Dawkins relies on ignorance

[mightbe]

That's a lie and you know it. It has a meaning in scholarship, and I use it.

And even in scholarship, a word's definition may be altered. This isn't scholarship. You're smart enough to make the distinction.

Further, you don't need to patronise someone for slightly different diction. In your own world, use "literalism" as you please (just make sure that you're being clear about its usage). But when conversing with others, give them the opportunity to communicate. You can't jump in after 3 words to correct someone. That's rude and unfair. If there is fuzzy wording, perhaps try asking for clarification--you can't automatically assume that the author wrote what you're reading.

 

[zoltanspawn]

You don't understand what "literalist" means.

No, literalism has a definite meaning. You can't just take it off and make it mean what you want to, as you do here. It means to read a document literally, without regard for the type of literature, the use of idiom, or anything else.

Now, as you readily assert, you read parts of the bible literally. I would describe these parts as amongst the most crucial: the resurrection of christ and the creation of the universe.

However, in spite of maintaining such central literal beliefs, you deny you are a literalist because you don't interpret the entire bible literally.

This is like saying we can't describe someone as a 'pizza eater' because they only eat ten slices, and not the whole pie.

 

[andysayshi]

You're buying into Dawkins' reliance on ignorance here, because you're relying on it. Science never "prove[d] religion wrong". Evolution was never contrary to Catholicism, or to the Bible.

Your whole position here is a beautiful illustration of the ignorance Dawkins requires.

Why is it ignorant to demand measurable evidence of something before one believes it? The simple fact is that, despite billions of devotees over many centuries, there is not one measurable phenomena, not one scientifically recorded event, that proves that just one of mankind's thousands of God's has ever existed. Not one, in thousands of years of human history. It is not ignorance to seek evidence. And it is not ignorant to suggest that a total lack of evidence for a theory makes it reasonable to doubt its authenticity.

Sorry, but suggesting that evolution is contrary to Catholicism is completely false. The Catholic church very directly and publicly renounced it for over a century. And to say evolution is contrary to the Bible is ... contrary to the Bible! The one I read in Sunday School certainly never mentioned it.

 

[andysayshi]

Another example of ignorance. You apparently aren't aware of the numbers of scientists who became scientists precisely because of their faith, or the ones who came to faith because of science. This tidy little mantra is comforting to many, but it is in actuality false.

Much like the religion you are defending, I require more than personal anecdotes to make my mind up about something.

I can point you to quite a few people who claim to have been cured of their homosexuality, through various forms of counselling, prayer or torture. Perhaps a few of them really have. But until I see measurable evidence of the truth to it, and the majority of evidence suggests it doesn't work, I will side with the evidence.

I suggest that your point is much the same. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who are religious, and some who are drawn to religion through the beauty of science. But measured evidence tells us that people with higher educations are less likely to participate in religion.

What, specifically, do you consider Dawkins to be ignorant of?

 

[mightbe]

Why is it ignorant to demand measurable evidence of something before one believes it? The simple fact is that, despite billions of devotees over many centuries, there is not one measurable phenomena, not one scientifically recorded event, that proves that just one of mankind's thousands of God's has ever existed. Not one, in thousands of years of human history. It is not ignorance to seek evidence. And it is not ignorant to suggest that a total lack of evidence for a theory makes it reasonable to doubt its authenticity.

Sorry, but suggesting that evolution is contrary to Catholicism is completely false. The Catholic church very directly and publicly renounced it for over a century. And to say evolution is contrary to the Bible is ... contrary to the Bible! The one I read in Sunday School certainly never mentioned it.

He said just the opposite, that evolution was NEVER contrary to Catholicism. Ha! It wasn't until the 1900s that it was condoned, and the second it was it was nearly made dogma. Evolution IS contrary to a literal reading of the first page and a half or so of Genesis.

However, Kulindhar clearly believes some parts of the Bible literally. The most important parts, the ones that make it distinct. That makes him a literalist in the limited sense. As zolton said, just because he doesn't read the entire Bible literally doesn't change the fact that he does read parts literally.

 

[andysayshi]

^ Sorry, you are quite correct. I omitted "was never" in my sentence. Thanks for the pick-up. Should read:

Sorry, but suggesting that evolution was never contrary to Catholicism is completely false. The Catholic church very directly and publicly renounced it for over a century. And to say evolution was never contrary to the Bible is ... contrary to the Bible! The one I read in Sunday School certainly never mentioned it.

 

[zoltanspawn]

No, literalism has a definite meaning. You can't just take it off and make it mean what you want to, as you do here. It means to read a document literally, without regard for the type of literature, the use of idiom, or anything else.

By the way, it only takes one literalist belief for Dawkins critique to be successful.

The problem science poses for any literal interpretation is absurdity or falsity, not hamfisted exegesis.

 

[mightbe]

^ Sorry, you are quite correct. I omitted "was never" in my sentence. Thanks for the pick-up. Should read:

Sorry, but suggesting that evolution was never contrary to Catholicism is completely false. The Catholic church very directly and publicly renounced it for over a century. And to say evolution was never contrary to the Bible is ... contrary to the Bible! The one I read in Sunday School certainly never mentioned it.

No problem. Just to be clear, I was laughing at Kulindhar's assertion, not you.

 

[bankside]

Scripture makes the factual claim that a conscious, non-human, transcendent, divine being exists and is responsible for our existence.

Or does it?

Only a literalist would say yes. Anyone else would not take the factual claim at face value. Other readers can find scripture inspiring or challenging or like a dear friend or a treasure of history like stumbling across a manuscript in a forgotten library in the ruins of an old castle. But only a literalist would say scripture is making factual claims about a real and present divinity. And anyone who makes that claim is indeed a literalist by the plain meaning of the word.

 

[Kulindahr]

No I'm saying that God created the action, the actor, the context, and the consequence in the first place, already knowing the outcome. He could have created different for a different outcome could he not? The rest of that is your standard myopic obfuscation when confronted with the illogical aspects of a God YOU believe is factual.

The essence is still the knowing -- that's what you focus on. But knowing the future does not mean it was determined.

 

[bankside]

Now, as you readily assert, you read parts of the bible literally. I would describe these parts as amongst the most crucial: the resurrection of christ and the creation of the universe.

However, in spite of maintaining such central literal beliefs, you deny you are a literalist because you don't interpret the entire bible literally.

This is like saying we can't describe someone as a 'pizza eater' because they only eat ten slices, and not the whole pie.

So you're saying people of faith eat pizzas but don't finish them???!!!!???!!!

(In all earnestness I enjoyed that post so much and the example so clearly reveals the point that must be made that I have resolved to eat pizza for lunch as a tribute to how well you made the point. It will meet my caloric needs, satisfy my Pavlovian craving for cheese set off by the mention of pizza, and provide me food for thought all at once.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's my reply: You've quite literally only acknowledged the finality of the statement, without your precious "context and idiom". That's the "final argument" because nothing else would register with the other debater. There was nothing Dawkins could say that would make them listen. That doesn't make it his official argument, it makes it the last point to appear. It's a last resort when dealing with a particularly stupid person. If nothing else got through, if none of the well-reasoned and eloquent verbiage presented earlier in the debate made any appreciable impact, Dawkins will fight fire with fire. Belief with belief. The "corner" you speak of is the corner of the other's arrogance and hard-headedness.

That it's his point at all shows he's just petty and vindictive, and his interest isn't in reason at all -- just in scoring points. Would he say the same thing to, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury? No -- because he knows he wouldn't get away with it. So he's just a bully, picking on those he thinks can't strike back.

BTW, given that he made it in public, it certainly is his "official argument".

And now to play your favorite card: "You've misinterpreted T-Rexx; here is how to properly digest that post." Where did T-Rexx say that an exact course of action was predetermined? Right! He didn't. What he did say was "you can't surprise God". An omniscient God would be fully cognizant of every future possibility--that means diverging from every situation are two or more possibilities. Every possibility can be seen and understood with equal clarity. You couldn't surprise God because he'd have foreseen every juncture. That doesn't mean that God knows the exact chain of events beforehand, simply that he knows every possible chain of events. I doubt God would sit there and place bets.

You've got the wrong guy, but anyway...

This was the argument:

Omniscience also negates the concept of free will. It ... predetermined every choice you will ever make.

The essence of that is that foreknowledge means determinism. It doesn't, regardless of who is having the foreknowledge.

And whether it's a "surprise" is irrelevant; it's still free choices made by distinct entities.

 

[Kulindahr]

Who's to say he isn't? A divine entity would have more pressing matters to tend to than to play "Big Brother" with all of his creations. And even if he didn't, what enjoyment would be gained?

"More pressing matters"? Than His own creation?

Logically, there's no reason for a Creator to bestow intelligence unless He intends to interact with it, or at the very least observe what it does. But given foreknowledge, He doesn't need to observe it, so He wouldn't actually need to create it, just consider doing so. Thus he meant to interact with it.

 

[Kulindahr]

And even in scholarship, a word's definition may be altered. This isn't scholarship. You're smart enough to make the distinction.

To Dawkins it's scholarship, so any other approach is irrelevant to the thread.

Now, as you readily assert, you read parts of the bible literally. I would describe these parts as amongst the most crucial: the resurrection of christ and the creation of the universe.

However, in spite of maintaining such central literal beliefs, you deny you are a literalist because you don't interpret the entire bible literally.

This is like saying we can't describe someone as a 'pizza eater' because they only eat ten slices, and not the whole pie.

No, it's saying that you can't describe someone as an "eater" because he eats pizza -- because he doesn't also eat the plate, the napkins, and the menu.

"Literalist" means to take everything literally, regardless of what type of literature it is. I am the exact opposite of a literalist.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why is it ignorant to demand measurable evidence of something before one believes it? The simple fact is that, despite billions of devotees over many centuries, there is not one measurable phenomena, not one scientifically recorded event, that proves that just one of mankind's thousands of God's has ever existed. Not one, in thousands of years of human history. It is not ignorance to seek evidence. And it is not ignorant to suggest that a total lack of evidence for a theory makes it reasonable to doubt its authenticity.

You're changing or missing the subject. The ignorance Dawkins relies on is that not all religion is ignorant and literalist. His entire approach depends on being able to mock believers and religion, but if people know that he's just attacking straw men, he's sunk.

You're also engaging in the same fallacious approach he does: essentially, insisting that if it isn't science it isn't knowledge.

 

[Kulindahr]

Scripture makes the factual claim that a conscious, non-human, transcendent, divine being exists and is responsible for our existence.

Or does it?

Only a literalist would say yes. Anyone else would not take the factual claim at face value. Other readers can find scripture inspiring or challenging or like a dear friend or a treasure of history like stumbling across a manuscript in a forgotten library in the ruins of an old castle. But only a literalist would say scripture is making factual claims about a real and present divinity. And anyone who makes that claim is indeed a literalist by the plain meaning of the word.

False.

A literalist is one who takes it all literally. Honest scholarship says "Scripture makes the factual claim that a conscious, non-human, transcendent, divine being exists and is responsible for our existence."

Except that it wouldn't use the word "exists" for God, because existence is contingent.


It gets tiresome for you guys to take technical terms and abuse them. It's the retreat of a lazy mind: instead of grappling with the substance, just redefine the game to avoid thinking. The sad part is that this is the very same thing that lets literalists lead so many people into foolishness. And it's also what lets Dawkins get away with his game of pretending that there is nothing to religion but fools who deny that science has any validity.

 

[Kulindahr]

So you're saying people of faith eat pizzas but don't finish them???!!!!???!!!

(In all earnestness I enjoyed that post so much and the example so clearly reveals the point that must be made that I have resolved to eat pizza for lunch as a tribute to how well you made the point. It will meet my caloric needs, satisfy my Pavlovian craving for cheese set off by the mention of pizza, and provide me food for thought all at once.)

The "example" obscures the point. That one eats pizza, but not the utensils around it, demonstrates that one is sensible enough to know what to do with the various items. That's exactly what I do.

 

[bankside]

To Dawkins it's scholarship, so any other approach is irrelevant to the thread.



No, it's saying that you can't describe someone as an "eater" because he eats pizza -- because he doesn't also eat the plate, the napkins, and the menu.

"Literalist" means to take everything literally, regardless of what type of literature it is. I am the exact opposite of a literalist.

What quasi-synonym for the word "literalist" would you prefer that I use to describe someone who takes the central factual claims of scripture at face value, as distinct from a reader who does not see the various literary forms of scripture as making factual claims about a divinity?

 

[bankside]

False.

A literalist is one who takes it all literally. Honest scholarship says "Scripture makes the factual claim that a conscious, non-human, transcendent, divine being exists and is responsible for our existence."

Except that it wouldn't use the word "exists" for God, because existence is contingent.


It gets tiresome for you guys to take technical terms and abuse them. It's the retreat of a lazy mind: instead of grappling with the substance, just redefine the game to avoid thinking. The sad part is that this is the very same thing that lets literalists lead so many people into foolishness. And it's also what lets Dawkins get away with his game of pretending that there is nothing to religion but fools who deny that science has any validity.

Ahh I see your further reply. Very well let us abandon the notion of literalism. So as not to avoid confuse the subject, I will henceforth refer to anyone who perceives the bible to be making factual claims about the divine as a "factist." Anyone who does not perceive factual claims about the divine, or who sees them as immaterial or beside the point or who holds the appearance of a factual claim to be a literary device in itself without actually being a factual claim, I will refer to as an afactist

For example, I am a definite factist. I can read scripture without any literalist (as you would put it) misinterpretations, yet still conclude that it makes factual claims about divinity. And as a factist I think the credibility of scripture is best understood by first evaluating the likelihood of its central factual claims. I do think there is more to it than simply a dry report that one might read like an engineering report, but I would hold that the factist perspective is correct and helps in appreciating scripture even if one concludes the central factual claims are likely to be false. By this definition, you're also a factist. Where we differ is on the validity or accuracy of the facts asserted.

An afactist might see all of that as a trivial sideshow and that even attempting to answer the question of factuality diminishes our understanding of scripture, that any negative finding would be irrelevant anyway, and possibly also even any positive finding of scriptural factuality. Zoltanspawn are your ears ringing?

 

[bankside]

This assumes that all the omni- descriptions applied to the God of the Bible are true, there is actually a religious debate on that subject. That God might NOT be all knowing and even (gasp) capable of error. But even a near perfect God might desire to create potential companions through a process of evolved sentience with free will. Indeed that seems to be the most likely goal I can see in creation.

I agree it's a mistake to assume the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator.