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
TSErik
You’re right, I was being kind. It’s far from clever.
No, I am not. You are arguing, poorly, on semantics because you cannot dispute the point.
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. However, the key point is this one:
So in a world where you champion subjectivity, the fact that humanity (many participants without interaction with one another) has coalesced on the same idea that many could argue at times is contrary to personal gain is just remarkable coincidence? That it doesn’t speak to a kind of objective morality?
  Not a remarkable coincidence. There are plenty of reasons why people should agree on something other than there being an objective fact underlying it. Most people agree that music is a pleasant thing but it is still a subjective issue. Most people agree that honey tastes nice but it is a matter of opinion.Mark Frank
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Because you are trying to shift the point. Chances are you are trying to find a way to make me a “hypocrite” which will, in your mind, invalidate my argument that you cannot address. Common tactic.
Well, certainly I'd be more interested in seeing an expostion of a theory of Intelligent Design but, as that seems unlikely, I was just curious about whether you, I assume you are a Christian, thought that taking the life of another human being was ever justified. Of course you are under no obligation at all to respond. I understand if you find the question uncomfortable.Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
And you introduced the word, "enemies" so why are you scare-quoting it in your response toward me?TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
So, killing “enemies” is justified? Seems a bit subjective to me. Who decides who is an enemy and ok to kill?
Are you kidding me? Are you really so dense that you just cannot grasp the point, or are you being willfully ignorant? The point isn't what the justification IS, or even if the justification is wrong or right, but the fact that a justification is NEEDED to resolve the issue of morality.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Why so coy about your view on killing, Erik?
Because you are trying to shift the point. Chances are you are trying to find a way to make me a "hypocrite" which will, in your mind, invalidate my argument that you cannot address. Common tactic. But whether I'm a warhawk or a pacifist, champion the death penalty, or detest it, it is negligible to the point being made.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
They have an understanding that killing, in itself, is wrong, and so they must have a justification for doing so.
So, killing "enemies" is justified? Seems a bit subjective to me. Who decides who is an enemy and ok to kill?Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Not sure your assertion is correct. Killing one’s enemies has been a celebratory feature of many societies not least exemplified in the Old Testament.
Killing one's enemies, eh? You still are missing it. So, they require a justification for killing then. They couldn't just turn and kill their prophet. They couldn't kill their neighbor. They have an understanding that killing, in itself, is wrong, and so they must have a justification for doing so. Remember, you are looking for a society that needs NO justification for ANY kind of killing.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
I can't morally justify taking the life of another human being, even that of a mass murderer. I am against capital punishment. I can imagine some hypothetical situation where killing a person would save more lives but we can always find arcane exceptions. Why so coy about your view on killing, Erik?Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
The fact that all humanity has a concept of murder, speaks to a universal morality. Why has no society approached the idea that killing of any kind, is virtuous?
Not sure your assertion is correct. Killing one's enemies has been a celebratory feature of many societies not least exemplified in the Old Testament.Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Tell me, Erik, when is taking a human life justified in your particular view?
Red herring.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
I am sorry but this is not a clever dodge
You're right, I was being kind. It's far from clever.
“no society finds it morally permissible to kill in a way that is morally not permissible”
No, I am not. You are arguing, poorly, on semantics because you cannot dispute the point. Perhaps I will put it another way. The fact that all humanity has a concept of murder, speaks to a universal morality. Why has no society approached the idea that killing of any kind, is virtuous? Your neighbor, your son, or daughter, the act of killing them is of no consequence, or is even virtuous, where no justification need be brought.
even if there are acts that all societies believe to be wrong that does not mean there is some objective fact underlying that belief all it means is that everyone has the same opinion.
So in a world where you champion subjectivity, the fact that humanity (many participants without interaction with one another) has coalesced on the same idea that many could argue at times is contrary to personal gain is just remarkable coincidence? That it doesn't speak to a kind of objective morality?TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Tell me, Erik, when is taking a human life justified in your particular view?Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
TSErik I am sorry but this is not a clever dodge but rather obvious. You define murder as unjustified killing. Well "justified" means "morally permissible" so all you are saying is "no society finds it morally permissible to kill in a way that is morally not permissible" The point is that societies differ in what kind of killing is wrong. As an aside - even if there are acts that all societies believe to be wrong that does not mean there is some objective fact underlying that belief all it means is that everyone has the same opinion. There are subjective issues upon which all societies have agreed (music is a good thing) and plenty of objective issues on which societies have disagreed (the shape of the earth).Mark Frank
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
I think TSErik is using “murder” in the following sense:
Then you are more ignorant than I had originally thought.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
If you are saying that no society condones killing that it believes to be wrong then you are right – it is true by definition
This a clever dodge. The fact that all society has 'wrong' killing and understands the concept of murder, and none hold it as a virtue is the point.
but it doesn’t tell us much about objective or even universal moral codes.
It certainly does. It says that nowhere in the human experience is murder held as a virtue. This isn't a point of semantics. And if morality is simply subjective, why, with all the disparate societies through history, is there no society that has held murder as a virtue where, "I killed my neighbor because I wanted to" is a praise-worthy sentence?
The fact is that in most societies what Islamic extremists did would be called murder.
I agree. But this misses the point entirely. The Islamic societies still have a concept of murder, and must make justifications for their violence, and so my point stands.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
I think TSErik is using "murder" in the following sense:
When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
Alan Fox
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
#26 TSErik If you are saying that no society condones killing that it believes to be wrong then you are right - it is true by definition - but it doesn't tell us much about objective or even universal moral codes. The fact is that in most societies what Islamic extremists did would be called murder.Mark Frank
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
The Crusaders of the first crusade as described above Extremist Islam Aztecs who practicised child sacrifice And many, many more
No. Your analogy doesn't work, and I knew this would be your response. It's a common, and somewhat ignorant response. All killing does not equal murder. If a society must make a justification for an act, said act must be immoral otherwise. Aztecs indeed practiced ritual sacrifice, but that was not murder. Murder, the unjustified killing of any other, was harshly punished. Islam attacks non-believers, but the unjustified killing of any fellow Muslim is a grave sin. Therefor, murder isn't celebrated. The Crusaders could not simply turn and kill a brother-in-arms and be cheered on. That was a grievous sin. They claimed justification in fighting their enemies. See, in ALL humanity it is understood that murder is wrong, hence why humanity must make JUSTIFICATIONS. They find ways to bypass what they know to be wrong. You give poor examples where killing had to be justified for a number of reasons. An actual example would be some society that would not only remain indifferent to a murder, but even see the practice as a virtue, free of justification. Indeed, murder would cease to exist, and it is all just 'killing' as murder implies injustice. Your problem is you say, "But these societies have their own definition of what IS murder." Exactly right. This means they all know killing/murder to be wrong, so laws are set about apply human reasoning to this objective value. What is subjective is how societies heed this inborn sense of morality. This can be said for theft, rape, deception, cowardice, as well. There is NO society on Earth that extols murder, and therefore, objective morality DOES exist. That is the end of the story.TSErik
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
#23 sixthbook It was my way of pointing out that as far as the crusaders were concerned they were following what they believed to be an objective moral code. Actually objective morality is an illusion because whatever foundation is offered you still have to choose it (which does not entail that you cannot argue for one code versus another)Mark Frank
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
#21 TSErik
Really? Can you let me know which culture’s moral codes extol murder?
The Crusaders of the first crusade as described above Extremist Islam Aztecs who practicised child sacrifice And many, many moreMark Frank
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Umm objective moral codes would only have one to choose from. That's kinda why it's objective. Anyways I'm not sure what your response had to do with my comment.sixthbook
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Why believe in Christianity (and not Islam) - Prof.David Wood - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ajppRmF8P4bornagain77
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
As I said – the great thing about objective moral codes is there are so many to choose from.
Really? Can you let me know which culture's moral codes extol murder?TSErik
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Actually Mr. Frank, there are really only two moral codes to choose from: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorcebornagain77
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
#18 sixthbook As I said - the great thing about objective moral codes is there are so many to choose from.Mark Frank
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Well the crusaders believed that they could gain salvation by their works as taught by the church of the time (an unbiblical belief) and acted consistently with that. If they were biblically literate maybe they would have followed the objective morals derived from Christianity.sixthbook
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Mr. Frank, another reason that I know that your atheistic/materialistic view of reality is false, besides the fact that advances in quantum mechanics have falsified an atheistic/materialistic view of reality,,,
Divinely Planted Quantum States https://vimeo.com/72625073
,,,Is that it is impossible for atheists to live out their stated worldview consistently:
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Mr. Frank, you seem to desperately want to condemn Christianity as evil, or at least knock it down to the level of atheism, and want to uphold your atheistic worldview as good, or at least better than what history tells us of it, but you simply lack the resources to accomplish the task. For instance, for you to be able condemn the murder of human life as evil you must first be able to assign value to human life in the first place. But just how does one derive the moral value and worth for a person from a philosophy that maintains values are illusory?:
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
Whereas Theism, particularly Christianity, has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him in that, while were yet sinners, he willingly died for us so that we could be with him:
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. MercyMe – Beautiful - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
Honestly Mr. Frank, atheism, if lived out consistently, i.e. a person holding that true value, meaning, and purpose, for life are non-existent and illusory, is a very depressing worldview to hold as Dr. Craig points out in the following video:
The absurdity of life without God (1 of 3) by William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c
And indeed, to the extent that atheists are able to live out their worldview consistently, this depression in their worldview play itself out in their lives:
Are Religious People Happier Than Atheists? - 2000 Excerpt: there does indeed appear to be a link between religion and happiness. Several studies have been done, but to give an example, one study found that the more frequently people attended religious events, the happier they were; 47% of people who attended several types a week reported that they were ‘very happy’, as opposed to 28% who attended less than monthly. http://generallythinking.com/are-religious-people-happier-than-atheists/
Thus, without even getting into the physical evidence supporting Christianity as true and materialism as false, there is a very practical reason for atheists to forsake their worldview in that forsaking it would make their lives better on a day by day basis. Verse and Music:
John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. Shawn McDonald - "What Are You Waiting For" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0KAHCZCi2M
bornagain77
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Those crusaders thought they were acting consistently with their moral code. The great thing about objective moral codes is there are so many to choose from.Mark Frank
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Mr. Frank, but were those particular crusaders acting consistently within the objective moral code of Christianity or not? Whereas the NAZI's Muslims and Atheists are acting completely consistently within their worldview when they murder.bornagain77
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Of course it is not silly to have lived through (or died in) any of those horrors whether they be communist, Nazi, Christian, Shintoism. What is silly is to use them dismiss the particular beliefs as being worse than any other. The fact is that the main difference between them was a difference in opportunity not in morality. Look at the excerpt from Raymond d’Aguilers. Do you think those crusaders would have turned down the opportunity to kill 30 million unbelievers if they had had the opportunity as an even more "just and splendid judgement of God"?Mark Frank
August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply