subject when it is recognizable as such. You know what a portrait which resembles its subject looks like.

Plantinga is a highly-respected Christian philosopher, but he is a 'confessional' Christian, i.e. his philosophy assumes that you have accepted the tenets of the faith. — Wayfarer

In other words you keep moving the goalposts. Creationists aren't "real Christians," Plantinga isn't the right sort of Christian, etc. Sounds like No True Scotsman to me.

I have bent over backwards, written essay, to explain it. — Wayfarer

You have written an essay to explain it for my benefit? I must have missed that. Could you point it out to me?

I have a degree in comparative religion, and have worked as a teacher in Buddhist Studies. I think the problem is at your end. You see, 'belief' is not simply a matter of reciting the dogma - it is being open to the idea that there might actually be something to be understood.

I am open to it. I even proposed some candidate explanations which got no traction or substantive feedback. If you're not even going to meet me halfway, then you're the one who's not trying.

What is a person, according to Dawkins et al? Do they believe in a personal person? I find myself struggling to defend the notion of personhood at all at times. — unenlightened

Why ask Dawkins? You can ask some Christian philosophers, starting with Alvin Plantinga who I quoted earlier in this thread (he is not the "right" sort of philosopher, however).

God is apparently a being with intentions, desires, mental states (love, anger, likes, and dislikes), who was even literally embodied as a human being for a time (spoiler alert: didn't work out so hot for the fleshy part of him), and is capable of hearing (and occasionally answering - when he's not otherwise occupied with planning for the Rapture and such) intercessory prayers. Sounds like a person to me. You are probably also aware, though, that Jesus (who is God, but not God, if you get me) was "fully divine" and "fully human" (much in the way that contradictions of any sort can be true - don't believe me? - you must be scientistic).

Much hinges on this: whether this conception of personhood renders it permissible to abort God, for instance. I myself think that God wasn't really a person until 8,359 BC, and thus was able to be aborted up to that date. This matter was decided when Kentucky's statute forbidding aborting God was sent to a U.S. Court of Appeals. Make sense now?

As I explained, my original motivation for joining Internet forums was a response to 'new atheism'; and every philosophical discussion I've had with you have been along the lines of 'atheism vs spiritual belief'. — Wayfarer

Yes, I recall you saying that. That right there is worrisome, as your entire motivation for joining is tainted by a negative goal, defining yourself by what you're ideologically opposed to. Not a great start, I should say, but really neither here nor there with regard to the substance of your posts.

The quotation you were commenting on was my response to John talking about 'literal belief in a Sky Father figure', and I think it made the point very well.

Then you referenced Plantinga to establish what your view of 'normative Christian belief' amounts to. But the reason you did that, is to demonstrate that Christian faith as you portray it, is baseless - in other words, to set up the argument so as to be amenable to atheist polemics. So you insist that religious ideas must interpreted in a certain way, purely because that enables you to line up your new-atheist BB gun and take shots at it - which is what I said were 'clay pidgeons'. Then you complain about my pointing that out, and I had the good grace to apologise for it.

During this thread, I have composed several very long posts, which explain why I have the view towards the matters that I do, and trying to point out how it varies from the caricature of religion that you have arrived at. In doing so, I have made a lot of points which either have sailed over your head, or you have chosen to ignore (mostly the former, I'm sure). So before you fire off another shot, go back and review what I've actually said, because the only parts you ever notice are what fits into your procrustean bed. (Or not. I really don't care.)

Well, I admit that the phrase "ground of all being" sails over my head, yes. You remain unable or unwilling to explain it (beyond producing quotes which contain it), so I wonder whether you understand it yourself.

As for your other claims, I will simply flip the script on you: you ignore the fact that most Christians believe in a personal God in order to insulate Christianity (and religious belief generally) from Dawkins et al's attack.

Right, so your sole motivation in this thread has basically been to bait those interested in such matters with reference to your new atheist hobby horse. I think I'll stop playing along now, I've wasted far too much time talking to you. — Wayfarer

Wow, that is a colossal non-sequitur, and once again needlessly impugns my motives by insinuating that I've been posting in bad faith. Whom have I "baited"? I daresay that you baited me, with your usual Dawkins-obsessed ranting over the New Atheists (you do realize that you are likely responsible for the vast majority of Dawkins references on the forum?).

I notice that none of what you've said on this thread pertains to the video that is about. Can I presume you've already discounted what's likely to be in it, as it is by a minister of religion? — Wayfarer

Nice try, but we're not going all the way back to the video. I didn't watch the video, but nor did I comment on it, much less condemn it.

As I said all human activities are both art and craft. — John

Then art describes anything and everything humans do, there can be no distinction between art and non-art, which makes the term useless.

As I already explained, "accuracy" in the case of the arts consists in 'hitting the mark'. — John

What's the "mark"?

Perhaps you could provide some concrete examples that show the way you want to use the term. "A statement or representation's degree of conformity to its object of reference" seems impossibly vague except in the most prosaic, mundane or everyday contexts.

A painting or drawing of the Statue of Liberty which adequately resembles the Statue of Liberty is an "accurate" representation of that object. Saying that J.S. Mill was a utilitarian is an "accurate" description of his position on ethics. Saying that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theater is an "accurate" statement about history.

This is really quite petty. — Metaphysician Undercover

If pointing out obvious differences between radically different spheres of human activity is "petty," then I'm guilty as charged.

"Art" is a very general term. Yes, the aim of art is to create, but there is no limit to the number of different things which artists aim to create. If some artists aim to create explanations, how is that creative act, as a creative act, essentially different from the creative act which aims to produce a building, a bridge, a computer, a car, a movie, a piece of music, or a painting? These are all acts of human creativity, artistry.

Then, again, virtually any human activity whatsoever which requires even the slightest creative aspect would qualify as "art." Creativity may be a necessary condition of something's being "art" or "artistic," but it doesn't follow that it's a sufficient condition.

