Man from Edinburgh gets it all wrong

robindch

From Today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0719/1224300946794.html

Mackey wrote:

RITE AND REASON: THE SECOND, twin platform that supports Richard Dawkin’s atheism provides a much more successful critique of Christianity and of some other religions; as he discerns quite accurately in our Bible the features of a divinity who looks like a savage warlord.

This divinity fights alongside his very own people and religion; ordering ethnic cleansing and the massacre of whole tribes; not to mention eventually robbing a particular people of their native land so his favourites could occupy it. A divinity who imposes our moral and religious duties upon us by threats of horrible punishment, both in this life and the next; and who, according to Christians at least, requires the sacrifice of the life of an innocent, stainless human being, as in the most primitive times, to satisfy divine anger. Such religious beliefs and practices are the very nemesis of true morality.

For our race has too often been enticed by the content of such beliefs to imitate these savage divinities. Confirmed in that intent we obey our moral rules under the impression the divinity enforces these under pain of punishment for refusal, and promised reward for compliance. Any act is morally good only in so far as we choose to do it simply because we can ourselves know it to be good for both self and others; or morally evil when we choose to do it despite the fact that we ourselves know it to be bad for self and others.

There is no doubt Dawkins secures a victory here over some religions, in the area of their formulated moralities; but two sets of qualifying comment need to be added. First, his argument should deter people from proposing and worshipping a certain kind of divinity, but it does not thereby prove a quite different kind of creator of cosmos, a morality-friendly divinity exists.

But then equally, as a leading Irish humanist at the Dublin convention told Róisín Ingle, there was no need to profess atheism to hold to his central belief humanity can live by a true morality without invoking some divinity, and atheists frequently sound as dogmatic as believers. Second, the creator of the cosmos according to Dawkins is “evolution” and, according to Dawkins’s darling, Darwin, “evolution” creates our world by mutations, some of which mindlessly confer an advantage in the struggle for existence and life.

The favoured ones propagate and survive, while the unfavoured and weaker go to the wall; giving the natural rule for limitless success in life as that of the survival of the fittest. That is then the rule that human beings should adopt as their moral principle; with a codicil to the effect that helping the weak ones is wrong, since such senseless bonhomie serves only to dilute the fitness of the race by helping the unfit.

Darwin himself recognised, and welcomed the affinity of his theory with that of the apostle of laissez-faire capitalism, Malthus. For the god of Malthus’s capitalist credo is money, Mammon, the one Jesus recognised as the rival of the true God. As we Irish know only too well at this time when the priests of Mammon, the professional moneymakers, require a penitential fast from us, the debilitating effects of which, it is decreed, must be felt most by the weakest. This is so the fittest will survive unencumbered by costly begging losers, and enjoy ever after the best of all worlds.

Dawkins’s Darwinism has a god alright; and a morality that fits its nature. The blind god is “evolution” and its ruling moral principle is: whether by enterprise or chance mutation you gain monetary advantage in the struggle of all against all for life ever more abundant, use this superior fitness entirely for yourself, for helping the weak will only hold you back.

WTF?

Dades

What an idiot.

Some of the comments are excellent and put into words what I'm too dismayed to having read that article.

sponsoredwalk

There's a back story to this nonsense, he wrote an earlier piece I only came
across because of this thread & in it he first mentions Dawkins "twin
pillars". The article already posted in this thread is him explaining the
second pillar, here is first article containing much joyous quantum fun
about the first pillar:

RITE AND REASON: A leap of faith is required to accept the argument offered by Richard Dawkins

RICHARD DAWKINS sold himself very short indeed in Dublin recently. For he was mainly concerned with securing the claim that “if science can’t get at the truth, nothing else can”; and then with securing not just the equality but the superiority of science over religions and their theologies.

So he insisted, first, that science entertains “much mystery and magic of its own”; and, second, that the queen of science on the contemporary scene, quantum physics, reveals mysteries that would be “well beyond the impoverished imaginings of any theologian”.

Dawkins’s case is built on twin platforms. First, that evolution offers a full and adequate explanation of how the world came to be as we now know it; and this makes creator gods superfluous.

Then, second, that creator gods, and especially the Christian version, are nothing short of agents of immorality, both by example and in terms of their actual moral teachings, and the horrendous punishments threatened to enforce these.

