Richard Dawkins

PDN wrote: »

And what has Irenaeus got to do with Dawkins' quote?

His arbitrary reasons for justifying the canonical gospels.

We already know that the four canonical Gospels were in use as a unit before Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies".

But not exclusively those 4 everywhere. Some churches used the 4, some used a sub set of them, some used a subset with other writings etc etc

... it was a case of Irenaeus attempting (badly IMHO) to defend what was already accepted by the Church against those who would dispute it.

Which is not the point. The point is there were people who did dispute it.

You won't get far with citing "a few scholars"! Most scholars date Thomas much later, and besides, its theology is clearly Gnostic. Therefore, while it probably didn't exist while the 4 canonical Gospels were becoming accepted, if it did then it would still be rejected on theological grounds. So, again, not arbitrarily.

If group x considered jesus to be a man and group y considered him to be a god/man then group y selecting books which supported their position only, is arbitrary in relation to group x.

This is the whole point, that there was disagreement.

THat is irrelevant to whether they were chosen arbitrarily or not. All the evidence we have indicates that the early christians, fallible or not, did what they 'thought' was right for reasons that were very far from arbitrary.

The early christians with power who believed in one thing made choices for all christians, many of whom believed in another thing.

Thats 'more or less arbitrary'.

Which would argue against the choice being made arbitrarily. The Canon was formed after much debate and discussion.

And compromise.

However, and this was my point, Dawkins specifically named works that Jefferson was thinking of when, in fact, it was impossible for Jefferson to have known about those particular books.

What ? Its very clear in the text that he was referring to 'those gospels' as the larger set which was rejected. Not as the specific gospels he mentioned by name.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that ?

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's the kind of odds were talking about here. With just some slight variations in the constants of our universe, it could have turned out to be a very very very different type of universe altogether, and yet they are in this range in the initial conditions of the big bang. And here we are, advanced, complex intelligent life, existing on a planet that just so happens to be the right size, the right distance from the right type of star (main sequence), at just the right time in its age, with just the right rotation period, the right axis tilt, habitable zone i.e. where water can exist in its three forms, ice, liquid and gas. And on one could go with the variables. With that kind of improbability I think we are quite justified in defining such an improbable happening as a miracle.

Is that from Craig ? If so its a perfect example of why hes a sophist, a liar and should be classified as little better then a creationist.

Life evolved according to the conditions available. The Universe was not designed to support our kind of life, our kind of life evolved to survive in the conditions available.

e.g > Millions of years ago the Earths atmosphere contained many times more oxygen then it currently does. This allowed much larger creatures to survive without the need for lungs.

Life can survive in the most incredible places and we have barely scratched the surface of our own planet, never mind our solar system.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes I know but if it means its highly unlikely you'll win the Lotto, it still does not change the fact that the lotto can be won and that there is indeed evidence that the Lotto can be won.

Therefore I feel that if God is improbable it means hes Probable.

Probable: having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt
Improbable: not probable; unlikely to be true or to happen

I don't particularly understand what your trying to do here Stephen, revise the English language ?

Probable and improbable are as different as 'understand' and 'misunderstand'.

Therefore I feel that if <calculus> is <misunderstood< it means its <understood>. Does that make sense to you ?

Are you trying to argue that god is probable or that the word improbable shouldn't be used in reference to god ?

monosharp wrote: »

His arbitrary reasons for justifying the canonical gospels.

Oh come on, you can do better than that. His reasoning (while dodgy) was after the Four Gospels were already in common use. The clue is in the title of his work "Against Heresies". He was arguing for what was already the established position over and against those that opposed the established position.

Therefore the Irenaeus quote is irrelevant for anyone wanting to know the reasons why the Gospels were chosen in the first place.

But not exclusively those 4 everywhere. Some churches used the 4, some used a sub set of them, some used a subset with other writings etc etc

That is just an irrelevant smokescreen. Even today the books of the Bible are not exclusively used everywhere (eg Mormons and JWs add their own books).

What is clear is that the Four Gospels were in general use, in a way other Gospels were not, both in the West and the East. Irenaeus, ironically, is evidence of this in that he is defending what is already the orthodox position against Gnostic groups and heretics.

Similarly, at least twenty years before Irenaeus, a harmonisation of the Four Gospels was already translated into Syriac and distributed in the East - Tatian's Diatessaron (Greek for 'through four'). Interestingly, scholars are pretty sure that Tatian based his work on an earlier Greek harmonisation of the Four Gospels - evidence that these Four Gospels enjoyed an authority in the Church long before Irenaeus.