What, in your opinion, delineates artistic human activities from non-artistic ones? As I asked above, if a plumber devises a creative solution to stem a leaky pipe, has he thereby created art?

In agreement with John, I think you have a poor understanding of the act of composing music. There is an idea within the composer's mind, and the composer must reproduce that idea in musical notes. The effort is in producing the required musical notes, memorizing it, and building on it. The writing down is an aid to memorizing the parts. Sure, one could compose a piece of music, simply by writing it, according to a mathematical formula or something, but this would be a lifeless piece of music. The real act of composing is to bring an idea from the mind into the realm of musical tones.

I think you have a poor ability to read, as I at least twice acknowledged that artists strive for "accuracy" in trying to realize their mental vision of a piece when they actualize it in the creative process (though even this is not a hard-and-fast rule, as it does not allow for spontaneous changes to a piece which the artist hadn't originally conceived of). If that is all that is meant by "accuracy," with regard to the arts, I'm on board. But you and John seem to adhere to some stronger notion of the term.

The basic tenets and main arguments of the 'new atheists' can be adequately communicated in a couple of paragraphs. If the premises are fatally flawed, then dealing with all of the elaborations is not necessary. — Wayfarer

Well, there you go. Perhaps Dawkins could likewise claim that the "tenets and main arguments of the classical theists can be adequately communicated in a couple of paragraphs," thus absolving him of his failure to read all of that wonderful theology he's supposedly ignored? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Of course, the problem is you presume their arguments are fatally flawed, but you don't read the source material you criticize, or even favorable reviews, it seems (as those are under the spell of the "new atheists", and thus not worth paying attention to), so you know little to nothing of the reasoning underlying the authors' conclusions.

You have virtually obsessed over The God Delusion, and yet you haven't read it. You have criticized Faith vs. Fact without having read it, dismissively referring to it as an "atheist polemic." You know virtually nothing about Coyne (erroneously saying that he has a "terrible reputation"), and are seemingly ignorant of what his book contains, beyond the fact that he's mean to religion and believes it to be incompatible with science. You seem to understand almost nothing about The God Delusion, as your statements regarding what the book is even about are erroneous, and you attribute things to Dawkins which he not only doesn't say, but which he unambiguously denies in that book.

Your mindset is both an instantiation of the close-mindedness which you'd ascribed to me, as well as a perfect illustration of the aphorism that people learn nothing from books which they don't already know.

Borrowed it when it came out. Read the first three chapters, skimmed the remainder, read many reviews...

I don't need to read Das Kapital to have a view on Marxism. Jerry Coyne's reputation is terrible, outside anyone who isn't part of the new atheist scene. I could provide hundreds of quotes but I don't want to bore you... — Wayfarer

I see. So, in other words, you haven't even read the Book of British Birds.

Insofar as science is creative, it is an art. Of course all creative endeavors are examples of artistry; does that mean they are artistic in nature? I would say so, even if to say so seems to be somewhat out of keeping with common parlance. The aims and goals of architecture and music are completely different, and yet they are both arts. Science is partly art and partly craft as all the various arts also are. Of course I am not arguing that science is "normally" considered to be an art, but to the extent that it is not an art then it must be a craft, which is to say a discipline, and it is most certainly not unique in that. — John

All I can say is, if science qualifies as "art", then virtually any human endeavor so qualifies. A plumber who devises a creative solution to stem a leak has thereby become an artist. Perhaps we should display his work in a modern art museum (it would have the added benefit of constituting a natural experiment as to whether anyone could tell the difference).

It seems that you don't understand musical composition very well. There is certainly a critical kind of accuracy in choosing the best possible note at every point in a musical composition, just as there is in choosing the words that make up a poem or the tones and colours in a painting. It is like the accuracy of the archer hitting his mark perfectly. If you don't understand that it just shows your lack of experience. — John

If my understanding is lacking, perhaps it's because my interlocutors' position has not been explained very well. Of course a composer strives to choose "the best possible note," just as a painter strives to choose the best possible combination of colors (which is no doubt part of the reason the great artists go through draft after draft of their work, rather than just tossing something onto a page or a canvas and calling it a day).

But, how is this a matter of "accuracy"? In my mind, "accuracy" denotes a statement or representation's degree of conformity to its object of reference. As I said above, an artist will attempt to realize his mental vision or concept of a piece in trying to execute it, so, in this trivial sense artistic works strive for "accuracy," but I don't see that "accuracy" is a desideratum of art in general. I remain to be convinced, however.

Any time that human beings use art, there is always a concern about accuracy. And this is primarily accuracy in relation to pure objective fact. When the musician wants a harmony, that harmony must be as pure as possible. Tuning is critical, and a slight difference in frequency is repugnant to the trained ear. The same is the case in mixing paints, the artist wants to be able to precisely replicate the colour which was produced before and is now desired. This is no different from the art involved in the sciences. The scientist wants accuracy in relation to the pure objective facts. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm talking about "using" art: i'm talking about creating art. Beethoven didn't have to worry about producing or replicating a particular note: he worried about writing it. There is no issue of accuracy there, hence the difference between a composer and a musician.

Here's our difference of opinion right here. My dictionary defines "art" as "human creative skill or its application", and that's how I generally use it. If we maintain this definition, your claim that "it doesn't follow that all creative endeavors are artistic in nature" is false by contradiction to the definition. All human creative endeavors are artistic, by definition. So it appears to me like you are trying to produce a highly restrictive, and contrived definition of "art", to support a claimed separation between science and art. But the fact is that science uses art as much as any other human endeavor, and where it uses art is in its approach to the unknown, conjecturing hypotheses, devising empirical test, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know that my definition of art is overly restrictive: in fact I offered no such definition (nor do I plan to, as such a quest can only be doomed to failure). Philosophy by dictionary definition is generally not advisable (nor am I bound to accept the dictates of a dictionary if I believe the definition is at odds with a term's general usage; dictionaries are authoritative sources, to be sure, but no authority is infallible).

