Guacamole's off the cuff reactions to the God Delusion

[guacamole]

Towards an Atheistic Hagiography...

To continue, I just finished reading Chapter One, entitled "A Deeply Religious Non-Believer," and it reminded me of some of the "Galleries of Faith" that sometimes appear in various religious texts, hence I gave this post the following title: "Towards and Atheistic Hagiography." For example, Dawkins cites, at various points and in no particular order (because he returns to some of them): Einstein, Sagan, the "Nobel Prize-winning physicist (and atheist) Steven Weinberg", the cell biologist Ursula Goodenough, the "present Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees", and Baruch Spinoza. The honorifics, assorted titles, and awards are important here; they are designed to impress upon the reader the gravitas of those who agree with them. Aside from blatant card stacking (of course he's not going to mention the "General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin"--who would?), the implication is that the reader is in good, heroic, learned company to be an atheist, and further more that, if it is the erudite opinion of these scholars that atheism is the truth, then to be an atheist is to gain some of the cachet, by association, with these. The fallacy is clear. Support of the learned, the august, the erudite, the special, the well esteemed, is irrelevant to truth value of claims. That fact that theists also commit this fallacy, by direct statement or implication is irrelevant; Dawkins doesn't get a pass for sketchy logic because the theists make the same mistakes. At any rate, it is amusing to me to see Dawkins use the common religious rhetorical trope of the list of saints, all while atheists assert that atheism is nothing like a religion.

I haven't decided whether or not I think Dawkins frequent argument by implication is the accidental by-product of his informal method of argument, or some kind of purposeful, obfuscation of fallacy. I am suspicious of the later, because, in his critique of Judaism from the same chapter he is savvy enough to write:

[Dr. Robert Winston argued that] Judaism provided a good discipline to help him structure his life and lead a good one. Perhaps it does; but that, of course, has not the smallest bearing on the truth value of any of its supernatural claims.

So he clearly is able to recognize when arguments don't support claims, but is unconcerned when his own arguments don't actually support his supernatural claims. I imagine that I'll decide as I read further.

That's all I have time for now. I'll try and post again later tonight with some specific quotes and thoughts, especially about his appropriation of Deism, Pantheism, and Spinoza for atheism.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

I'm not sure I even understand what you're referring to. Are you upset that the phrase "enforced religious viewpoint" isn't clear enough that atheism can be a viewpoint on religion?

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant--I have heard atheists assert Communism to be a secular religion, and therefore, its crimes and excesses could still be dumped at the feet of religion, and I thought you were making a similar point.

Okay now you're just utterly trolling.

I'm reading a book on Dawkins and giving my honest opinions. It is with some irony then, given the characteristic ferocity of his statements, that I ask you to not be so thin skinned. I myself am doing my best as I read a book that is viciously hostile to my point of view. When I get to his chapter of such societies, I will judge for myself if Dawkins confuses correlation and causation. It is possible that he does not and that many of the atheists I've read are confused on his points. In any case, I intend no offense. I am simply seeking to be as honest with what I think as Dawkins is attempting in his writing.

fwiw,
guacamole

[shunyadragon]

I think the world would be a much better place.

Dawkins discusses this later in the book. He argues that atheism wasn't the motivation for the bad things they did. They did bad things and also happened to be atheists, and it's no more relevant to the explanation of why they were doing bad things than their hair color is relevant.

Actually in history, the motivation of persecution and ethnic cleansing is a mixed bag, committed by atheists and Theists. The history of anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish ethnic cleansing was primarily Christian in origin.

My own thoughts on the Communist states run along a different track: They were authoritarian, and tried to enforce a religious viewpoint on the populace via that authoritarianism. It was their authoritarianism that was bad, it was their authoritarianism that led to the deaths of millions. It simply isn't relevant what that enforced religious viewpoint happens to have been - it could have been Buddhism, Islam or Christianity for all that it didn't matter.

Yes, it has been authoritarianism, but the primary motive for anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish sentiments is Christianity first and than also Islam in history.

[Adrift]

Actually in history, the motivation of persecution and ethnic cleansing is a mixed bag, committed by atheists and Theists. The history of anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish ethnic cleansing was primarily Christian in origin.



Yes, it has been authoritarianism, but the primary motive for anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish sentiments is Christianity first and than also Islam in history.

Not sure why you brought up anti-semitism, since it's not directly in reply to anything anyone here has said about the subject, but wasn't your own prophet on board with the persecution?

Source: Gleanings From the Writings of Bah�u�ll�h by Bah�u�ll�h

and yet Israel, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation.

© Copyright Original Source

[guacamole]

.Yes, it has been authoritarianism, but the primary motive for anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish sentiments is Christianity first and than also Islam in history.

Pagan anti-Semitism pre-dates Christianity. If nothing else that arch-devil Antiochus Epiphianies gets special mention here. There are some earlier, more obscure examples as well. I find this echoes your earlier point on the cross-hammer and sickle-cross transitions of Russian authoritarianism, except here we have pagan to Christian to Muslim thread. It's almost like authoritarianism is a common plague of the human condition.

Fwiw,
Guacamole

[Adrift]

Pagan anti-Semitism pre-dates Christianity.

Anti-Semitism post-dates Christianity under state atheism as well.

http://www.quest-cdecjournal.it/focus.php?id=212

It's almost like authoritarianism is a common plague of the human condition.

[rogue06]

Pagan anti-Semitism pre-dates Christianity. If nothing else that arch-devil Antiochus Epiphianies gets special mention here. There are some earlier, more obscure examples as well. I find this echoes your earlier point on the cross-hammer and sickle-cross transitions of Russian authoritarianism, except here we have pagan to Christian to Muslim thread. It's almost like authoritarianism is a common plague of the human condition.

