Is Hastur still around?

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

I'd like his opinion/analysis of the Archbishop of Canterbury calling the nativity a legend, and dissecting it in a very non-ecclesiastical sort of way. :D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nwise120.xml

[Eliezer]

I'm not Hastur, but the comments of the archbishop are exceeding accurate. Most the nativity stuff is pretty much legend or romantic extrapolation.

Wise men probably didn't show up for a long time, several months later. The fact that Herod killed all children under 2 meant that likely some time had passed.

The following the star... May have been a sign, but following the star is just plain silly. Especially given that they stopped by Herod's place to ask where the babe would be born.

And the number three comes from 3 gifts.

And the shepherds showing up may have happened days later as well.

The stable was likely a cave.

Nope, no problem at all with the bishop's words.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Thanks Mr. "Faith is Science." :rolleyes:

There's a reason I asked for Hastur.

[Eliezer]

Thanks Mr. "Faith is Science." :rolleyes:

There's a reason I asked for Hastur.

I fail to understand what you are referring too. Care to enlighten me?

Are you referring to your inability to understand science?

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

I fail to understand what you are referring too. Care to enlighten me?

Are you referring to your inability to understand science?

No, I'm referring to your inability to understand faith.

[Eliezer]

No, I'm referring to your inability to understand faith.

My inability to understand faith? Is there something wrong with my definition of faith that I posted in the WTF is faith thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=27914&postcount=1)?


If you disagreed maybe you should post your own definition. I think you're confusing failures to understand things between the two of us...:confused:

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

My inability to understand faith? Is there something wrong with my definition of faith that I posted in the WTF is faith thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=27914&postcount=1)?


If you disagreed maybe you should post your own definition. I think you're confusing failures to understand things between the two of us...:confused:

This thread is not that thread, and you're not Hastur.

[Varaj]

This thread is not that thread, and you're not Hastur.

If you didn't want other people to respond may I suggest PM or email.

[Eliezer]

This thread is not that thread, and you're not Hastur.

You're right, but I was responding to your statements on my views on faith.

And yes, I would refer you to this post (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=28682&postcount=2)
For those not interested in this little shit fest sponsored by Dr. Cherry Gun trolling of my honest response, I originally posted with the words, I'm not Hastur.

Thanks for trolling along, Dr. Cherry Gun. I was under the impression that you were a serious poster.

But thanks for playing anyhow.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

If you didn't want other people to respond may I suggest PM or email.

Sorry I disagreed with one of the protected posters. :rolleyes:

Eliezer came in and didn't even reply in the spirit of the original question. I don't want some jackhole atheist's opinion on the nativity. Of COURSE everyone here thinks it's all a bunch of destructive nonsense, but that's not the reaction one expects from an archbishop. So, are archbishops known for questioning the veracity of Biblical stories? Are Anglicans biblical literalists, and is it considered extreme for the archbishop to have come out at Christmas time and basically said it's all a bunch of nonsense? That seems odd to me, but I might not be up on my Anglican theology.

So, if anyone has any insight into that, I'd appreciate it, but I don't think it's too much to expect people to answer the fucking question rather than use every single thread to go around spewing their nonsense. (Ack! Irony!)

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Thanks for trolling along, Dr. Cherry Gun. I was under the impression that you were a serious poster.

But thanks for playing anyhow.

I don't think you were, because your lord and savior has probably told you I wasn't. He certainly moderates me at every possible juncture, and protects you vigorously.

Saying "I'm not Hastur" doesn't give you leave to post non-sequiturs.

[Varaj]

Sorry I disagreed with one of the protected posters. :rolleyes:


You didn't disagree you said he wasn't who you were directing the post at.
All you did was rant like a little baby and say, "But your not Hastur." Boohoo


Eliezer came in and didn't even reply in the spirit of the original question. I don't want some jackhole atheist's opinion on the nativity. Of COURSE everyone here thinks it's all a bunch of destructive nonsense, but that's not the reaction one expects from an archbishop. So, are archbishops known for questioning the veracity of Biblical stories? Are Anglicans biblical literalists, and is it considered extreme for the archbishop to have come out at Christmas time and basically said it's all a bunch of nonsense? That seems odd to me, but I might not be up on my Anglican theology.

Elizer posted an answer to exactly what you originally asked. Also what makes you think he is an atheist? Also I believe their are more non-atheists here than atheists on this board.


So, if anyone has any insight into that, I'd appreciate it, but I don't think it's too much to expect people to answer the fucking question rather than use every single thread to go around spewing their nonsense. (Ack! Irony!)

