Christopher Hitchens has died

later12 · 18-12-2011 05:00PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Dawkins makes it clear in his most recent books that they are a response to the rise of fundamentalism and the sheer number of people who discount evolution, mainly in The States and to a lesser extent in Europe.

Yes, I don't doubt that they are.

Again,I'm not actually criticising Dawkins. He's perfectly right in what he says. I just don't see him any more deserving of praise than the authors of my old science textbook for the junior certificate curriculum. He spells out the bare facts of Darwinism which to be honest shouldn't be anything new to the literate buying his books.

Like I said, my skepticism is not geared toward Dawkins himself, but toward that cohort of atheists who seem to celebrate him as some great public mind for atheism.

Cú Giobach · 18-12-2011 06:19PM

later10 wrote: »

Yes, I don't doubt that they are.

Again,I'm not actually criticising Dawkins. He's perfectly right in what he says. I just don't see him any more deserving of praise than the authors of my old science textbook for the junior certificate curriculum. He spells out the bare facts of Darwinism which to be honest shouldn't be anything new to the literate buying his books.

Like I said, my skepticism is not geared toward Dawkins himself, but toward that cohort of atheists who seem to celebrate him as some great public mind for atheism.

Judging from the arguments given against evolution, what Dawkins writes is defiantly new to quite a lot of people, and those who have left school tend not to read text books. My personal favourite of his books is "The Selfish Gene" and the content of that book was never touched in my school.

What ever your thoughts of the man he has got people talking. This very thing of outspoken atheism that annoys a lot of people is actually quite a positive step which Dawkins has certainly had a hand in, if only for his part in that, I for one applaud him.

philologos · 18-12-2011 07:09PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I do.
But what about committing an action while knowing what the results of that action will be? In that case you are choosing to cause that result.

Not particularly. Choosing to create people who are freely willed doesn't make you responsible for what they all do. Much in the same way that a parent isn't responsible for what their children necessarily do.

Simply put as I would understand it, God in making us free clearly set boundaries that we should follow, and legislates ultimately on the basis of these boundaries. We have no excuse if we disobey Him.

I don't think your argument is a particularly good one.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In the case of a deity creating something while at the same time knowing what the results of his actions are, means he is predetermining what will happen, because everything he creates is under his control and formed by him, otherwise, there goes omnipotence.

Not at all. God created us to be autonomous. You seem to think that knowing is the same thing as preordaining. That isn't particularly logical and one could give a number of examples where this doesn't make much sense.

God could control us entirely, but He has chosen not to because he desired for us to be free for the most part.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

How can you say he is not responsible for it, when what he creates is up to him.
When god (supposedly) gave Hitler life, he already knew what he would get up to, if he didn't know this and Adolf could have possibly become a mechanic instead, then there goes omniscience. He had to have known what would happen in the 1930's and 40's and known it well before AH :eek: was born, right back to the beginning of time 6,000 years ago.
It really is quite simple.
There is no logical argument for omniscience, omnipotence and free will.

As much as I don't like breaking Godwin's Law on the thread: I don't think God is responsible for the Holocaust either. This isn't even referring to omnipotence and free will any more, this is referring to why doesn't God prevent every bad thing from happening.

Firstly, I think it is surprising that people who refuse to even acknowledge God would presume that if He were to prevent every evil thing from happening that they would believe. I would assume that you would still be as much in opposition to Him, or that you would attribute it to something else other than God.

Secondly, I think that evil can have a purpose. Biblically we have the example of Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. This was a bad thing. Ultimately at the end of the book of Genesis Joseph says the following to his brothers about his experience:

Genesis 50:15-21 wrote:

When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he died: ‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

Evil can ultimately be worked for good purposes. Joseph's brothers did evil towards him, yet it ultimately turned out to be good. In my own life I can see how God worked what was bad in my life for good. It is partially the reason I follow Jesus today.

Thirdly, it is also possible that God doesn't intervene in every case of what is evil in the same way that our parents don't follow us around everywhere to make sure that we aren't heavily drinking, taking recreational drugs etc.

Fourthly, I also believe that in our Christian lives, God can punish us for disobedience against Him much in the same way that a father punishes his children.

Fifthly, I also don't believe that God doesn't act at all in our universe. I believe that God has intervened in terms of evil. Indeed, He came into the world Himself to conquer sin and death on our behalf. I also believe that God intervened in the case of nations in the past, and I believe that God can and does intervene in the world today on much the same level.

It depends on the circumstances as to whether or not God intervenes in every situation.

Again, I don't see what this part of your post has to do with the free will, divine foreknowledge, predestination theme we have going on here.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

By the way, I'm pretty sure Christopher would absolutely love to see his RIP thread become a logical discussion around religion.

Indeed, the question is what is actually logical, and whether Christopher actually argued it while he was alive.

later12 · 18-12-2011 07:22PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Judging from the arguments given against evolution, what Dawkins writes is defiantly new to quite a lot of people, and those who have left school tend not to read text books. My personal favourite of his books is "The Selfish Gene" and the content of that book was never touched in my school.

Really, genetics and natural selection was never touched in your school? Your school didn't stock anything on that in its library?

I'm sure that what Dawkins writes is new to a lot of people, which is perhaps why some Dawkinsians are particularly admiring of him. I don't understand their admiration for Dawkins the public atheist, and can only dismiss it as the misplaced enthusiasm of the under-achiever for intellectual condescension.

MagicMarker · 18-12-2011 07:25PM

later10 wrote: »

I just don't see him any more deserving of praise than the authors of my old science textbook for the junior certificate curriculum. He spells out the bare facts of Darwinism which to be honest shouldn't be anything new to the literate buying his books.

People are literate about evolution because of writers like Dawkins. I don't understand how you're not getting this.

AnnyHallsal · 18-12-2011 07:28PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

People are literate about evolution because of writers like Dawkins. I don't understand how you're not getting this.

I don't think later10 has much respect for the role of the populiser.

Mark200 · 18-12-2011 07:31PM

philologos wrote: »

Secondly, I think that evil can have a purpose. Biblically we have the example of Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. This was a bad thing. Ultimately at the end of the book of Genesis Joseph says the following to his brothers about his experience:

Evil can ultimately be worked for good purposes. Joseph's brothers did evil towards him, yet it ultimately turned out to be good. In my own life I can see how God worked what was bad in my life for good. It is partially the reason I follow Jesus today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoE1ho4Hhc

philologos · 18-12-2011 07:37PM

^^ How does that video deal with what you've quoted? My point wasn't that we can take solace in what is evil because of the afterlife, but rather that many evil things actually work out for what is good in the present.

ironingbored · 18-12-2011 07:39PM

44leto wrote: »

I forgive you for that post.

No priests here; the mods hear confessions if necessary.

Problem with the post hit report.

Thanks

Mark200 · 18-12-2011 07:39PM

philologos wrote: »

^^ How does that video deal with what you've quoted? My point wasn't that we can take solace in what is evil because of the afterlife, but rather that many evil things actually work out for what is good in the present.

The idea that evil things may have positive effects in the long-term. That doesn't excuse the evil thing.

44leto · 18-12-2011 07:47PM

ironingbored wrote: »

No priests here; the mods here confessions if necessary.

Problem with the post hit report.

Thanks

But I personally forgave you, no priests or mods necessary. I also forgive your inebriation state while writing that.

philologos · 18-12-2011 07:48PM

Mark200 wrote: »

The idea that evil things may have positive effects in the long-term. That doesn't excuse the evil thing.

I never said it did. Please read my posts again.

later12 · 18-12-2011 07:53PM

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I don't think later10 has much respect for the role of the populiser.

It's not that I don't have respect for the populariser.

I just don't understand how someone can have esteem for the populariser as a man of intellectual eminence simply because he simplifies what is already scientific fact into common language using paperbacks.

To make matters worse, the condescending arrogance of some of these New Atheists in support of Dawkins is exasperatingly stupid.

And it's not as though Dawkins is the only (or best) choice out there for those who seek philosophical or scientific guidance to help them understand atheism, Christian thought and natural selection. Try Bertrand Russell or William D Hamilton, the latter of whom inspired Richard Dawkins particularly strongly.

Dave! · 18-12-2011 07:59PM

later10 wrote: »

It's not that I don't have respect for the populariser.

I just don't understand how someone can have esteem for the populariser as a man of intellectual eminence simply because he simplifies what is already scientific fact into common language using paperbacks.

To make matters worse, the condescending arrogance of some of these New Atheists in support of Dawkins is exasperatingly stupid.

And it's not as though Dawkins is the only (or best) choice out there for those who seek philosophical or scientific guidance to help them understand atheism, Christian thought and natural selection. Try Bertrand Russell or William D Hamilton, the latter of whom inspired Richard Dawkins particularly strongly.

I presume you apply this to Carl Sagan also?

AnnyHallsal · 18-12-2011 08:03PM

later10 wrote: »

It's not that I don't have respect for the populariser.

I just don't understand how someone can have esteem for the populariser as a man of intellectual eminence simply because he simplifies what is already scientific fact into common language using paperbacks.

To make matters worse, the condescending arrogance of some of these New Atheists in support of Dawkins is exasperatingly stupid.

And it's not as though Dawkins is the only (or best) choice out there for those who seek philosophical or scientific guidance to help them understand atheism, Christian thought and natural selection. The man must have a fantastic publicist.

Well, you all but conceded that Dawkins was a man of intellectual eminence earlier, though perhaps that's to overstate it:

"Dawkins talent for evolutionary biology is not something I am questioning. I understand that he is a talented scientist in his private life."

Incidentally, his scientific achievements are a part of his professional and public lives, in no sense private.

Attributing his popularity to a publicist is glib, I can only assume intentionally so. His phenomenal rise as a public intellectual is far more meaningful than that.

ironingbored · 18-12-2011 08:06PM

44leto wrote: »

But I personally forgave you, no priests or mods necessary. I also forgive your inebriation inebriated state while writing that.

Why do I need forgiveness oh anointed one?

MagicMarker · 18-12-2011 08:08PM

later10 wrote: »

I just don't understand how someone can have esteem for the populariser as a man of intellectual eminence simply because he simplifies what is already scientific fact into common language using paperbacks.

I can only assume you are taking the piss at this stage?

How can a man simplify scientific fact into a common language accessible to the layman without intellectual eminence in the field he is writing about in the first place?

44leto · 18-12-2011 08:11PM

ironingbored wrote: »

Why do I need forgiveness oh anointed one?

I am just doing the Christian thing.

Mark200 · 18-12-2011 08:15PM

philologos wrote: »

I never said it did. Please read my posts again.

Well you certainly seemed to imply that it did:

"I think that evil can have a purpose"

"Evil can ultimately be worked for good purposes."

You were talking about why your god may not intervene.

philologos wrote: »

Firstly, I think it is surprising that people who refuse to even acknowledge God would presume that if He were to prevent every evil thing from happening that they would believe. I would assume that you would still be as much in opposition to Him, or that you would attribute it to something else other than God.

I didn't see where anyone even implied that. I think they were just pointing out the stupidity in the belief

Turtwig · 18-12-2011 08:15PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

I can only assume you are taking the piss at this stage?

How can a man simplify scientific fact into a common language accessible to the layman without intellectual eminence in the field he is writing about in the first place?

By getting it wrong. Not making it clear to the lay person when he's speculating. Not saying either of these apply to Dawkins. Ages since I read any of his work and in retrospect I wasn't aware of the downfalls of popsci at the time.

philologos · 18-12-2011 08:37PM

Mark200 wrote: »

Well you certainly seemed to imply that it did:

"I think that evil can have a purpose"

"Evil can ultimately be worked for good purposes."

You were talking about why your god may not intervene.

I don't believe that God is responsible for the evil that men do. Therefore I have no interest in excusing God for what he's not responsible for. That's where you've misinterpreted what I've said.

Mark200 wrote: »

I didn't see where anyone even implied that. I think they were just pointing out the stupidity in the belief

After all these years I've seen no solid basis on boards.ie for why belief in God is stupid.

later12 · 18-12-2011 08:39PM

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Incidentally, his scientific achievements are a part of his professional and public lives, in no sense private.

But not really.

Whenever I tell Dawkins idealogues that I don't think a lot of the man, (i) I am immediately advised to read one of his books attempting to popularise basic scientific facts, and (ii) when I explain that I have already done this, it is presumed that I am clandestinely religious.

One thing that never happens is that I'm never advised to go and look up JSTOR for one of the man's research papers to view what he genuinely has contributed to evolutionary biology. That's because most of the man's fans couldn't say what he has really contributed outside of these pop books.

You see I don't doubt his talent in itself, and this is the point I keep emphasising, what I am skeptical of are his most ardent fans. Some of whom, it must be said, show an alarming tendency for arrogance in the face of criticism of Dawkins's books.

Dawkins is an essentially an expert on how things - books as well as animals - thrive and succeed. The manner in which he briefly spells out the principles of Darwinism, and then congratulates his readers for their intelligence, awarding them in light of their atheism with the trophy of intellectual attainment without ever pressing his readers for real intellectual rigour or analysis, is to most reasonable people an unacceptable treatment of a complex subject matter such as religious belief.

MagicMarker wrote: »

How can a man simplify scientific fact into a common language accessible to the layman without intellectual eminence in the field he is writing about in the first place?

Read your post again.

Understanding Darwinism and evolutionary biology, as Dawkins does (and that is a gross understatement) does not in itself require that the man who has mastered that topic is a man of intellectual eminence.

Unless you're throwing that term around like confetti, and everyone who has ever worn a cap and gown is a man of intellectual eminence, which I hope you aren't doing.

Cú Giobach · 18-12-2011 08:39PM

later10 wrote: »

Really, genetics and natural selection was never touched in your school? Your school didn't stock anything on that in its library?

That book goes a lot further than basic genetics or natural selection, I assume from your comments that you haven't read it.

I'm sure that what Dawkins writes is new to a lot of people, which is perhaps why some Dawkinsians are particularly admiring of him. I don't understand their admiration for Dawkins the public atheist, and can only dismiss it as the misplaced enthusiasm of the under-achiever for intellectual condescension.

Starting with the insults, you're showing yourself up now.
Bye.

later12 · 18-12-2011 08:41PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That book goes a lot further than basic genetics or natural selection, I assume from your comments that you haven't read it.

.

Later10 wrote:

]Whenever I tell Dawkins idealogues that I don't think a lot of the man, (i) I am immediately advised to read one of his books attempting to popularise basic scientific facts, and (ii) when I explain that I have already done this, it is presumed that I am clandestinely religious.

ironingbored · 18-12-2011 08:43PM

44leto wrote: »

I am just doing the Christian thing.

Being utterly self-righteous (tick)

Almost gloating at the thought of a non-believer being burned for eternity (tick)

Not answering a direct question (tick)

You're a Christian alright.

prinz · 18-12-2011 08:55PM

RIP Christopher. Cancer is a bitch.

Didn't always agree with his stance on things, and I am not going to pretend he was anything he wasn't, but he usually managed to get my respect. Something which can't be said for others I could mention.

AnnyHallsal · 18-12-2011 08:56PM

later10 wrote: »

But not really.

Whenever I tell Dawkins idealogues that I don't think a lot of the man, (i) I am immediately advised to read one of his books attempting to popularise basic scientific facts, and (ii) when I explain that I have already done this, it is presumed that I am clandestinely religious.

One thing that never happens is that I'm never advised to go and look up JSTOR for one of the man's research papers to view what he genuinely has contributed to evolutionary biology. That's because most of the man's fans couldn't say what he has really contributed outside of these pop books.

You see I don't doubt his talent in itself, and this is the point I keep emphasising, what I am skeptical of are his most ardent fans. Some of whom, it must be said, show an alarming tendency for arrogance in the face of criticism of Dawkins's books.

Dawkins is an essentially an expert on how things - books as well as animals - thrive and succeed. The manner in which he briefly spells out the principles of Darwinism, and then congratulates his readers for their intelligence, awarding them in light of their atheism with the trophy of intellectual attainment without ever pressing his readers for real intellectual rigour or analysis, is to most reasonable people an unacceptable treatment of a complex subject matter such as religious belief.

How is his scientific work part of his private and not his public life?

later12 · 18-12-2011 09:04PM

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

How is his scientific work part of his private and not his public life?

It is public, the reason I said it's not really so is that the most vocal fans of Dawkins rarely refer to Dawkins's academic research in evolutionary biology. 99 times out of 100 they refer critics to the large print pages of his penny paperbacks, available now at a newsagents near you.

These people, as far as I have ever seen, are not in the habit of referencing Dawkins's more serious work. These people base their admiration for him on what they have read, which compliments neither Dawkins nor themselves.

steelcityblues · 18-12-2011 09:07PM

On an even worse note, Hitchens death makes the awful James Wolcott as Vanity Fair's most high profile monthly writer.

Without Hitchens and Dominick Dunne, the magazine seems to be going downhill.

Cú Giobach · 18-12-2011 09:15PM

later10 wrote: »

Whenever I tell Dawkins idealogues that I don't think a lot of the man, (i) I am immediately advised to read one of his books attempting to popularise basic scientific facts, and (ii) when I explain that I have already done this, it is presumed that I am clandestinely religious..

The selfish gene has nothing to do with religion and was widely accepted as a ground-breaking book in the world of biology, hence my comment about you having not read it in light of your response to my mentioning it.

Christopher Hitchens has died

Comments