I think you're missing the point in saying science is a "creative endeavor." The aim of art is to create. However, the aim of science is to explain. The fact that science involves some degree of creativity does not mean that it's art. Engineers, for instance, use quite a bit of creativity in their jobs in finding solutions to problems under the constraints of time, materials, and budget, but it doesn't follow that engineering is art.

I don't need to read atheist polemics not to trust faith healers and those who reject blood transfusions. — Wayfarer

I see. So you will happily quote scathing reviews of a book when said reviews comport with your views on religion and the "New Atheists," but you decline to read the actual book before opining on it? That sounds a bit, dare I say...close-minded. Coyne touches on a number of other issues, including demolishing Gould's "NOMA" arguments. Might be worth checking out, since you are so interested in this sort of thing.

Just curious: you have read The God Delusion, right?

Capital T Truth denotes something like a 'vision of the whole' or at any rate a visionary state or encounter or epiphany. It has a vaguely religious connotation now, but in days of yore was also spoken of in suitably hushed tones by men of science.

Well, we're no longer in days of yore, and every encounter I've seem to have had with the word "Truth" has come from a religious person (probably generally of the evangelical Christian variety). Once again, I'd ask who is the arrogant party here? Atheists and scientific rationalists must at least honestly admit that they are ignorant of some of the greatest mysteries of the universe: but it is religionists who have ready answers to these questions.

But it's also clear that he and you are generally positivist in your orientation, 'positivism' being 'a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism'.

Well, logical positivism is itself more or less moribund, wouldn't you say? As for metaphysics (which no doubt at least overlaps with theism), I am at a loss as to what a "verification" of a metaphysical thesis might look like. It seems the most that metaphysicians can do is try to find contradictions in opposing theses while trying to tighten up their own. The fact that debates over the veracity of universals, say, have raged for millennia in some cases does not make me optimistic that metaphysical debates are ever resolved in a timely and definitive matter, if they get resolved at all (through rational means: one can of course forcibly silence one's opponents, or ban their views, etc).

Biblical creationism rejects Darwinian evolution holus bolus. But why I find fault with evolutionary materialism is because of the insistence that evolution 'proves' anything about God. It doesn't prove anything of the kind. Certainly it proves that the Earth wasn't created in 6006 bc. But if you're in a culture where Biblical faith fundamental, and then say 'look here, science shows your religious beliefs are superstitious nonsense', then what do you think a lot of people are going to do? They're going to reject it. That's why I'm saying these 'evangelical atheists' are doing a lot of damage to their own cause. — Wayfarer

Your concern for the cause of "evangelical atheists" is touching, but they are not politicians. They don't soft-peddle their positions for mass appeal.

I remember I asked you once, do you think life is really just a kind of chemical reaction, and you said, what else could it be? Well, it could be 'the manifestation of spirit' - for all we know. Of course, Darwin never thought like that, but Wallace did. Anyway, maybe for all our cleverness, life itself is something we don't really understand very well.

We have dissected life down to its constituent atoms, and found no "spirit" to speak of. I know you hate when I call you a "vitalist," but if it quacks like a duck...

So much of modern evolutionary materialism is shaped by the Enlightenment attitude that religion is a superstitious yoke to be thrown off. I have already explained in a very long post before your last reply, what I think is the matter with that; I'm just about done discussing it.

None of this answers why you think that theistic evolution is probably the case, as opposed to purely naturalistic evolution. You have several "very long posts" (not that I'm complaining, mind you: I appreciate the time you put into them), so you will have to be more specific about where you laid out your reasons for believing that theistic evolution comports better with the facts than its naturalistic counterpart.

But, here is a broader problem with your position. When you wade into theistic evolution, you are saying something about the causes and forces operative in the world, ones which shape the course of nature and life on Earth. And, as with any other cause, we can tell a counterfactual narrative about it ("had the asteroid not struck the Earth 65 MYA, then the dinosaurs wouldn't have died out," "had sewage not contaminated the drinking water, then the cholera outbreak wouldn't have occurred", etc). That is, if God is involved in the evolutionary process, then the world looks different than it would had God not gotten involved at all. And yet, when asked for evidence to support this claim, you retreat behind the wall of crying "scientism", and saying that it's not a matter for empirical investigation. So, you want it both ways.

But an artist is inclined to face a problem with the attitude of "the way those people dealt with that problem is not the way that I am going to deal with it". And this is the benefit of the subjectivity, which we find in the artist's "way of knowing". The artist has to know in one's own way, not the way of another, so the artist is always seeking more accuracy, more efficiency, just overall "better" ways of knowing the same thing. Just take a look at the "What Colour are the Strawberries?" thread, to see a discussion on the importance of subjectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Everything is subjective to some degree. Even when scientists verify each others' observations, they do so by means of experiencing the requisite qualia (if one finds this term contentious, please feel free to substitute its closest synonym with which you agree) for themselves. However, one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is the replicability of results, which lends science its objective force. Given appropriate circumstances, one should (at least in principle) be able to replicate an experiment and obtain similar results.

As for artists striving for accuracy and efficiency, I can only wonder what is the basis for that contention. While accuracy of some work's representation of reality may be a desideratum of some artists, I don't see how accuracy is a goal inherent to the artistic process (except in the fairly trivial manner that artists often seek to realize their mental vision or concept of the art in executing it). How would one gauge the "accuracy" of, for instance, Beethoven's Fifth?

Creativity is the means by which we advance from the unknown, expanding the realm of knowledge. Therefore artistry is the true knowledge generating endeavor.

Non-sequitur. The scientific process requires creativity, sure (one must be creative in conjecturing hypotheses, devising empirical tests of said hypotheses, etc), but it doesn't follow that all creative endeavors are artistic in nature. The aims and goals of science and art are completely different.