All of which nullifies any remaining possibility of good moral behaviour on the part of a race already apparently only too prone to immorality, and increasingly so as its powers of destruction grow apace.

The first platform for Dawkins’s case against religion – that evolution theory makes creator gods obsolete – creaks at every joint. Since a full understanding of it requires a broad acquaintance with both physical science (especially quantum physics) and metaphysics and few, possibly including Dawkins (a mere biologist, if not just a zoologist) can claim such broad expertise, it is sufficient to note briefly here how those properly endowed do handle it. Then we can pass on quickly to Dawkins’s moral argument; for we are all endowed by nature with a moral sense and an impressive moral repertoire.

First, evolution names a process, not an agent. It simply tells us that whatever agency causes this world to come to be what it now is, did not create the world in the beginning in the form in which we now know it.

Rather did the agency create the world in the beginning in such a manner that a certain randomness in the “units” out of which the world is made, is always combined with it. This is never without sets of laws that govern the cosmic dance of the “units” ever alternatively coming together and breaking apart, until the world we now inhabit continues to come to be.

And because the randomness in the “units” offers the possibility of virtually infinite combinations and permutations, regulated by laws themselves designed to evolve apace, contemporary science holds out the possibility – for some more than a possibility – of innumerable worlds, according to either the multiverse or the many-worlds formula.

Second, quantum physics challenges the notion that the original “units” consist in atomic particles that are in effect hard balls of solid matter. It suggests instead that these are more akin to pure geometric forms, like one-dimensional strings or triangles for example; and these, like the laws, look more like mental constructs.

So that it is matter that emerges from mind, rather than mind from matter; and Dawkins’s imagination may be the one that is too impoverished to see the full implications of quantum physics.

Scientists who work in quantum physics and regard the mind-born entity called knowledge as the main formative, causative factor in the making of the cosmos, normally assure us it is not as advocates of any religion that they arrive at these views.

Finally, Dawkins freely admits science still cannot see how life, much less mind, can have emerged from lifeless matter.

But that leaves his totally evolutionary explanation of the coming to be of the cosmos still looking at a yawning gap in the evidence offered for his theory; requiring, it would seem, a leap of faith to cross it. But that, surely, could not be science; and one cannot but recall all Dawkins has to say about leaps of faith.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0712/1224300557484.html

It's important to keep in mind this is posted in the opinion section

BluntGuy

Both of those articles are utterly awful and the worst kind of sophistry.

I would go through his article and point out why every single thing he quoted about quantum physics is utterly wrong/mangled, but it's neither worth the time nor effort, and even as someone who has studied physics at 3rd and 4th level, I genuinely have no idea what point he was trying to make half the time:

Rather did the agency create the world in the beginning in such a manner that a certain randomness in the “units” out of which the world is made, is always combined with it. This is never without sets of laws that govern the cosmic dance of the “units” ever alternatively coming together and breaking apart, until the world we now inhabit continues to come to be.

?????????????????????????????????????

Scientists who work in quantum physics and regard the mind-born entity called knowledge as the main formative, causative factor in the making of the cosmos, normally assure us it is not as advocates of any religion that they arrive at these views.

I'd love to meet these scientists.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

From Today's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0719/1224300946794.html

WTF?

I quite specifically remember Dawkins castigating that crude translation of Darwinism into some sort of economic policy in one of his TV programmes.

Ickle Magoo

Is he not from Waterford?

MagicMarker

I couldn't finish it.

Sarky

How can someone use that many words without actually saying anything?

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

How can someone use that many words without actually saying anything?

As I said on the thread Sponsored link to he's a theologian i.e licence to bullsh1t.

AhSureTisGrand

Malty_T wrote: »

As I said on the thread Sponsored link to he's a theologian i.e licence to bullsh1t.

Then there are the more naturally gifted such as John Waters

Wibbs

Talk about WTF? It was akin to reading a more verbose version of The Secret.

Sarky wrote: »

How can someone use that many words without actually saying anything?

I can give lessons if you like?

The Mad Hatter

Those few comments defending the article are pretty uniformly hilarious too…

Galvasean

From what I could gather from those ramblings it appears he confuses the concept of evolution with 'might is right'.

MackDeToaster

I used to hold the Times in a bit of esteem, but if this is the level of drivel they're prepared to print then I'm actually embarrassed and ashamed for them. How could an editor actually let that go out ? Then again, I suppose I only have to look over the water to see my answer.

AhSureTisGrand

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I used to hold the Times in a bit of esteem, but if this is the level of drivel they're prepared to print then I'm actually embarrassed and ashamed for them. How could an editor actually let that go out ? Then again, I suppose I only have to look over the water to see my answer.

My understanding is that they like to keep a few token conservatives idiots so as not to be accused of being "intolerant liberals"

Galvasean

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

My understanding is that they like to keep a few token conservatives idiots so as not to be accused of being "intolerant liberals"

Fair and balanced

I may email all the papers and see if this gets printed:

If Dawkins are so smart then why do they live in igloos?

CiaranMT

I really, really, hope that the IT take heed of the 6 pages of comments on that article.

mikhail

CiaranMT wrote: »

I really, really, hope that the IT take heed of the 6 pages of comments on that article.

I'm sure they'll notice that anti-evolution articles generate lots of page views. Particularly the advertising department.

I'm not saying that they already did that.

I'm not.

CiaranMT

mikhail wrote: »

I'm sure they'll notice that anti-evolution articles generate lots of page views. Particularly the advertising department.

I'm not saying that they already did that.

I'm not.

Adblock Plus puts paid to that for me :cool:

Undergod

It doesn't mean anything.

goose2005

according to Dawkins’s darling, Darwin, “evolution” creates our world by mutations,

Except Darwin never knew that mutation happened, he died long before DNA was discovered

Turtwig

goose2005 wrote: »

Except Darwin never knew that mutation happened, he died long before DNA was discovered

Ha! Proof! An admission, at last that evolution was nothing more than a FAITH based theory!.:D:):pac:

Zombrex

goose2005 wrote: »

Except Darwin never knew that mutation happened, he died long before DNA was discovered

Never mind the fact that Darwinian evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, not life on Earth, the Earth or the universe as this guy seems to think it does.

It is hard to believe the Irish Times couldn't have got someone a bit more clued in to give 'balance'.

As Dara O'Briain said you never get this with the other sciences, you never get a guy on from NASA talking about a space probe and then, for "balance", Billy who thinks the sky is a veil of cloth made by God. :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

As Dara O'Briain said you never get this with the other sciences, you never get a guy on from NASA talking about a space probe and then, for "balance", Billy who thinks the sky is a veil of cloth made by God. :rolleyes:

*Cough* Moon Landing Hoax*Cough*

Galvasean

Malty_T wrote: »

*Cough* Moon Landing Hoax*Cough*

Do they get their opinions posted in newspapers every time somebody mentions the moon landing?

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

Do they get their opinions posted in newspapers every time somebody mentions the moon landing?

During the forty year anniversary tv3 went out of their way to interview adherents and gather their opinions without asking anyone for the debunkment.:(

And I shouldn't even need to mention the what goes on in the US.

Galvasean

I once watched a lengthy documentary on the prehistoric super shark called megalodon. Common sense indicates that this creature died out millions of years ago and the palaeontologists on the program attested to this. However, for the sake of balance, equal time was given to Steve Alten who believes megalodon is alive and well today. What's his profession? He's a science fiction writer who vestedly enough wrote a series of trashy novels about surviving megalodons eating people.


To this day he denies ripping off the jaws franchise...


Where was I? oh yeah, f#ck balance :mad:

Undergod

Galvasean wrote: »

Where was I? oh yeah, f#ck balance :mad:

But it's not a case of "**** balance", the very notion of giving these lunatic theories the same amount of air time is unbalanced. THey should assign time slots relative to the amount of plausible evidence the theories have.

Thus:
Dead megalodon- all of the time.
Alive megalodon- none of the time.

Logical Fallacy

Undergod wrote: »

But it's not a case of "**** balance", the very notion of giving these lunatic theories the same amount of air time is unbalanced. THey should assign time slots relative to the amount of plausible evidence the theories have.

Thus:
Dead megalodon- all of the time.
Alive megalodon- none of the time.

Yeah but if they did that we'd never have films like Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7ck5mcd1o

Undergod

Fair point. I like that movie.

Dades

^^ Get's better with every viewing on SyFy.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Get's better with every viewing on SyFy.

Not so sure. The acting looks a bit ropey to me. And I can't say I ever heard of any of the actors either.

AhSureTisGrand

robindch wrote: »

Not so sure. The acting looks a bit ropey to me. And I can't say I ever heard of any of the actors either.

Your argument is invalid

Turtwig

Hmm an organic object the mass of that shark leaping to that altitude and colliding with the plane travelling at that velocity would end up looking like a bug splattered across the windshield of a car.
Not to mention the fall back to the sea ....

Undergod

Malty_T wrote: »

Hmm an organic object the mass of that shark leaping to that altitude and colliding with the plane travelling at that velocity would end up looking like a bug splattered across the windshield of a car.
Not to mention the fall back to the sea ....

It's a MEGA shark.

Turtwig

Undergod wrote: »

It's a MEGA shark.

If it was a MEGA shark then it should have continued carrying the plane with it on the same direction as its original leap (have you ever seen a shark bite something?). Instead the shark came to almost a standstill and that leads only two possibilities with one conclusion :
a) The Shark was losing speed as he ascended and when he struck the plane he was almost at a standstill.
b) The Shark's collision with the plane caused a rapid deceleration in his velocity.

Conclusion : The Shark is F**KING dead!

Undergod

Malty_T wrote: »

If it was a MEGA shark then it should have continued carrying the plane with it on the same direction as its original leap (have you ever seen a shark bite something?). Instead the shark came to almost a standstill and that leads only two possibilities with one conclusion :
a) The Shark was losing speed as he ascended and when he struck the plane he was almost at a standstill.
b) The Shark's collision with the plane caused a rapid deceleration in his velocity.

Conclusion : The Shark is F**KING dead!

No, Conclusion: The Giant Octopus had better watch out!

Turtwig

Undergod wrote: »

No, Conclusion: The Giant Octopus had better watch out!

For falling jet debris and shark bits...

Zillah

Frankly, if every time some moron ranted about evolution or atheists we sat around talking about super-sharks I think the world would be a better place.

Undergod

Could we get that added to the charter?

Logical Fallacy

Malty_T wrote: »

If it was a MEGA shark then it should have continued carrying the plane with it on the same direction as its original leap (have you ever seen a shark bite something?). Instead the shark came to almost a standstill and that leads only two possibilities with one conclusion :
a) The Shark was losing speed as he ascended and when he struck the plane he was almost at a standstill.
b) The Shark's collision with the plane caused a rapid deceleration in his velocity.

Conclusion : The Shark is F**KING dead!

Mega Shark cares not for your logic.

To keep things vaguely theology orientated...how much bad ass would the Sisten Chapel be with this on the ceiling?



"And on the 3rd day...God created ZOMFG!!!!!!!!!"

Sarky

And soon after, God was eaten by Mega Shark.

Undergod

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Mega Shark cares not for your logic.

To keep things vaguely theology orientated...how much bad ass would the Sisten Chapel be with this on the ceiling?

The Sistine Chapel is awesome as is. Gay guy paints a load of naked men on the ceiling of the most holy church in the Vatican! Best graffiti ever.

Galvasean

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Yeah but if they did that we'd never have films like Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus.

sadly, science must take one for the team in favour of AWESOMEness. Sure if Jurassic Park was more realistic all of the dinos would have died while hatching because there isn't enough nitrogen in modern air to sustain them.
Which is a better movie? baby dinosaurs suffocating or a big eff off Tyrannosaurus rex chasing a jeep?

Undergod wrote: »

The Sistine Chapel is awesome as is. Gay guy paints a load of naked men on the ceiling of the most holy church in the Vatican! Best graffiti ever.

Here is Adam being act out for having sex with a woman.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Here is Adam being act out for having sex with a woman.
]

Weirdest typo for 'cast' I've ever seen...

Dave!

Was Eve giving him a blowie there...? Dooortie.

Undergod

Dave! wrote: »

Was Eve giving him a blowie there...? Dooortie.

He doesn't seem too into it.

Sarky

Remove the serpent and you have a naked man peeking through the tree branches to look at the ass of another naked man.

Of course the serpent has all manner of phallic connotations, too.

Galvasean

Sarky wrote: »

Of course the serpent has all manner of phallic connotations, too.

o_O Explain