Since you are fond of wikipedia you can look it up there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

"In the early Church, the gospels at first circulated independently, with Matthew the most popular. The Diatessaron is notable evidence for the authority already enjoyed by the four gospels by the mid-second century. Twenty years after Tatian's harmony, Irenaeus expressly proclaimed the authoritative character of the four gospels. The Diatessaron became a standard text of the gospels in some Syriac-speaking churches down to the fifth century, when it gave way to the four separate Gospels, in the Pe****ta version. (Wikipedia)

So, Irenaeus is irrelevant to how the Four Gospels were chosen since he is merely justifying something that had occurred decades earlier. Again, if Dawkins had known what he was writing about then he would have avoided his 'arbitrarily' error.

Which is not the point. The point is there were people who did dispute it.

No, that is not the point, the point is whether the Four Gospels were chosen arbitrarily or not. The fact that people disputed the choice is, if anything, evidence that they were not chose arbitrarily but only after much debate and assessment.

If group x considered jesus to be a man and group y considered him to be a god/man then group y selecting books which supported their position only, is arbitrary in relation to group x.

This is the whole point, that there was disagreement.

No, once again, that is not the point. The point was whether the Four Gospels were chosen arbitrarily. And now you are arguing against yourself, for you are now saying that the books were chosen on theological grounds (because they supported the church's historic understanding of who Jesus was) rather than being chosen arbitrarily.

The early christians with power who believed in one thing made choices for all christians, many of whom believed in another thing.

Thats 'more or less arbitrary'.

Again, this is the kind of nonsense that would not be peddled if people understood what they were talking about.

At the time when the Four Gospels were being recognised as authoritative (early 2nd Century) there were no Christians "with power". The Christians were a persecuted minority. The only power that leaders had was the ability to present their arguments in a way that individual believers would accept their reasoning. The vast majority of grassroots Christians chose to accept the Four Gospels on the grounds of authorship, dates, and theology.

In fact, the people with power in the Second Century (the Romans) would have favoured Gnostic interpretations because their downgraded view of Jesus was more easily accomodated into imperial policy (if you don't actually believe Jesus to be God then there's no problem with saying 'Caesar is Lord'). Even later on when Imperial power became a factor in the Church (200 years after the Four Gospels gained acceptance), Constantine actually supported the heretical Arian position which was rejected at Nicaea. The orthodox position was affirmed in opposition to those in power.

The idea of of powerful Church Councils determining that the Four Gospels were to be chosen instead of a lot of other comparable Gospels is anachronistic claptrap that deserves to stay in unhistorical potboilers like The Davinci Code. The unfortunate thing is that Dawkins tends to lean towards Davinci Code/Zeitgist nonsense, and again this is because he decides to write about stuff that he doesn't actually understand. Dawkins writing about the Bible and early Church History is like me writing a book on evolution.

And compromise.

That is debatable. However, compromise (as anyone who has participated in negotiations well knows) is generally achieved after a lot of discussion and weighing up of the merits of different positions. Compromises are rarely arrived at arbitrarily.

What ? Its very clear in the text that he was referring to 'those gospels' as the larger set which was rejected. Not as the specific gospels he mentioned by name.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that ?

Look, I'm really not interested in playing another round of the game where Dawkins' disciples reinterpret his words to mean something different from their plain sense on paper.

He listed a lot of books that Jefferson had no way of knowing even existed, and then said that these were what Jefferson had in mind when he wrote to his nephew. Now, if you want to argue that Dawkins actually meant (without saying so) some other books than the ones he had mentioned then I'm not interested in participating in that kind of semantics.

The point, however, is that Dawkins mentioned those particular books because even he is aware that Jefferson was quite wrong. Subsequent advances in biblical studies and history have demonstrated conclusively that any books that Jefferson may have had in mind were never serious contenders to be treated on a par with the Four Gospels. Therefore, in order to make Jefferson's position sound more credible, Dawkins had to attribute to Jefferson knowledge that could only have been obtained by use of a time travelling machine.

Anyway, what the heck has Jefferson got to do with biblical studies or Church History anyway? The guy had his own idiosyncratic opinions, but he was no more a biblical scholar than is Dawkins. The only reason Dawkins dragged him into the subject of the Four Gospels was as a neat debating trick to appeal to Americans who hero-worship the founding fathers. It is sophistry, designed by someone with little understanding of what he's writing about in order to appeal to those with even less understanding of the subject.

Dawkins clearly lacks an understanding of theology, biblical studies, early Church History, or of textual criticism. If he sticks to writing about what he does understand (science and evolution) then that won't be a problem.