Again he answered the question. Do you have a brain disorder or a drug problem? Seriously you are getting worse over the years. You might want to be checked for a tumor.

[Eliezer]

I don't think you were, because your lord and savior has probably told you I wasn't. He certainly moderates me at every possible juncture, and protects you vigorously.

Saying "I'm not Hastur" doesn't give you leave to post non-sequiturs.

Ah, well let me clarify. I am a man of faith. I teach Sunday School. I've taught seminary. My biblical knowledge and faith is rather well known among my peers as well as my scholarship on doctrinal issues within my church.

I'm not as well versed on a lot of theology outside of my own, so I ask people of other faiths to help me understand.

So I'm a church going rather religious fellow who happens to believe in God, salvation through Jesus, eternal rewards, etc.

And in all of that, my response is not faith denigrating at all. I find nothing sacred or critical to my faith in the nativity scene. Whether wise men showed up that day or 3 months later is pretty irrelevant. Was his birth foretold in prophesy? Yes. Were witnesses provided to various classes within Hebrew society? Yes, they included the wise-men, shepherds, Simon, Anna. All of those things are scriptural. Most of the nativity isn't.

Like I said, I have no problems with the Archbishops statements, but that might be because I have read the bible.

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

No, I took him to task for not answering the question, rather using it as a way to publicize his own thread about his beliefs. The fact that what he found interesting was the negation of faith, rather than WHO it was coming from, speak to a very intense bias, and his post threatened to make this an atheist dogpile.

Score one for the atheists in derailing what could have been an interesting theological discussion.

[Varaj]

No, I took him to task for not answering the question, rather using it as a way to publicize his own thread about his beliefs. The fact that what he found interesting was the negation of faith, rather than WHO it was coming from, speak to a very intense bias, and his post threatened to make this an atheist dogpile.

Score one for the atheists in derailing what could have been an interesting theological discussion.

He answered it specifically. He doesn't have a problem with as a man of faith. You are just too brain damaged with your hate and bile and ignorance to see it.

[Stratego]

That seems odd to me, but I might not be up on my Anglican theology.


Perhaps this might help


"Do come in,you're the only one today.

Now, the sermon today is from a magazine that I found...that I found in a hedge. Now, lipstick colors this season are in the frosted pink area and nail colors to match.

And, er...this reminds me rather of our Lord Jesus.Because surely, when Jesus went into Nazareth on a donkey he must have got tarted up a bit.

We will now sing the hymn O God, What On Earth Is My Hairdo All About

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Ah, well let me clarify. I am a man of faith. I teach Sunday School. I've taught seminary. My biblical knowledge and faith is rather well known among my peers as well as my scholarship on doctrinal issues within my church.

I'm not as well versed on a lot of theology outside of my own, so I ask people of other faiths to help me understand.

So I'm a church going rather religious fellow who happens to believe in God, salvation through Jesus, eternal rewards, etc.

And in all of that, my response is not faith denigrating at all. I find nothing sacred or critical to my faith in the nativity scene. Whether wise men showed up that day or 3 months later is pretty irrelevant. Was his birth foretold in prophesy? Yes. Were witnesses provided to various classes within Hebrew society? Yes, they included the wise-men, shepherds, Simon, Anna. All of those things are scriptural. Most of the nativity isn't.

Like I said, I have no problems with the Archbishops statements, but that might be because I have read the bible.

So you're sorta a free-thinking Christian, which is my favorite kind. :D I'm not a Biblical literalist myself, but it shocked me that the AofC would come out at Christmas time like he did. Hastur might be able to say, "no, Anglicans aren't Biblical literalists, and have a long tradition of being skeptical toward the Bible." In which case I'll wonder why this is news, other than a media company stirring the pot.

Personally I find the nativity one of the less unbelievable parts of the Bible, because certainly one has to regard God as a miracle worker in order to be a Christian. I find it very easy to believe that God shaped events such that the nativity was just as described, and it seems to me that proclaiming it myth damages faith more than it uplifts it.

[FeatsofClay]

No, I took him to task for not answering the question, rather using it as a way to publicize his own thread about his beliefs.


Actually, you wrote I'd like his opinion/analysis of the Archbishop of Canterbury calling the nativity a legend, and dissecting it in a very non-ecclesiastical sort of way.

And he gave his analysis. ]I'm not Hastur, but the comments of the archbishop are exceeding accurate.

Seems friendly and polite the whole way through.

[Rappaccini's Daughter]

Sorry I disagreed with one of the protected posters. :rolleyes:

Defend or retract this statement so that I might make a judgement as to your intent, cadet.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Good Lord! A fight over faith that didn't involve me at all.

:popcorn:

[Schizm]

Good Lord! A fight over faith that didn't involve me at all.

:popcorn:

Don't worry, as soon as Hastur or Northcott shows up, I'm sure you'll find a way...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Don't worry, as soon as Hastur or Northcott shows up, I'm sure you'll find a way...

Northcott, no. Hastur, maybe.

I'm broadly supportive of the archbishop's comments, but they seem to me to be inconsistent with his recent intemperant and innscurate attack on Richard Dawkins.

But that, of course, makes sense if you view Williams as a canny politician rather than a principled intellectual. He's trying to steer the Church of England slowly, gently and indirectly in the same direction that Dawkins would say it should be going quickly, directly and without compromise.

Now we just have to hope that its not too long before Williams can feel safe to say the same things about the ressurection...

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

Now we just have to hope that its not too long before Williams can feel safe to say the same things about the ressurection...

That would be very odd. Do you also believe he should disavow grace, or the very existence of God himself? I'd love to hear an interpretation of Christianity that involved not believing in the resurrection.

[Varaj]

That would be very odd. Do you also believe he should disavow grace, or the very existence of God himself? I'd love to hear an interpretation of Christianity that involved not believing in the resurrection.

I take it you haven't studied the history of Christianity have you? There has been more than one sect that believed that. During the Council of Niece it was a subject that was debated and fairly quickly thrown out but still a common enough belief that it was brought up.

[Dead|Hooker|Disco]

does cherry=izzy?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I take it you haven't studied the history of Christianity have you? There has been more than one sect that believed that. During the Council of Niece it was a subject that was debated and fairly quickly thrown out but still a common enough belief that it was brought up.

Indeed. For s modern version, see John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopalian Bishop of Newark. I suppose I consider myself a Christian in the Spongian sense.

[Enk]

That would be very odd. Do you also believe he should disavow grace, or the very existence of God himself? I'd love to hear an interpretation of Christianity that involved not believing in the resurrection.

They call themselves "Jews." ;)

[Dr. Cherry Gunn]

I take it you haven't studied the history of Christianity have you? There has been more than one sect that believed that. During the Council of Niece it was a subject that was debated and fairly quickly thrown out but still a common enough belief that it was brought up.

There are examples of someone believing anything crazy you can think of. Find me a modern, mainstream denomenation at least the size of the Anglican Church.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

There are examples of someone believing anything crazy you can think of. Find me a modern, mainstream denomenation at least the size of the Anglican Church.

Well, Spong was the Bishop of Newark. And a major (if controversial) figure in Anglican theology and biblical historiography.

And, while the unitarian universalist church isn't big, it does boast a lot of senior politicians and some past presidents in its congregation.

[Varaj]

There are examples of someone believing anything crazy you can think of. Find me a modern, mainstream denomenation at least the size of the Anglican Church.

I certainly agree there aren't any. You did notice I said history. The question was fairly well settled during the Council of Niece.
You asked for an interpretation of Christianity that involved not believing in the resurrection and I gave you that answer.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I certainly agree there aren't any. You did notice I said history. The question was fairly well settled during the Council of Niece.
You asked for an interpretation of Christianity that involved not believing in the resurrection and I gave you that answer.

But, as I pointed out, both Spong and the UU church are modern examples.

[Varaj]

But, as I pointed out, both Spong and the UU church are modern examples.

Spong is not a church and you have to push the UU to call it Christian. :D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Spong is not a church and you have to push the UU to call it Christian. :D

True, but Spong is where I hope Christianity is headed. I miss church.

[Rappaccini's Daughter]

Failure to address my concerns about your implication of impropriety on top of the actual implication earns you two weeks suspension, Cadet Dr. Cherry Gunn.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Failure to address my concerns about your implication of impropriety on top of the actual implication earns you two weeks suspension, Cadet Dr. Cherry Gunn.
Man, this place is homey, I love you all! :lol:

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'd like his opinion/analysis of the Archbishop of Canterbury calling the nativity a legend, and dissecting it in a very non-ecclesiastical sort of way. :D

Fuck.
Me.
Ragged.

That is simultaneously the worst and most incompetent hatchet-job I have ever seen. If I was Rowan, I'd sue. The bit I really love is the fact they link to a transcript (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DOPL0I0WLHZTLQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nwise220.xml) so everyone can see what they've done. I can't find a full transcript on Mayo's site yet and the excerpt on the ABofC's site doesn't feature the controversial bit, but, based on the Telegraph's transcript, here's what he actually said:

Well Matthew's gospel doesn't tell us that there were three of them, doesn't tell us they were kings, doesn't tell us where they came from, it says they're astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That's all we're really told so, yes, 'the three kings with the one from Africa' - that's legend; it works quite well as legend.