Fwiw,
Guacamole

Multiple examples can readily be cited in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, long before the rise of Christianity. Alexandria was a hotbed of such feeling centuries before Christ. Shuny is just venting his anti-Christian prejudices.

[guacamole]

Multiple examples can readily be cited in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, long before the rise of Christianity. Alexandria was a hotbed of such feeling centuries before Christ. Shuny is just venting his anti-Christian prejudices.

That's why I posted a rebuttal.

[guacamole]

The point of taxonomy is...

I agree with Dawkins on at least this point:

The point of taxonomy is to put things into various categories based on commonalities or excluded them from categories because of differences. If we erode those differences, there is no point to the naming of things. Yes, there are spectra of "is/not" differences--things that are more like and more unlike--but in general, we name categories for a reason.

One way that writers of argument try to bend evidence in their favor is subtly blend the edges of the taxonomy and assert that one thing is so like another thing that it might as well be the same thing. This is a quite common tactic amongst the "Jesus mythers" who argue that Jesus was born of a virgin and therefore he's just like Heracles, who had a supernatural conception, when in fact the stories are different. They both do fall under supernatural birth, but the Christians did not believe God had sex with Mary (indeed, Mary's virginity at conception is important doctrine to some Christians, and an important historical irony to others), and the pagans did not believe that, having been raped by Zeus years after she was wed to her husband, Alcmene was somehow still a virgin. But see, if you get to blend the sets, despite the specificity of the myths, then you can cover up the weakness of the fallacious comparison.

To expand the evidence for his (fallacious) appeal to the sanctified choir of atheism, Dawkins plays fast and loose with taxonomy by asserting that some thing that classically is not atheism is actually atheism, specifically pantheism, so that he can pull luminaries such as Spinoza into his camp, and he can appropriate the supposedly pantheistic declarations of Einstein and Hawking. The problem is that Dawkins is not a sophisticate in either philosophy or theology. He derides the idea as ridiculous that there is a discipline called "theology" and has been publicly rebuffed by philosophers over his cavalier and thoughtless treatment of their discipline. One philosopher wrote:

From: Conscience and Consciousness: It's High Time Dawkins Read Some Philosophy

As a consequence of his derision for such matters (and if we impute some nefariousness to his technique, he knows that the majority of his readers will not check up on his pronouncements) he is able to play fast and loose with very specific categories of unlike things.

Now, I am the first to acknowledge that most atheists,and probably most pantheists, and share a great deal of antipathy toward traditional theists. The thing is, classically speaking, from a well-read point of view, atheism is not pantheism. They are distinct points of view that sometimes share one aspect, but which are divided by serious differences as well. Remembering Dawkings point on the definition of God above, it's worthwhile to put his definition of atheism from the same chapter here:

It's also useful to examine how he explains Pantheism, to give people who haven't read the book some idea of how he approaches his topic:

Yes. He obliterates more than two-thousand years of philosophical evolution, years filled with nuance, argument, treatise upon tract upon treatise, with that ham-fisted utterance, all so that he can make sure that Luminary among Brights, Einstein, can slot neatly into the proper marbled niche of the pantheon.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Starlight]

Remembering Dawkings point on the definition of God above, it's worthwhile to put his definition of atheism from the same chapter here:

I was going to say that I disagree with Dawkins' definition of atheism here. But then I reread it and wondered if it is indeed his definition of atheism, since he qualifies it with "in this sense of philosophical naturalist".

[guacamole]

He's definitely playing fast and loose with some if his definitions. That definition isis, happily for his arguement, consistent with both philosophical naturalism, while giving him some room to coopt pantheism.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Multiple examples can readily be cited in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, long before the rise of Christianity. Alexandria was a hotbed of such feeling centuries before Christ. Shuny is just venting his anti-Christian prejudices.

Interesting. I've usually read that Alexandria was noted for precisely the opposite-- that it was, since its establishment, a place where disparate religions came together. I've never heard it described as a "hotbed" of anti-Semitic feeling. I'd love to read more about that, if you have any sources which you could recommend.

[Adrift]

Interesting. I've usually read that Alexandria was noted for precisely the opposite-- that it was, since its establishment, a place where disparate religions came together. I've never heard it described as a "hotbed" of anti-Semitic feeling. I'd love to read more about that, if you have any sources which you could recommend.

For starters, I believe Philo mentions the persecution of the Jews in On the Embassy to Gaius, and in Flaccus.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

For starters, I believe Philo mentions the persecution of the Jews in On the Embassy to Gaius, and in Flaccus.

He definitely mentions hostility and violence towards the Jews under the reign of Caligula and at the direction of Flaccus, but he does so explicitly in contrast with the peace which had existed prior to that, during the reign of Tiberius. Rogue had said that Alexandria was a hotbed of anti-Semitic feeling centuries before this, which was the focus of my question.

[Adrift]

He definitely mentions hostility and violence towards the Jews under the reign of Caligula and at the direction of Flaccus, but he does so explicitly in contrast with the peace which had existed prior to that, during the reign of Tiberius. Rogue had said that Alexandria was a hotbed of anti-Semitic feeling centuries before this, which was the focus of my question.

Ah. I may have misread him then. When he said, "Alexandria was a hotbed of such feeling centuries before Christ." I misread "Christ" as referring to the Christian state under Theodosius. Perhaps rogue was referring to the persecution of the Jews in Alexandria under Ptolemy IV Philopator as mentioned in 3 Maccabees.