Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Richard Dawkins too easy a story at this point?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So Brit journo Nick Cohen thinks:

Dawkins is the sluggish pundit’s dream. It does not matter which paper you work for. Editors of all political persuasions and none will take an attack on Darwin’s representative on earth. With the predictability of the speaking clock, Owen Jones, the Peter Hitchens of the left, thinks the same as Craig Brown, Private Eye’s high Tory satirist. Tom Chivers, the Telegraph’s science blogger, says the same as Andrew Brown, the Guardian’s religious affairs correspondent. The BBC refuses to run contrary views. It assures the nation that ‘militant’ atheism is as fanatical as militant religion — despite the fact that no admirer of The God Delusion has ever planted a bomb, or called for the murder of homosexuals, Jews and apostates.

Sharp operators could sell the same piece a dozen times without changing a word. Read the papers, and you will suspect that is exactly what sharp operators have done.

Maybe they all need each other?

Comments
Re: #71: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob fulfilled all the Torah commandments, even before Torah was given.LarTanner
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST
Alan Fox:
But if you restricted topics to ID, there wouldn’t be a lot to talk about, would there?
It has all already been discussed. You choked on it the first time around. You choked again the second time around and apparently you think your choking refutes ID. So now we bide our time discussing other things of interest.Joe
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST
as to: "Of course – hasn’t everyone?" Christ did not trespass objective morality, but was found to be morally perfect: 1 Peter 2:23 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."bornagain77
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PST
#68 BA77
Have either of you guys ever transgressed your own subjective moral standards
Of course - hasn't everyone?Mark Frank
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PST
corrected link: “Bless The Broken Road” – Rascal Flatts – Music Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-vZlrBYLSUbornagain77
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PST
Mr. Fox and Mr. Frank, A personal question. Have either of you guys ever transgressed your own subjective moral standards or do either of you guys consider yourselves to be morally perfect? (by the way, at first guess, I'd be pretty sure that some atheist do consider themselves morally perfect)
Benjamin Franklin’s Pursuit of the Virtuous Life - 2008 Excerpt: ,,at the age of 20, Ben Franklin set his loftiest goal: the attainment of moral perfection. "I conceiv’d the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wish’d to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into." In order to accomplish his goal, Franklin developed and committed himself to a personal improvement program that consisted of living 13 virtues. The 13 virtues were: “TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.” “SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.” “ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.” “RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.” “FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.” “INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.” “SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.” “JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.” “MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.” “CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.” “TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.” “CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.” “HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.” In order to keep track of his adherence to these virtues, Franklin carried around a small book of 13 charts. The charts consisted of a column for each day of the week and 13 rows marked with the first letter of his 13 virtues. Franklin evaluated himself at the end of each day. He placed a dot next to each virtue each had violated. The goal was to minimize the number of marks, thus indicating a “clean” life free of vice. Franklin would especially focus on one virtue each week by placing that virtue at the top that week’s chart and including a “short precept” to explain its meaning. Thus, after 13 weeks he had moved through all 13 virtues and would then start the process over again. When Franklin first started out on his program he found himself putting marks in the book more than he wanted to. But as time went by, he saw the marks diminish. While Franklin never accomplished his goal of moral perfection, and had some notable flaws (womanizing and his love of beer probably gave him problems with chastity and temperance), he felt he benefited from the attempt at it. "Tho’ I never arrived at the perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell far short of it, yet I was, by the endeavour, a better and a happier man than I otherwise should have been if I had not attempted it." http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/02/24/lessons-in-manliness-benjamin-franklins-pursuit-of-the-virtuous-life/
Myself, my 'moral imperfection', i.e. my sin, destroyed my life. But when I was at the end of my rope because of my sins and finally cried out to God for help, He was there for me. And although I may have personally chosen another route to God, I am none-the-less very grateful for what he has done for me to save me from my moral imperfection.
“Bless The Broken Road” – Rascal Flatts - Music Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkWGwY5nq7A The Contradiction of the Cross “On the cross, our false dependencies are revealed. On the cross, our illusions are killed off. On the cross, our small self dies so that the true self, the God-given self, can emerge. On the cross, we give up the fantasy that we are in control, and the death of this fantasy is central to acceptance. The cross is, above all, a place of powerlessness. Here is the final proof that our own feeble powers can no more alter life’s trajectory than a magnet can pull down the moon. Here is the death of the ego, of the self that insists on being in charge, the self that continually tries to impose its own idea of order and righteousness on the world. The cross is a place of contradiction. For the powerlessness of the cross, if fully embraced, takes us to a place of power. This is the great mystery at the heart of the Christian faith, from Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr., the mystery of the power of powerlessness. As long as I am preoccupied with the marshaling of my own feeble powers, there will be no way for God’s power to flow through me. As long as I am getting in my own way, I cannot live in the power of God’s way.” – Parker Palmer, The Promise of Paradox, Pg 46-47 http://www.findingrhythm.com/blog/?p=2183 Heather Williams – Hallelujah – Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2uM0L3Y1A Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24 “The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” - Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Verses: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
bornagain77
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PST
If you disagree then you might want to check with some of your more intelligent ID colleagues – Vincent Torley for example.
Don't mistake my expression of exhaustion for one of ignorance. :)TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST
BTW what’s “death by exile”?