You asked for one error. I have given you one. The Four Gospels were not chosen arbitrarily, and citing a letter by a time-travelling US President does not prove Dawkin's assertion.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Um, no. Neither thinking deeply nor having questions that science and math don't answer make you an idiot and I don't think Dawkins thinks that it does. I think the problem comes in when you jump from "I don't know" to "so it must be god"

Yes but Dawkin's definition of not knowing is based on discounting things like personal religious experience and faith and miracles and all the other usual reasons for believing which we as believers don't discount. (Or at least we obviously all don't discount all of them, in general. Some of us might factor some of the usual reasons for believing in, others might factor a different set of all possible reasons for believing in.) And he hasn't shown these to ultimately be incorrect, It's just that he chooses to discount them because he can't scientifically prove them or thinks they're improbable. His atheism is ultimately just his own judgement call. We that believe make a different judgement call because we factor in things that he doesn't deem worthy of factoring in.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The part in bold is really just another way of saying "you can't prove god doesn't exist". Things like claims of personal experience and miracles will be accepted when they show themselves to be reliable indicators, not just because they cannot be conclusively proven not to be indicators

No, it's not the point I'm trying to get at, though obviously it's true and an important point to remember too. I'm looking at the other end of the belief spectrum and how people go from judging what they're presented with to believing in God. I don't know if we're ever going to be able to prove scientifically the validity of the reasons for believing in God so until then we each have to make a judgement call.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes I know but if it means its highly unlikely you'll win the Lotto, it still does not change the fact that the lotto can be won and that there is indeed evidence that the Lotto can be won.

Therefore I feel that if God is improbable it means hes Probable.

Do you mean possible or probable? I think you mean possible, which I would agree with (and so would Dawkins, that was in fact his point)

monosharp wrote: »

I didn't state otherwise. I know by that time the four canonical gospels were largely accepted as a unit but the mere fact that there was disagreement then and in the past supports Dawkins point.

No, it doesn't support his point. Most important decisions are made after discussion and debate. Some people, inevitably, will disagree with a decision. But none of that means that the decision was made 'arbitrarily'.

The fact of the matter is that the early christians had disagreements over the gospels and the nature of Jesus. Some of the choices made were compromises between belief systems, some were simply chosen as the 'truth' because they were the most widespread/popular at the time.

The fact that a belief is widespread or popular does not mean it was arbitrarily chosen. In fact it usually means the opposite.

Listen I did agree that his wording was well off and he should have been more specific but thats not saying he was wrong either.

This reminds me of politicians who say they 'mis-spoke'. His wording was 'well off' because he was wrong. You asked for an example of an error, I gave you it, and now you try to evade that clear fact by using a euphemism about his wording being well off.

If you say something that is untrue, then it is an error.

It was to show that there continued to be disagreement over the chosen gospels well after they were 'chosen'.

This is like having a discussion with a deaf person.

No-one denies there was disagreement. But that does not mean they were arbitrarily chosen.

After much arbitrary debate and assessment.

:eek:

I give up. Go and look up 'arbitrarily' in a dictionary. I don't know why you waste both of our time with this kind of mangling of the English language.

I have shown you an error as you requested. You prefer to say that Dawkins' wording "was well off" and to use uses phrases such as the above that don't even make sense. You think what you like - I'm done trying to talk to you.

equivariant wrote: »

Anyway, I off to shower, having dirtied myself by spending the day defending WLC. I need to purge myself before going out to watch Barca hammer Arsenal

See? Proof that miracles do happen.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, actually it was from Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS, mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. Bio taken from Wiki.

I meant your lotto ticket rant.

"Such figures are beyond human comprehension. We cannot help but wonder how these constants could have happened to have these values. Just a slight change, in even a few of these numbers, and atoms could not form. Stars could not shine. The earth and all its inhabitants could not even exist. The universe would just be an enormous junkyard of useless, practically inert particles, dead matter, and chaos."

Nonsense.

There have been many simulations on this very subject which shows nothing of the sort. This 'fine-tuning' is not anywhere near as fine tuned as you are led to believe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900

Yes but the initial conditions right there in the big bang to be fine tuned for life by chance are so highly highly highly improbable as to be impossible as outline by Penrose.

For WHAT life ?

Did it? Not according to the Miller Urey experiment. In that experiment, which was supposed to simulate the very early atmosphere of the earth, it puts the level of oxygen at practically zero. Yet you say there was an abundance of oxygen? Who's wrong here?

Your aware that the Earth is very old right ? and has a long history right ?

Some geologists believe that giant arthropods evolved due to higher levels of oxygen in the atmosphere in the past, while others believe that they evolved in an ‘arms race’ alongside their likely prey - the early armoured fish.

Any you accuse Craig of sophistry? Jeeze

Oh ? So life cannot exist in amazing places ?

Read this.

As for the fine-tuned universe as an argument, its complete tosh.

Known life, that is, life as we know it, is fine tuned to the Universe and hence the conditions it finds itself in.

This is exactly what evolution does. Life can adapt to the most inhospitable of places.

Please see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html

or http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fined.cfm

or if your lazy a Neil Tyson video.



of course wikipedia:

"The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.The fine-tuned universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible. In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the universe through the process of evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the universe"