Must Be a Baby Critic

This entry was posted on Friday, November 9th, 2007 at 11:37 pm and is filed under The Rabbit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

22 Responses to “Must Be a Baby Critic”

Farshad Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Finland in mourning after fatal school shooting

Hours before the shooting, a video titled "Jokela High School Massacre –11/7/2007" was posted on the YouTube site by someone who identified himself as Auvinen.

In rambling text posted on the site two weeks before the shooting, Auvinen called himself "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist."

"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," he wrote. "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." (emphasis added)

So he killed innocent people in name of ~~God~~ "Natural Selection"!? Now where are those Dawkinians who believe faith is root of all evil, all terror and mass murder?

Comment by Farshad — November 10, 2007 @ 7:14 am

keiths Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Farshad asks:

Now where are those Dawkinians who believe faith is root of all evil, all terror and mass murder?

Dawkins himself doesn't believe that faith is the root of all evil. To the extent that anyone believes it is, they are "anti-Dawkinsian", not "Dawkinsian" (though such labels aren't of much use anyway).

Comment by keiths — November 10, 2007 @ 8:21 am

MikeGene Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Dawkins speaks about faith in the first minutes of this vid:

Comment by MikeGene — November 10, 2007 @ 8:36 am

keiths Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 9:33 am
And from his speech immediately preceding that question-and-answer session:

At 42:15:

Well, of course we don't want to indoctrinate children with atheism. That would be as bad as indoctrinating them with religion. Of course what we want to do is to teach them to think for themselves.

At 45:05:

Religion is not the root of all evil, but it gets in the way of a proper appreciation of the world, and the universe, in which we find ourselves. And that is an evil in itself.

By the way, at around 1:00, Dawkins discusses the astonishing popularity of recent atheistic books. He mentions that The God Delusion has sold 1.25 million copies in English alone, and that there are 31 foreign-language editions either published or on the way.

And that's before the publication of the paperback version, which I understand is coming out in January (at least in the US).

Fantastic.

Comment by keiths — November 10, 2007 @ 9:33 am

Bradford Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Dawkins:

Religion is not the root of all evil, but it gets in the way of a proper appreciation of the world, and the universe, in which we find ourselves. And that is an evil in itself.

It doesn't get in my way.

Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2007 @ 11:01 am

thechristiancynic Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 11:43 am
In rambling text posted on the site two weeks before the shooting, Auvinen called himself "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist."

You know, as much as I've seen this quote, not one person has commented on the fact that the shooter is couching himself in oxymorons (e.g. especially "realistic idealist"). That seems to me either 1) an attempt to show how useless labels are or 2) suggestive of the idea that the shooter found much of life to be absurd (perhaps the existentialist reference is a good clue to that). The fact that he called himself a social Darwinist really should be considered subordinate to the fact that he qualifies it with "anti-social," in my opinion. (Not that it really matters, anyway, since acceptance of modern evolutionary theory does not necessitate adherence to social Darwinism, eugenics, etc.)

Comment by thechristiancynic — November 10, 2007 @ 11:43 am

keiths Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Bradford,

Judging from the way you react to neuroscientific data that challenges your preconceptions, I'd say that religion is a huge impediment to your understanding.

http://telicthoughts.com/john-wise-and-id/
http://telicthoughts.com/misusing-science/
http://telicthoughts.com/backing-into-an-evidentiary-standard-for-id/

Comment by keiths — November 10, 2007 @ 12:04 pm

keiths Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Speaking of which, Bradford, what do you think of the new book by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary: The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul?

You must think they're completely off base, right? After all, you've argued that the existence of the soul cannot be addressed scientifically.

Comment by keiths — November 10, 2007 @ 12:51 pm

Farshad Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
From above video:

01:14 – 02:17

If you teach children or teach people, that there is a virtue in faith. If you teach people that it's OK to believe something in the absence of evidence. Maybe even it's more virtuous to believe something if there's no evidence than if there is and that's certainly part of the message that gets across.
And that's what is told by the moderate, decent, middle of the road, religious teachers. If you believe that, then if you have any tendency toward extremism at all, there is really nothing to stop you pushing your extreme views to the logical conclusion which is to kill people. Why would you not if you've been persuaded that this is what Allah wants you to do or Jehovah wants you to do? And you really really really truly believe it and you've been talked to really really truly believe it by those moderate teachers, then why wouldn't you blow people up, blow yourself up, etc.

Comment by Farshad — November 10, 2007 @ 1:49 pm

MikeGene Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Thanks for transcribing that, Farshad. Dawkins has clearly abandoned scientific thinking and replaced it irrational preaching.

Comment by MikeGene — November 10, 2007 @ 2:24 pm

Bradford Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Keiths:

Bradford,

Judging from the way you react to neuroscientific data that challenges your preconceptions, I'd say that religion is a huge impediment to your understanding.

http://telicthoughts.com/john-...
http://telicthoughts.com/misus...
http://telicthoughts.com/backi...

Not at all Keiths. Two of the three links were to blog entries authored by me and I stand by my conviction that references made in them were evidence of misuse of science. Misuse of science is an indicator that the perpetrator is motivated by his own metaphysical perceptions rather than concern for the integrity of an empirical discipline. I have not read The Spiritual Brain. I have much the same view of spiritual concerns as David Heddle does regarding cosmological design. You can see design if you are looking for it just as one can see evidences that bear on the issue of a soul. However that is not to say you have a scientific case for any side on either matter. BTW, I never have received a response from you or any like thinker as to why a scientific hypothesis would test for a soul. Why not test for a tangible physical effect instead?

Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2007 @ 3:19 pm

keiths Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Regarding Farshad's Dawkins quote — I made a similar argument on another thread in the course of explaining Sam Harris's position:

Mike Gene wrote:

The fatal flaw in Harris's argument is that there is no reason to single out religious moderates for such criticism as it can be applied to just about any position"¦ Harris's argument is an argument against all moderates and is thus an Argument From Extremism.

Hi Mike,

You've misinterpreted Harris's argument if you see it as applying broadly to moderates of all stripes, on all issues.

Harris sees religious faith, which he defines as "simply unjustified belief in matters of ultimate concern," as harmful. The continuum of which he speaks consists of people, from one end to the other, who regard religious faith as a positive thing and a worthy foundation on which to base important decisions.

A religious moderate may base her morality, for example, on her faith that God wants her to behave in a particular way. Her morality may in fact be perfectly benign and unobjectionable to society at large. But the fact that she bases it on faith is a tacit endorsement of the idea that faith "” unjustified belief "” is a suitable basis for moral decisions.

Having supported the idea that moral decisions can be legitimately based on faith, how can she now argue that a religious extremist is unjustified in killing infidels, if he genuinely believes that God wants him to? His morality is based on faith, just as hers is. How can one set of unjustified beliefs trump another?

Harris's point is not that moderation per se is a bad thing. His argument is that moderation in faith is a bad thing, because the legitimization of faith itself takes reason off the table and gives cover to those who hold extreme ideas, and take extreme actions, on the basis of faith.

Mike,

What is irrational about my argument?

Comment by keiths — November 10, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

Bradford Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Keiths, one flaw in the above is the definition of faith. From above:

But the fact that she bases it on faith is a tacit endorsement of the idea that faith "” unjustified belief "” is a suitable basis for moral decisions.

You are asserting a claim that faith is an unjustified belief. It's a personal opinion around which the remainder of the claims depend. The biblical definition of faith can be extended to everyday life situations in that people commonly believe in things they cannot rigorously prove. They have been doing so since antiquity. Most instances entail secular issues. If one only acted on rigorous proof not much would get accomplished.

Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2007 @ 3:49 pm

Farshad Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Keiths,

Problem with Dawkins' way of thinking is that his views are not supported by any kind of scientific research. He claims that people with faith plus a tendency towards extremism are likely to kill others in name of their god or whoever they believe in. As a scientist he must be able to show enough data from real world to support his views. He must be able to prove that a faithless person who also have a tendency towards extremism, under any circumstances, will not kill innocent people. He simply ignores the fact that in many cases having faith stops people from doing bad things. He doesn't take it into account that, compared with those who have faith, nonbelievers may even have more tendency towards extremism and murder because there is no fear of hell or divine judgment to stop them.
Can he prove that if somehow we manage to remove faith from human brain then the resulted new human will build a new world where murder, crime, wars and suffering no longer exist? Obviously, he can not. Apparently as Mike stated, what he is doing there is nothing but preaching.

Comment by Farshad — November 10, 2007 @ 5:42 pm

Bradford Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Farshad:

Problem with Dawkins' way of thinking is that his views are not supported by any kind of scientific research. He claims that people with faith plus a tendency towards extremism are likely to kill others in name of their god or whoever they believe in.

Farshad, I agree with Dawkins on this.:shock: Consider Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot as well as their great faith in a Marxist utopia. There it is; three mass murdering extremists acting on their faith.

Comment by Bradford — November 10, 2007 @ 5:47 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Bradford wrote:

Farshad, I agree with Dawkins on this. Consider Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot as well as their great faith in a Marxist utopia. There it is; three mass murdering extremists acting on their faith.

Stalin, Mao tse tung and Pol Pot"¦ which one of these men was a Christian? Or, were they Muslim? Jewish? I don't remember.
Keiths wrote:

By the way, at around 1:00, Dawkins discusses the astonishing popularity of recent atheistic books. He mentions that The God Delusion has sold 1.25 million copies in English alone, and that there are 31 foreign-language editions either published or on the way.

Anne Coulters books have been selling well too. Haven't they? I don't personally agree with everything Anne writes and says but I do think that she is better looking and has a better sense of humor (a genuinely wicked sense of humor) than Dawkins. Does Dawkins even have a sense of humor?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 11, 2007 @ 11:24 am

keiths Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
John,

Trashy Coulteresque books have been selling well for hundreds of years. That's not new.

What's new is the popularity of atheistic books, which mainstream publishers wouldn't even touch a few years ago. Now all of the following have appeared on the bestseller lists:

1. The End of Faith — Sam Harris
2. Letter to a Christian Nation — Sam Harris
3. Breaking the Spell — Dan Dennett
4. The God Delusion — Richard Dawkins
5. God is not Great — Christopher Hitchens

And this one is likely to follow:

6. Irreligion — John Allen Paulos (to be released 12/26)

Plus we have Bill Maher's documentary film Religulous coming out on Easter 2008, according to plan.

No one would have predicted the kind of intense, critical scrutiny that religion is getting these days. That's newsworthy.

Comment by keiths — November 11, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

MikeGene Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Hi keiths,

What's new is the popularity of atheistic books, which mainstream publishers wouldn't even touch a few years ago.

True, there is definitely a market for religion-bashing books. I think this is further evidence that the New Atheist movement is a post-911 reaction.

Yet we need to remember that those books are clearly playing the lead edge in a Movement and one way to promote the Movement is for activists to purchase multiple copies so they can make it "news." The stat that would be truly informative is not the number of copies sold, but the number of people who purchased copies.

Comment by MikeGene — November 11, 2007 @ 1:02 pm

keiths Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Bradford wrote:

You are asserting a claim that faith is an unjustified belief.

Yes, because that is one of the definitions of the word 'faith', and it is that form of faith that is the most worrisome. Of course there are other forms of faith, like faith in the loyalty of a trusted old friend, that are better justified, being based on adequate evidence.

The biblical definition of faith can be extended to everyday life situations in that people commonly believe in things they cannot rigorously prove. They have been doing so since antiquity. Most instances entail secular issues. If one only acted on rigorous proof not much would get accomplished.

Your argument amounts to this:

1. Faith is required when rigorous proof is not possible.
2. We'd be immobilized if we required rigorous proof of everything.
3. Therefore faith is necessary and good, because it keeps us from getting stuck.

The first problem with this kind of argument is that you're lumping all of the varieties of faith together, as if all of them could be justified on the same grounds. This is simply not true.

Secondly, a lack of faith need not lead to paralysis. For example, suppose I plan a picnic for tomorrow, when the forecast calls for a 30% chance of rain. It's not necessary for me to have faith that it will be sunny. In fact, it would be foolhardy. My best bet is to accept the uncertainty and plan accordingly — for example, going ahead with the picnic, but planning it for a park that has a gazebo which can be used in the event of rain.

Making decisions based on incomplete information is not the same as making decisions blindly, without sufficient reason.

Comment by keiths — November 11, 2007 @ 1:50 pm

keiths Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Mike wrote:

Yet we need to remember that those books are clearly playing the lead edge in a Movement and one way to promote the Movement is for activists to purchase multiple copies so they can make it "news." The stat that would be truly informative is not the number of copies sold, but the number of people who purchased copies.

Mike,

That sounds unrealistic to me.

What percentage of buyers do you think would spontaneously spend good money just to inflate the sales figures for a book, particularly when noone is asking them to do it?

Comment by keiths — November 11, 2007 @ 2:05 pm

Bradford Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
You are asserting a claim that faith is an unjustified belief.

Keiths: Yes, because that is one of the definitions of the word 'faith', and it is that form of faith that is the most worrisome.

An unjustified belief is not a definition of faith. Never was. It is a New Atheist ploy. Redefine a word to set up a strawman. Sounds like something a Wedgey would do. That is what is truly worrisome. Redefining words has traditionally been a tool of tyrants or those motivated by political expediency.

Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
The point I was trying to make with Coulter was that controversy sells. Anne is known to be a bomb thrower who doesn't seem to mind the controvery. In fact one has to wonder if she doesn't deliberately stir at least some of it up. She herself has said that every time she is involved in a public controversy her book sales go up (wink, wink). I think Dawkins, Harris et al have learned basically the same tacky little trick.

I would never quote Anne Coulter as a serious scholar, even on some of the things upon which I agree with her. I do, however, like some of her humor and satire. My opinion of the new atheist is pretty much the same. At best their scholarship and reasoning is poor to shallow. (Furthermore, they are virtually devoid of any sense of humor) They have however learned the art of controversy. And as I said above, controversy (like sex) sells.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 12, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

Must Be a Baby Critic

22 Responses to “Must Be a Baby Critic”

Featured Books