The whole book, The God Delusion, is based on the premise that scientific method supersedes religious belief. The only reason he says it doesn't disprove it, is because he understands vaguely that it's not an empirical question. — Wayfarer

The premise of The God Delusion is that God probably doesn't exist. The fact you are speaking of "disproof" shows that you don't even understand the nature of empiricism. He believes that the balance of the evidence demonstrates that God probably doesn't exist, not that it "disproves," God. This is not due to to any "vague" understanding on Dawkins's part, but rather is the nature of empirical investigation (unlike religionists, scientists don't speak of "Truth" - note the capital "T" which so many Christians are fond of appending to the word - but only of "evidence" which either confirms or disconfirms hypotheses which can be used to make useful predictions or retrodictions in the service of explaining nature).

With respect to the evolutionary explanations of such faculties as conscience, rationality, and the like, one can certainly explore the biological roots of h. sapiens without conceding thereby that the nature of such faculties can be explained in purely biological terms. I posted what I consider a very able review of that very issue, Anything But Human, by a humanistic scholar, and you dismissed it as rubbish, so no use raking over it again. Question has been asked and answered.

In all honesty, you link to quite a bit, so I don't recall that particular work (was it in this discussion? We've exchanged a flurry of links, and my memory fails me). Anyway, in giving a quick skim at that article, I didn't see any too objectionable, so perhaps I've softened my view on it. I can view it in more detail a bit later.

Creationism hails from around the 1920s in the US. Theistic evolution is another matter entirely, and, were I to choose sides, I would choose that, over Dawkin's and Dennett's materialism any day.

Yes, and creationism entails a rejection of evolution to at least some degree, ergo your claim that the New Atheists are responsible for fomenting rejection of evolution in the U.S. to any significant degree is rather tendentious.

What would lead you choose theistic evolution over a purely materialistic conception of evolution? You reject that such things can be gleaned empirically, so what reasons do you have?

That quote from Coyne is interesting, and I have read some of his criticisms of evolutionary psychology elsewhere. I don't see anything to object to there. What I object to his strident 'ideological scientism'. Coyne's latest book is called Faith Vs Fact, of which science blogger John Horgan's review was titled 'Book by Biologist Jerry Coyne Goes Too Far in Denouncing Religion, Defending Science'. The subtitle of Coyne's book is 'Why Religion and Science are Incompatible':

Actually, Faith vs. Fact serves as a splendid specimen of scientism. Mr. Coyne disparages not only religion but also other human ways of engaging with reality. The arts, he argues, “cannot ascertain truth or knowledge,” and the humanities do so only to the extent that they emulate the sciences. This sort of arrogance and certitude is the essence of scientism — John Horgan

Firstly, I will say that Horgan (yet another quote!) is hardly unbiased himself. He has, for instance, made ill-informed and unsupported comments about particular fields which he simply doesn't like, such as behavioral genetics (the book Born That Way,about just such that topic, describes the author's rather frustrating encounter with Horgan on this matter).

Secondly, If you haven't read Faith vs. Fact, I'd encourage you to do so. Coyne criticizes, among other things, practices such as faith healing and religiously-motivated rejection of medical care (including for children), which I don't think any rational person can find odious.

And yes, Coyne (as well as I) do reject "other ways of knowing." This is not to say that he (or I) believes that all questions fall under the ambit of the natural sciences, but rather that claims must have some rational warrant in order to be accepted. In the case of humanities such as history, this would include marshaling evidence in support of some thesis, and crafting arguments to support this thesis.

As for the arts, Coyne does allow that the arts can be "ways of knowing" in certain ways, in that the arts can, for instance, tell us what certain historical figures looked like via their portraits. But for the most part, why should the arts be regarded as a truth-seeking or knowledge-generating endeavor? This is clearly a case of humanitiesism: the encroachment of the humanities on the domain of the natural and social sciences.

And finally, you are somewhat inconsistent in your criticism of Coyne. You seem to alternate between calling him a zealous adaptationist, who believes that every facet of human life and behavior is explainable by evolution, and by generically labeling him as "scientistic." Once I demonstrated that the former claim was unsupported by his statements, you switch to the latter tactic. But, of course, it's possible for someone to think that all questions must yield to science without believing that all questions must yield to evolutionary explanations. One could even ostensibly be a scientist and yet reject the power of natural selection to do even those things which the most sober-minded biologists attribute to it (cosmologist Fred Hoyle, for example, was famously dismissive of natural selection - he was the one who devised the 747/junkyard/tornado analogy, IIRC).

If the courts and media are fair game, so it would seem appropriate for some obscure agency to also be. — Hanover

If the Congressional Budget Office is "obscure," then it is so only because of the ignorance of the American public. The CBO is as close as an objective arbiter as one gets in Washington these days when it comes to assessing proposed bills' impact on the budget and the economy, and is thus hugely important.

I was unaware that Trump's smear tactics had lately been aimed at this department until I saw the quote from that article quoted above, but it only reinforces this administration's bullying, bloviating, and lying to get when it wants when the facts don't support them.

@Wafarer

From the supposed neo-Darwinian fanatic Jerry Coyne, I give you his review of the book A Natural History of Rape by Thornhill and Palmer. One passage in particular stands out:

Let us be clear. It is not "biophobia" to reject the reduction of all human
feelings and actions to evolution. Quite the contrary. It is biophilia; or
at least a proper respect for science. The "choice between ideology and
knowledge" is a real choice; but it is Thornhill and Palmer and the
doctrinaire evolutionary psychologists who choose ideology over knowledge.
They enjoy the advantage that people seem to like scientific explanations
for their behavior, and the certainty that such explanations provide. It is
reassuring to impute our traumas and our misdeeds to our savanna-dwelling
ancestors. It lessens the moral pressure on our lives. And so the
disciplinary hubris of evolutionary psychology and the longing for certainty
of ordinary men and women have combined to create a kind of scientistic
cargo cult, with everyone waiting in vain for evolutionary psychology to
deliver the goods that it doesn't have. — Coyne

Hmm...does that sound like the writings of a man who obsessively applies evolutionary theory to every facet of human life?

http://www2.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200004/0012.html

Criticism is not complaint. Please don't trivialise the issue. I have Pinker's book The Blank Slate and think it's a terrific book, and there are things about him I like, but not his materialist philosophy. — Wayfarer

So strange, some of terms you take offense to, especially given that you seem to have fairly thick skin in general. I recall once, in the old place, I referred to God's "handiwork" in supposedly creating the heavens and the Earth, and you threw something of a fit over that term. Nothing about the word "complaint" was meant to trivialize your position, but it is a complaint nonetheless.

Quibbling over terminology aside, the fact remains that it was an appeal to consequences: Dennett's "universal acid" leaves no place for philosophy (in your view), and ergo must be false. But this doesn't follow.

Actually I suppose I really meant the Western classical tradition - the Western Canon is a particular book.

Ok. And again, this "classical tradition" would include secular works?

As for the Universe being 'a sign of a higher intelligence'. - it's not 'empiricism' because it can't be subjected to the kinds of tests that empiricists recognise - detectable by instruments or by sensory perception. I don;t think you really understand the distinction at all.

So: the universe is a sign of higher intelligence, but this is not an empirical demonstration of God's existence? Then I take it that no particular feature of the universe points to the existence of a creator? The mere fact that there is something rather than nothing (whatever at all that "something" may be) points to a creator?

It seems like you insist that 'God' must be empirically detectable, so you can then say 'but where's the proof'? Then if I try and explain the classical theological view (as far as I understand it) you say 'obscurantism'. That's just like Dawkins! It's either literalistic creationism or sophistry, and dismissed in either case.

No, I dismissed the likes of Eagleton and Tillich (at last as you've quoted them here; again, I've little familiarity with their primary works) as obscurantist. I'm not sure why they embody "classical theology": they seem to lean towards a sort of post-modern (or at least modern) theological sensibility, with perhaps a dash of Heidegger thrown in. When I think of "classical theology," I think of Aquinas, Augustine, Ockham, etc., not Tillich or Eagleton.

I will also say that, despite having asked many, many times, neither you nor anyone else has ever so much as provided a definition of the phrase "ground of all being." I asked you, and you threw more quotes at me (quotes which themselves didn't even contain a definition, but merely repeated the phrase in some form). Mongrel said its meaning was just obvious, and when I asked a follow-up question, I got no further response. This just reinforces my suspicion that such phrases are mere buzzwords, which are promulgated by those wishing to convey an air of theological sophistication, but which have no substantive meaning.

Edit: for the record, I don't accept a priori existential arguments for anything, God included.

The fact that evolution is widely dismissed by Americans is the sign of something radically the matter with culture and society.

I agree. It is the sign of an advanced, first-world industrial society which is overly saturated by religiosity, which is the cause of Americans' rejection of evolution.

But I think Dawkins, Coyne, and Dennett are as much to blame for that as their creationist opponents, because of their notion that 'science disproves anything like a higher intelligence'. Science does nothing of the sort, and the fact that they can't understand why, is a sign of their own shortcomings.

First, I will say that blaming three people whom most in the general public have probably never even heard of for the rejection of evolution by millions of people is ludicrous, especially since this rejection predated all of their births (the Scopes trial took place in 1925, for instance).

Secondly, Dawkins never says anything of the sort that science disproves God. You are again fighting a strawman. Dawkins believes that it is more likely than not that there is no God, on the evidence.

Thirdly, even if Dawkins et al overreach with the scope of the application of evolutionary theory, why would that lead to a widespread rejection of the core precepts of the theory? After all, one can believe in, say, the common descent of all life on Earth as it developed over 4 billion years, and yet reject the contention that evolution explains, for instance, the human moral sense, or that art has an adaptive explanation. (I will point out for the umpteenth time that Coyne himself has written about some of the more dubious overreaches of evolutionary theory as it pertains to evolutionary psychology, an inconvenient fact which you continue to assiduously ignore so that you can refer back to Coyne as a bogeyman emblematic of all you despise.)

I have been aware of the Intelligent Design movement, but there are some things I can't stand about them - one being, they are all, right down to the last one, climate-change deniers. I think that speaks volumes about their general disregard for science and an overall absence of intellectual honesty.

I wasn't aware that they are all climate change deniers, but that is interesting (almost as if the religious mindset can warp one's thinking...). However, of course, their stance on climate change doesn't bear upon the veracity (or lack thereof) of their arguments regarding evolution and creationism.

But, that said, the efforts of the more literate ID writers, like Stephen Meyers, and the 'biological argument for design' have created an entire genre of literature, which is nothing at all like 'saddles on dinosaurs' creationism. Add to that, the fact that the so-called 'Neo-Darwinist' paradigm is also being revised all the time - there are many porous boundaries and blurry lines. But my overall view is, Darwinian theory is a biological theory of the origin of species, nothing less, but also nothing more. There are many philosophical questions which it is unfairly brought to bear on nowadays, which is at least partially why there is such widespread scepticism about evolutionary theory.

You seem quite hung up on the issue of Biblical literalism. You do realize that, even prior to the advent of intelligent design creationism, there were old Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, etc?

I'm not sure what point you're making in saying that evolutionary theory is being revised all the time: while I agree that that is true, it is true of virtually every scientific theory.

When I say the JC tradition, I just don't mean Christianity or the Church, but the Western cannon in the broader sense. — Wayfarer

So, by the Western canon, you are including secular works, both literary and philosophical, I presume?

The way scientific materialism understands it, which is hardly at all, it is all based on illusory premisses, because even if it's not overtly Biblical, it still comes from a religious culture which sees the Universe as being the sign of a higher intelligence - exactly the premise which in their thinking, science has now undermined.

Hmm...the universe as being the sign of a higher intelligence. Sounds a lot like a supposedly empirical confirmation of the existence of God.

If you believe that the Universe is dumb matter, life is fluke, and human beings accidents of evolution, then what philosophy follows from that? Considering that the traditional idea of philosophy, the 'love of Wisdom' what does 'wisdom' comprise, for evolutionary materialism? It can only ever be a ruse. That's why I think Dennett's book on Darwin's Dangerous Idea is so important - it actually spells all that out. He shows quite clearly how everything previously understood as philosophy has been 'dissolved in the acid'. (Quite why he thinks this a good thing still eludes me, though.)

I don't see that evolutionary "materialism" (by which I will here take to mean "naturalism" - the terms are not necessarily synonymous, and thus not interchangeable) takes away philosophy. Most philosophers are atheists, and yet seem to find plenty of work to occupy them (in any event, your above complaint is nothing more than yet another appeal to adverse consequences: even if evolutionary naturalism was a universal acid which dissolved everything it touched, and even if we regarded this as an unwanted outcome, it in no way shows that evolutionary naturalism is false).

That's what I mean by 'undermining the JC tradition'. I don't mean necessarily defending the institutions. I too have to admit to being pretty dubious about the churches.

Glad we are in agreement.

It's indubitable. Amongst the secular intelligentsia, such as your good self, the above views about the nature of the universe are the default view of 'how the Universe works'. That is not a religious view, actually it's an anti-religious view, but it occupies the place formerly occupied by religious views. As Pinker says in his essay on the subject 'the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities.'

Whereas, I don't believe science ought to be 'a worldview' as such. It's an attitude, a methodology, and a way of finding things out and getting things done. It's absolutely indispensable, but when it becomes the basis about beliefs about meaning, or lack thereof, then it segues into a quasi-religion. And it happens very easily.

Again, if evolutionary naturalism occupied the social niche formerly occupied by, say, Christianity, I would expect it would have at least a comparable degree of penetration in society. But evolutionary naturalism enjoys nothing of the sort. If this worldview is one held primarily the "secular intelligentsia", then it seems you needn't worry about this plague spreading to the population at large (indeed, in the United States, and increasingly so in some other developed nations, it is evolution which is denied, distorted, and rejected, not religion).

In any event, I believe that Pinker has a book-length exposition of the thesis propounded in that essay coming, so you will soon have another target-rich work by a well-known scientist against which to direct your ire. :D

Being moral requires self-control. No, you don't agree? Do you think that we are caused to be moral by others, not ourselves? If so, then wouldn't you see this as justification for a religion's oppressive actions? Or do we apprehend morality as self-control, and see a religion's oppressive actions as unjustified?

How can one adopt a middle ground on this position? Either morality comes from within, or it is caused by external forces. If it's the latter, then how are religions not justified in using force to create morality. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I indicated above, even if morality requires an external force to impose it upon us (who, then, imposes it upon the imposers, I wonder?), ceding this control to organized religion would be a catastrophic mistake.

There is a lot more to ethics than learning how to respect others, there is also learning how to respect oneself. And with that comes learning how to think and be intelligent. Respect for others is dependent on knowing how to be reasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't regard self-directed actions to be particularly morally relevant. I will leave that to those who obsess over squelching the scourge of masturbation and the like.

For better or for worse, that is pretty much the case, although I mean it in the broader sense of the Judeo-christian tradition. — Wayfarer

Christianity has a spotty moral record at best, and the Old Testament is likewise extremely morally spotty. I don't know why you would cede the entirety of ethical thought to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our modern notions of ethics arguably owe as much (if not moreso) to Enlightenment thinkers than to religious ones.

I could trot out the usual parade of horribles when discussing Christianity's impact upon the world, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the Conquistadors' treatment of Native Americans, etc. But, I think there are more subtle and somewhat lesser-appreciated aspects to consider. Take, for instance, the brutal treatment of children in Catholic-run Irish orphanages in the 20th century, which has recently come to light. Take also the Church sexual abuse scandal, which has inflicted untold suffering around the world (and the evils of which have possibly only begun to come to light).

The point is not so much that there are some bad actors in an organization as vast as the Catholic Church (that is more or less inevitable). The point is that when these abuses are perpetrated by an institution whose authority is taken to be unquestionable, who claims to speak infallibly when it speaks ex cathedra, which has a long history of squelching dissent (sometimes by quite brutal means), which threatens believers with acquiescence under the threat of eternal damnation, then this is not an institution which lends itself to questioning, debate, and accountability, which are the hallmarks of an open society. For all of the ecumenical overtures in some quarters in modern times, organized religion has never been something to invite debate and questioning, which are the necessary prerequisites of progress in intellectual life.

When I was finding my own path, I had the view that Christianity had in some ways 'locked up' much that was spiritually edifying in the traditions it had incorporated - for example, Neoplatonism - and then made acceptance of Christian dogma the price for accessing it. I still think there is some truth in that, but my views have changed somewhat since, mainly because of having found writers and teachers like Richard Rohr, who are within the tradition.

But I also understand the dark side of Christian history (in fact I think I have a book by that name.)

I have no doubt you are aware of it, given how well-read you are, which makes your claims regarding ethics all the more puzzling.

However, I'm certainly of the view that books like Dawkins' anti-religious polemics, along with many of Dennett's polemics, are a symptom of the general deterioration of Western culture.

If one identifies Western culture with widespread religiosity and general respect for or deference to religion, then yes, any diminution of this attitude would signal a decline or "deterioration." However, if Western culture is so identified, then I can only say that I would welcome such a deterioration. If religious belief of any sort is unable to prosper in the free marketplace of ideas, then consign it to the flames, along with other failed ideologies and institutions of history (Communism, Social Darwinism, etc).

Having said that, I agree that the rise of secular attitudes may be a mixed blessing, at best, at least regarding certain beneficial institutions whose importance was reinforced by religious doctrine (e.g. marriage, bearing children in wedlock).

Furthermore while I accept the facts of biological evolution, I think evolutionary naturalism is invested with far too much signifance as a kind of replacement creation myth for the secular age.

You bang on quite a bit about evolution's supposedly being a replacement for religion. I find that quite a dubious position, especially since (as I've pointed out to you at least once, in the old place) that the majority of Americans do not even accept unguided evolution: at most they adhere to a sort of quasi-theistic evolution of some sort.

(That is a point that Michael Ruse has written a lot about; for which he too has also been declared persona non grata by the new atheists.)

Poor fellow. Did he not get invited to the office happy hour? Does Dawkins hold barbecues and invite Sam Harris but not Michael Ruse?

He represents the view that the foundation of Western culture and civilised ethics is basically delusional, but, as his many critics point out, does not have the philosophical acuity or historical insight to understand what this means. — Wayfarer

Please don't tell me you are ceding the entirety of civilized ethics to Christianity? Give me a break. While Christianity has done immense good in the world, it has also done immense harm, and to say that religious dogma has a lock on prescribing ethical behavior is absurd at best. Ethics has been one long, miserable slog from humanity treating each other extremely horribly to treating each other very slightly less-horribly. If you think Christianity has anything close to clean hands, then you are the one ignorant of history.

As for the "foundation of Western culture" cant, I will simply say that the fact that Christianity was a powerful and organizing force in shaping the West does not speak one iota to its truthfulness, any more than the truth of the Greco-Roman pantheon is attested to by those cultures' immense influence in the ancient world.

He will agree that Darwinism is a lousy basis for any kind of social philosophy, but at the same time declare that it has dissolved the basis for traditional philosophy in the acid of 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Then he will attempt to erect 'Science and Reason' as the basis of an alternative. Perhaps you pitch in. He has a lot of work to do.

This sounds more like Dennet than Dawkins, actually. As for the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennet makes some good points, but there are also many able critiques of it (I believe I've previously mentioned H. Allen Orr's critical review, which is excellent - and this from an atheist or agnostic).

They're inherently misguided, because the question of the existence of God is not an empirical claim. — Wayfarer

Argument by assertion and begging the question. And, as I stated, if God has interacted with the world, there should be signatures of his handiwork. The empirical search for God's existence is fruitless only if one has reason to believe in a wholly non-interacting God, which a Christian would be hard-pressed to accede to.

As you have already said you believe that Jesus actually lived - would you regard that as evidence?

I believe that the existence of Jesus makes it at least possible that the core doctrines of Christianity (as understood by, for instance, the Trinity) are true, as Christianity of virtually every stripe would be a nonstarter were Jesus mythical. But, no, from the mere existence of a historical Jesus, it does not follow that that person was God, or the Son of God, or anything of the sort.

That is exactly what I mean by a 'clay pidgeon'. You have no interest in any possible answer, save as something to shoot down.

Nothing was even presented to shoot down. I might say the same of you, as your rabid hatred of Dawkins has led you to attribute things to him which are patently untrue (as with the "root of all evil" comment. Please feel free to admit your error on that score, as you clearly committed an error). You are dealing with strawmen caricatures.

Well, that's hogwash, too. Dawkins never tires of telling us that humans are lumbering robots whose only real purpose is the propogation of the selfish gene.

This assertion is so confused I don't even know where to begin. Even if your characterization of Dawkins is accurate, how does it follow that he believes the humanities to be worthless? (I do agree, though, that he believes theology to be worthless.)

I agree, but thanks for playing.

The 'hogwash' quote was from here. I generally agree with it, so there's obviously little point in going on.

I don't really care where the quote was from. I complain about your usage of quotes from like-minded parties as a form of argumentation, and you link to the source material? Why? Shall I link to Jerry Coyne's blog and suggest you read it?

Dawkins is certainly brighter than Ken Ham, all the more reason he should be less dogmatic. Besides, even Peter Higgs said he was 'almost a fundamentalist himself' and that his polemics against religion were 'embarrasing'. — Wayfarer

I don't see how Peter Higgs's views are relevant. This doesn't even rise to the level of a fallacious appeal to authority, as Higgs is no more an authority on religion than is Dawkins. I could likewise produce laudatory quotes from scientists regarding Dawkins. What of it?

I was referring to those who claim to 'prove' that God exists with reference to science. As science is always changing, this is a two-edged sword. Karen Armstrong, in her book The Case for God, shows how the idea of referring to science to 'shew the handiwork of God' backfired in the long run, as science discovered more and more, and the 'gaps' became less and less.

I agree that the "god of the gaps" strategy is a poor one, given that the advance of science has been almost exclusively unilateral in demystifying phenomena once thought to be so complex or mysterious that they would never admit of a natural explanation.

However, it is a non-sequitur to claim that it therefore follows that empirical arguments for the existence of God are inherently misguided. If a physicist devises an experiment to search for a particular particle and fails to find evidence for it (in, say, the predicted range of mass), it doesn't mean that the test was inherently flawed: it simply means that the experiment did not detect what it was looking for. Indeed, empirical tests which can't be disconfirmed by evidence are worthless, as they are unfalsifiable.

It also makes the mistake of 'objectifying' deity as a player on the stage, or as director of the show, rather than, in David Bentley Hart's words, the

“one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.”

If God acts, or has acted, in the world, there should be evidence of this action in some form. Unless one wishes to maintain that God has zero causal interaction with the world, then there should indeed be detectable signatures of God's handiwork (contra Armstrong). Indeed, are we to believe that God is omnipotent, but never acts?

That is closer to the classical theological understanding, and is also why both Hart (Orthodox) and Catholic philosopher Edward Feser, who are both adamantly anti-materialist, will have no truck with 'intelligent design' arguments. (Interestingly, both are sometimes accused on those grounds of being 'close to atheism' by their ID antagonists.)

So, my point is that attitude which seeks to scientifically prove the literal truth of biblical creationism, is 'religious fundamentalism'; but the opposite tendency, to argue on the basis of biological evolution to disprove the Bible, is a product of that same kind of misunderstanding, because it takes Biblical literalism to be the normative view. But for the many Christians who never believed in the 'literal truth of Genesis' in the first place, the fact that it is not literally true, doesn't entail that it is literally false.

Not all evidential arguments for the existence of God are promulgated by biblical literalists. Most of the main proponents of intelligent design creationism, for instance, are not biblical literalists. So, it is still a non-sequitur to say that they're fundamentalists (not that I think they're correct, mind you...).

(Incidentally, there is no mention of anything like 'intelligent design' in the Articles of Faith of the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and Darwin's works were never put on the 'index of prohibited books' by the Catholic Church.)

No, but it doesn't mean that some Catholic scholars, for instance, aren't sympathetic to the intelligent design project (Catholic scholar Robert P. George has made approving statements of it, for example). And while the Vatican's official statements on evolution seem to be more agreeable than those promulgated by, say, evangelical Christians, even a Catholic must assert that there was some teleological design underlying the (seemingly random) evolutionary process, a design which would eventually yield humans (or at least some sentient beings, even if they were insectoid or reptilian or whatever).

He most certainly does. Do you know that the TV series that Dawkin's made that was eventually broadcast as 'The God Delusion' was originally titled 'The Root of All Evil'?

I do know that, and you would know that I know that had you read my above post carefully enough. As I said, that title was not one that he chose or one with which he agreed. This is what he says about it in The God Delusion, after mentioning that documentary, and saying how he fought the title:

Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything. — Dawkins

He says in many places that he believes religion is evil or the source of evil.

Believing that something is evil, or leads to evil, is not equivalent to believing that it is the root of all evil.

I will agree that 'crackpot' was a poor choice of words, but

Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well.

To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts. His orientation toward the world is the product of a classic category mistake, but because he’s nestled inside it so snugly he perceives complex concepts outside of his understanding as meaningless dribble. If he can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist, and anyone trying to describe it to him is delusional and possibly dangerous. — Eleanor Robertson

What "insights", pray tell, have been proferred by theology? As for the rest of this quote, it is complete hogwash. Dawkins nowhere rejects the value of the humanities, and has spoken favorably about the arts. This is just woo from people who wish to appeal to "other ways of knowing" as a means of trying to justify nonsense. If one is making a claim about reality, there is either evidence to support that claim, or there isn't. I'm sorry, but it's really that simple: this applies whether we're speaking of history, science, journalism, religion, or whatever. I'd be hard-pressed to devise a greater caricature of Dawkins's position if I tried.

And your argumentative strategy of offering a litany of quotes in lieu of arguments is wearing thin. As I said, I could produce approving quotes of Dawkins, but what of it?

Before Ken Ham went to Kentucky, where he found an audience (which he never could in Australia), he had a billboard I used to drive past quite often. I would thinkg, arguing with anyone who believes those ideas is an exercise in futility. But Dawkins is a mirror-image. He is also a fundamentalist. — Wayfarer

I regard this as a gross false equivalency, to regard Dawkins as a fundamentalist on par with the likes of Ken Ham.

Actually I am inclined to think that anyone who believes science proves that God exists is a fundamentalist, anyone who thinks that science proves the opposite is a materialist. There is no ultimate proof, one way or the other.

I don't know why you would regard a person who believes that the existence of God to be empirically demonstrable to be a fundamentalist. In my understanding, a "fundamentalist" is one who takes an extremely strict (up to and including literalistic) interpretation of a given religion's (or ideology's) tenets, texts, or dogma, who generally wishes to foist these beliefs and practices upon unwilling parties, who has little tolerance for religious plurality or diversity, who is extremely closed to any contrary evidence or argumentation, etc. While these traits could apply to those who seek to demonstrate God's existence by appealing to empiricism, these traits don't seem inherent to such a position.

I also think that your position on materialism is a non-sequitur. One can (at least in principle) disbelieve in the existence of God, and yet still believe in non-material entities, as such a conjunction of beliefs entails no contradiction (unless one takes materialists to claim that God is only candidate for a non-material entity).

If Dawkins did confine himself to campaigning against creationism or the abhorrent practises associated with some forms of religion I would cheer him on. But he patently, obviously, and loudly generalises from those views to religion is the source of all evil and humans are totally the product of the 'selfish gene'. So he's become a fanatic himself - many of his ideas are just as crackpot as those he criticizes, but as he wears the 'lab coat of authority', he takes in many people.

This is false. Dawkins does not believe that religion is the source of all evil. He says exactly the opposite in The God Delusion. Perhaps you are thinking of the BBC documentary about religion titled Root of All Evil?, in which Dawkins starred? If so, you should know that that title was not of his choosing, and he neither liked nor agreed with its insinuation (I say "insinuation" because the question mark at the end perhaps softened it a bit).

Given that you are a non-dogmatic, non-fundamentalist, open-minded inquirer, I expect that, in light of this contrary evidence, you will accordingly revise your view of Dawkins being a crackpot.

Yea. There's tons of great stuff about him on YouTube, including book readings, radio interviews, debates etc.

Bart Ehrman has written an interesting book on this subject — Arkady


Was it Misquoting Jesus? I read that, t'was good. — Wosret

No. It was called Did Jesus Exist?. I agree, though, that Misquoting Jesus was a good book (as are all of Ehrman's books which I've read, which admittedly tend to skew more towards the "pop-religion" side of things; I've not read his more technical scholarly works).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)