The concept (skóggangur) was present with northern Germanic peoples. If a member of the society was found guilty they were either fined, or declared an outlaw. They were exiled and forced to live in the wilderness, and it was forbidden to help them in any way. Outlaws also became fair game, and it was considered a duty to engage the outlaw in combat if spotted near the territory. This was essentially a death sentence. MF: It was philosophical to begin with. . .TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PST
BTW what's "death by exile"?Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PST
TSErik
Whether something is objective or not is a philosophical not an empirical question. You cannot tell simply by the amount of agreement. It is a question of what we mean when we use moral language. Haha. OK, Mark Frank. If you say so buddy.
If you disagree then you might want to check with some of your more intelligent ID colleagues - Vincent Torley for example.Mark Frank
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST
A good question. Whether something is objective or not is a philosophical not an empirical question. You cannot tell simply by the amount of agreement. It is a question of what we mean when we use moral language.
Haha. OK, Mark Frank. If you say so buddy.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PST
Then what would be appropriate evidence, if not a universal agreement?
A good question. Whether something is objective or not is a philosophical not an empirical question. You cannot tell simply by the amount of agreement. It is a question of what we mean when we use moral language.Mark Frank
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST
Do you ever get dinner party invitations? Does anyone ever ask you back twice?
Do you ever impress anyone with your pseudointellectual BS?TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PST
BTW Spartans left weak babies outside to die. Their whole economy ran on booty and slavery. Vikings approach to foreign holidays was a bit extreme. The samurai held human life, including their own, rather cheap.
What's your point? They still had a concept of murder.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PST
The question was about diversity, Eric. BTW Spartans left weak babies outside to die. Their whole economy ran on booty and slavery. Vikings approach to foreign holidays was a bit extreme. The samurai held human life, including their own, rather cheap.Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST
I am saying what you offer as evidence is not evidence. I then offer examples to prove my point. You offer no response.
Then what would be appropriate evidence, if not a universal agreement? I didn't address your point because the analogy is not apt. You state humans all have music, yet not all societies share the concept what music is. Where as all societies have killing, all societies share a concept of murder. You prove nothing.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PST
The Vikings, Ancient Sparta, The Picts, New Guinea head-hunters, Japanese warrior class (Samurai)
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. The punishment for slaying a fellow tribesman was death by exile. Ancient Spartans had strict laws regarding killing and murder. The Picts had laws against violence as well, especially among their women. The headhunters in New Guinnea were violent against their perceived enemies. Not the guy in the hut a few doors down just because one wanted to. And the samurai? Are you kidding? Seriously? The samurai had to abide by a strict moral, and legal, code. You gave examples of violent societies. Not the society I described above.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST
The next paragraph explains why you are wrong with your assumption. But you left it out of your quotes, because you cannot answer it.
I left it out because it gets very time consuming answering every point and the major point is this one:
There are plenty of reasons why people should agree on something other than there being an objective fact underlying it.
You write:
My claim is objective morality exists. I state evidence with regard to humanity and human societies.
You cannot provide a society that goes against what I am saying. You ignore my evidence and begin the justification for your failure to contradict my argument, saying, “even if humans agree it’s not special.”
My point is “even if humans agree, then it is not necessarily objective”. i.e. I am saying what you offer as evidence is not evidence. I then offer examples to prove my point. You offer no response.Mark Frank
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PST
And many people are morons...
Do you ever get dinner party invitations? Does anyone ever ask you back twice?Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PST
Well, yes if you consider Uncommon Descent is supposed to champion “Intelligent Design” I’d agree. But if you restricted topics to ID, there wouldn’t be a lot to talk about, would there?
OH, this is priceless. Keep playing that same old tune. Trying to bait another topic.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PST
Then all you need to do is provide me with a society described above. Since they are all so diverse, that shouldn’t be a problem.
The Vikings, Ancient Sparta, The Picts, New Guinea head-hunters, Japanese warrior class (Samurai)Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PST
...the entire topic is irrelevant...
Well, yes if you consider Uncommon Descent is supposed to champion "Intelligent Design" I'd agree. But if you restricted topics to ID, there wouldn't be a lot to talk about, would there?Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PST
And many people disagree with that assertion.
And many people are morons, what's your point? Trying some lame, ham-fisted argument from authority?
The evidence is that moral codes are as diverse as the socities that invent them.
Then all you need to do is provide me with a society described above. Since they are all so diverse, that shouldn't be a problem.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST
Oops societiesAlan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST
My claim is objective morality exists.
And many people disagree with that assertion.
I state evidence with regard to humanity and human societies.
The evidence is that moral codes are as diverse as the socities that invent them.Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST
The OP was about Richard Dawkins. I think we are beyond relevance.
But this line of dialogue has evolved (like that?) to a certain topic, and your defense for your red herring's irrelevance is that the entire topic is irrelevant? To quoque Alan Fox? Tu quoque does not a defense make.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PST
Neither of these sentences explain why I am wrong. They just seem like generalised insults. Does “justified” not entail “morally permissible”? If it does then what I say follows.
The next paragraph explains why you are wrong with your assumption. But you left it out of your quotes, because you cannot answer it.
There are plenty of reasons why people should agree on something other than there being an objective fact underlying it.
Basically here, you relegate my point, then move the goalposts. My claim is objective morality exists. I state evidence with regard to humanity and human societies. You cannot provide a society that goes against what I am saying. You ignore my evidence and begin the justification for your failure to contradict my argument, saying, "even if humans agree it's not special."TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PST
The OP was about Richard Dawkins. I think we are beyond relevance.Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PST
I said "one's enemies". In the preceding phrase I am quoting myself using the word, hence the quotation marks.Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PST
I understand if you find the question uncomfortable.
It has nothing to do with comfort. It has to do with relevance.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply