Religious belief

[Elok]

A quote from a reputable source is not hearsay.  If you read "President Obama said [X]" in a newspaper, do you immediately look up video footage of the event where he ostensibly said it on YouTube, in case the newspaper was lying?

[Valka]

Dawkins supposedly said the thing about child abduction somewhere in The God Delusion--I read about it in an online column by an atheist some time ago.

How is this equivalent to reading something in a newspaper? Which online column, by which atheist, and when? You read about it, not read it directly.

[Elok]

WRT Galileo and Bruno, the exact reason why they were repressed is relevant to broader claims of religion being incompatible with or hostile to science, reason, etc.  Which is what we were talking about here, and how I came back into the thread c. post 140.  Certain modern fundamentalists are broadly hostile to scientific reasoning and evidence, but they are something of an historic novelty.

[Elok]

Dawkins supposedly said the thing about child abduction somewhere in The God Delusion--I read about it in an online column by an atheist some time ago.

How is this equivalent to reading something in a newspaper? Which online column, by which atheist, and when? You read about it, not read it directly.

Don't recall.  Doesn't matter.  If the writer has no conceivable reason to lie about it, it's not reasonable to assume he is.  If you want to find the truth of it, by all means read TGD; I don't care enough to dig.  The atheist in question said RD made the argument within fifteen pages of deploring medievals' habit of calling for the same thing to be done to the children of Jews--the broader point was RD's supposed blindness to the contradictions in his own beliefs.  So, I guess you look in the horrible-childrearing-ideas section?

[Lorizael]

With regards to astronomers and the persecution thereof, my understanding is that the Church's influence on astronomy was sometimes more subtle than trials and burnings. For example, one of the things Newton gets credit for is showing that gravity was responsible both for holding us to the ground and moving the planets around, making astronomy just about a branch of physics. Before then, the motions of heavenly bodies were (usually) thought to be due to God/geometry/math and were categorically distinct from motions here on Earth (physics/natural philosophy). Now, of course, that's an idea with Greek rather than Biblical origins, but it still got appropriated by the Church.

But the point for me is... could we have reached such conclusions earlier if the education system in Europe at the time (administered by the Church) had not insisted on this strict division? (Not a rhetorical question, actually. I'm genuinely curious and I'd read more about this if the thought of doing anything other than homework didn't give me bouts of anxiety.)

[Rusty Edge]

But the point for me is... could we have reached such conclusions earlier if the education system in Europe at the time (administered by the Church) had not insisted on this strict division? (Not a rhetorical question, actually. I'm genuinely curious and I'd read more about this if the thought of doing anything other than homework didn't give me bouts of anxiety.)

Interesting! I suppose so. The more you know, the more you may notice interconnectedness.

But maybe not. A person who was a keen and patient observer and a meticulous record keeper and analyst might have been put off by scientific education if  it required theology or spherical trigonometry. It could drain some people's will to live.

So I can see that if everyone was forced to learn everything, the total knowledge may have advanced at an overall slower pace, even if it meant that certain breakthroughs and applications were more frequent.

[Buster's Uncle]

There's a place for generalists and specialists alike, but increasingly less so in fields like science.  That may have something to do with why we look back and see so many more renaissance men in the renaissance than lately.

[Valka]

Dawkins supposedly said the thing about child abduction somewhere in The God Delusion--I read about it in an online column by an atheist some time ago.

How is this equivalent to reading something in a newspaper? Which online column, by which atheist, and when? You read about it, not read it directly.

Don't recall.  Doesn't matter.  If the writer has no conceivable reason to lie about it, it's not reasonable to assume he is.  If you want to find the truth of it, by all means read TGD; I don't care enough to dig.  The atheist in question said RD made the argument within fifteen pages of deploring medievals' habit of calling for the same thing to be done to the children of Jews--the broader point was RD's supposed blindness to the contradictions in his own beliefs.  So, I guess you look in the horrible-childrearing-ideas section?

Oh, yes, it does matter. I've got no conceivable reason to lie, yet I get called a liar quite frequently on a couple of Dawkins video pages on YouTube. It's amazing how people from the southern US seem to know so much more about what's on a typical street corner in Canada than a Canadian would know.

As the saying goes: Link/source, please. I'm not calling you a liar. I just want to read that unnamed atheist's words for myself. And if you're not willing to check it out yourself, you're going by hearsay.

[Buster's Uncle]

This isn't YouTube and it isn't CFC.  Elok's interested in conversing about religion - no need to keep looking for an argument.

-Also:  I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, to hear that Dawkins videos on YouTube, the cesspool of internet commenters, attract jerks, Dawkins himself being such a reasonable and pleasant fellow, so beloved by the thoughtful and reasonable people who dissent from his polite and moderate expressions of opinion...

[Valka]

I detect sarcasm from you, BUncle. All I asked for was a link, because I'm well aware that not all atheists have the same agenda, just like not all Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. have the same agenda. And trust me that I am much more civil here than I am on the YT pages (after the umpteenth time of being told that there are abortion clinics on every street corner in Canada, one gets a little testy).

The God Delusion isn't in my local library, so if I want to read it, I'll have to buy it. That's nowhere near the top of my priorities on my "To Get" list for books - I'm still trying to replace books that were lost/damaged/stolen during the last several moves I've made from house to apartment to apartment. But I will try to at least access an audio version - I ran across on on YouTube awhile back, though haven't had time to listen yet (it's over 2 hours long). If I'm going to agree or disagree, like or dislike the book, it'll be because I've accessed it myself, not relied on somebody's blog post.

But it looks as though I should excuse myself from this conversation, as the atheist pov doesn't appear to be welcome.

[Buster's Uncle]

Are you seriously pulling that vonbach junk on me for hinting that you're going after Elok a little hard?

The sarcasm is entirely against idgit YouTube commenters and Dawkins, for which I see no reason to do any walking back.

I didn't check my baggage at the door when I started AC2 -though I try to make it no one else's problem, even if I fail- and I can't expect anyone else to.  But you've been treated with respect, and indeed affection, here.  I know that this topic, by the nature of the thing, is a match-fight in a gasoline tank --- but Elok says his thoughtful piece calmly and unaggressively, and it's sorta kicking puppies when you go after the guy too hard.  (He says on his blog he's retired from arguing on the internet and we should respect that.  I do, having drawn a similar conclusion not two years ago right here at AC2.)  Nothing about ideological taking of sides -I fall roughly halfway between your ultimate positions- just reminding you that you're not swimming with the sharks in here.

Your POV is welcome.  Relax.  Say your piece.  There is no winning and losing unless we try to make it so; only conversation, entertaining and sometimes educational at its best.  It's all good, if we'll only let it be...

[Elok]

I should say that I try not to argue.  Old habits die hard.  If you have no access to a copy of TGD, I'm not sure what good a cite would do, even in the event that I could provide one; I could just as readily make something up, and you'd have no way of calling me on it for the foreseeable future.  Or I might copy a cite which I, in turn, would have no means of verifying, since I don't have the book either.  In general, my policy is that I essentially rely on the word of others for virtually everything I know or think I know; if it ain't something of uttermost importance, I don't need to see the marks of the nails and put my hand in the spear-hole.  I haven't the foggiest idea, for example, how I would go about proving to my own satisfaction that the earth does in fact go around the sun.  Probably I could look up the math and spend a week or so fiddling with a telescope to know it's true--or I could accept that I have no credible cause to disbelieve it, and accept the common belief.  As I do with basically all of my knowledge of science, history, current events, etc.

I have limited exposure to Dawkins, because I keep it that way based on the little I have encountered of him.  I believe the only work of his I have read firsthand are a brief snippet in a book criticizing the idea of essentialism as harmful to science (didn't care, mostly skimmed it), and a tweet where he said it was immoral to allow Downs' fetuses to live.  Also a quote of him speaking at the 2012 "Reason Rally," where he urged everyone present to have the guts to ridicule "nonsense like the Immaculate Conception."  The last is actually sort of interesting, in that it sounds like something very simple but is actually a multi-layered mess of ignorance, vulgarity, and idiosyncrasy if one digs into it.  For starters, RD almost certainly doesn't know what the Immaculate Conception is . . .

Anyway, those few snippets generally confirm his reputation as a belligerent, poorly-informed, and somewhat crude critic of religion, and not worth paying attention to on that subject.  I'm ready to believe he's a splendid biologist, and a worthy promoter of science in general when he can get off his soapbox.  As I said, I wouldn't trust anyone with the power to forcibly silence criticism; I allow that I cannot say with any certainty how long it would take him to start liquidating the clergy should the option open up for him.  I suspect not long largely because half his career rests on fostering hatred towards religious belief.

[Elok]

Also:

1. As you said, there's no one singular atheist POV, welcome or otherwise.

2. Why are you getting involved in YT comment threads?  They're the cloaca of the internet.  You could look up a video on nineteenth-century Parisian architecture and the comments would still mostly be people calling each other faggots.  And they wouldn't even spell "[homosexual]" correctly.

[Valka]

Are you seriously pulling that vonbach junk on me for hinting that you're going after Elok a little hard?

The sarcasm is entirely against idgit YouTube commenters and Dawkins, for which I see no reason to do any walking back.

I didn't check my baggage at the door when I started AC2 -though I try to make it no one else's problem, even if I fail- and I can't expect anyone else to.  But you've been treated with respect, and indeed affection, here.  I know that this topic, by the nature of the thing, is a match-fight in a gasoline tank --- but Elok says his thoughtful piece calmly and unaggressively, and it's sorta kicking puppies when you go after the guy too hard.  (He says on his blog he's retired from arguing on the internet and we should respect that.  I do, having drawn a similar conclusion not two years ago right here at AC2.)  Nothing about ideological taking of sides -I fall roughly halfway between your ultimate positions- just reminding you that you're not swimming with the sharks in here.

Your POV is welcome.  Relax.  Say your piece.  There is no winning and losing unless we try to make it so; only conversation, entertaining and sometimes educational at its best.  It's all good, if we'll only let it be...

"Pulling that vonbach junk"? What does that even mean?

I asked for a link. I prefer to make up my own mind about people, and all I get is people telling me "Oh, Dawkins is terrible. I read this thing that somebody else said about him, and no, I didn't actually read it myself, but people say this, that, and other stuff, so he must be a really awful person."

I'm saying that I prefer to go to the original source so I can evaluate it and decide for myself what my opinion is.

It's similar to the arguments about the nuDune books, btw. There are people who vilify the nuDune books, but can't specify exactly why because they haven't read them. They just repeat what other people have said and accept that as their own opinions. Well, the nuDune books are pretty bad, but I say that as someone who's actually read them and can point to specific reasons why I have that opinion. I don't rely on hearsay for my opinions of books, movies, or Richard Dawkins' character.


I am going to excuse myself from this thread, because I really don't see any way to continue. Even a request for a link so I can read something for myself is considered an "argument" so there's really no point.

Why are you getting involved in YT comment threads?

I get involved because there's a lot of misinformation going on, and also because I want my say without being censored. Right now there's an immense amount of censorship that goes on in the CBC.ca comment boards - the website for my country's public broadcaster. I got censored the other day for a completely innocuous comment on sales tax. The moderators there are 100% unaccountable. They don't have to give a reason for their decisions, and it's basically impossible to challenge their decisions anyway.

So I comment where I can. Right now the contentious issue in Canada is doctor-assisted death and whether or not doctors in taxpayer-funded Catholic hospitals should be required to refer patients who ask for this. I can't say everything I want to say there without being censored, so that's why I had my say on YT. I didn't use any four-letter words, and kept things clean. Not everyone who comments on YT uses gutter language.

And it's a place where surprising things can happen. A chance comment on a travel video page led to an exchange where a man from the Netherlands thanked me for what Canada had done for his country in World War II - because Canadian soldiers had saved his mother and grandmother. That was a humbling experience, and not at all one that I would consider a bad thing.

[Lorizael]

Well, this is why I'm glad my own views are insane. That way I don't care much if I think people aren't taking them seriously.