This was within the context of comparing a traditional Christmas card or a Nativity play with the story as presented in the Gospels

And the problem with this is?

I'm broadly supportive of the archbishop's comments, but they seem to me to be inconsistent with his recent intemperant and innscurate attack on Richard Dawkins.

Are you supportive of what he actually said or his comments as they were reported?

Regarding Dawkins, I assume that you're talking about this (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/071013.htm). What's your problem with it? Having practically finished the God Delusion, I find it a good analysis

(I admit I read Rowan while reading the GD; to prevent cross-contamination, I probably should have waited until afterwards)

Would you mind only presenting one objection at a time? It's the holiday season and I don't have much spare time at the moment

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Are you supportive of what he actually said or his comments as they were reported?

How they were reported. If Williams was misreported (which I don't find at all surprising, given the way Dawkins has been misreported so dreadfully over the last twelve months) then I withdraw my comment.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Regarding Dawkins, I assume that you're talking about this (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/071013.htm). What's your problem with it? Having practically finished the God Delusion, I find it a good analysis

(I admit I read Rowan while reading the GD; to prevent cross-contamination, I probably should have waited until afterwards)

Would you mind only presenting one objection at a time? It's the holiday season and I don't have much spare time at the moment

I couldn't get past the first few page, there were so many distortions and what I have to say looked like downright lies. Here's my fisking of the first few paras before I gave up.


How to Misunderstand Religion

Saturday 13th October 2007

Lecture given at Swansea University

Thank you very much for the invitation and for the welcome, to be here at home again. And thank you all for sacrificing a precious Saturday afternoon for this.

I want to begin with an episode in Dostoyevsky’s novel ‘The Idiot’, where the central character Prince Mishkin says to a friend ‘Atheists always seem to be talking about something else’. And he goes on to illustrate what he means by telling a short series of anecdotes about different kinds of religious behaviour. Some of these episodes are about bad religion and some of them are about what you might call good religion. But the point that he’s making throughout this little series of stories is that there is something here which is not easily recognizable as the kind of thing that the argumentative atheist is talking about. Now I think that Prince Mishkin’s response is one that a great many of religious believers are likely to feel when they pick up the works of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or any of those prominent critics of religious faith in our own day. We may feel as we turn the pages that ‘this is not it’ whatever the religion is being attacked here it’s not actually what I believe in. And along with that instinctive response of not recognizing, there may also be a touch of, let’s say, resentment at somebody trying to tell us what we really mean. (Because as we all know there are few things more annoying than somebody else saying ‘I know what you mean’!) More seriously, that is one of those features of a certain kind of exercise of power which is itself open to moral challenge. When we go to another person or another community and say with confidence ‘I will tell you what your real agenda is’ the other person or community may very well say ‘This is simply a bid for control. You are telling me that my world is smaller than yours, that yours can contain and reduce mine’. And that’s not just an intellectual but a political question, in the widest sense.

I’m sure hearing such a thing is unpleasant. But if its true, then there’s nothing wrong with it.

Well, these are what I’ve called instinctive responses to the Dawkins/Hitchens etc agenda. But what I want to do this afternoon is to ask what are the specific areas of mis-match between what a Richard Dawkins may write about, and what religious people themselves think they’re doing. We need to state that mis-match as carefully and as fully as we can if our response is not just to be at the instinctive level. And because the (broadly speaking) Dawkins-related attitude to religion is gaining ground in, for example, journalistic perception and therefore public perception in our own day, it’s of some practical significance that those who hold religious belief should be able to spell out their dissatisfaction with the critical strategies they’re faced with. But, if I may make just one more observation by way of introduction, I would say that this is not simply a matter of religious believers defending themselves (though it is that, and as you will have noticed, I am a religious believer and I have some investment in this!) but it’s also about the character of intellectual debate, about the politics, the power struggles of intellectual debate, about the need to understand as fully as possible what it is you think you are disagreeing with. And I don’t think I need to spell out in a university context that that is one of the basic principles of academic ethics.

This smells like a smear to me, but I’ll let it pass.

Richard Dawkins is invariably a wonderfully lively and attractive writer. But to begin with I’m going to quote not Dawkins, but a kind of digest of some of Richard Dawkins’ ideas which appeared in a rather remarkable play by Mick Gordon and A C Grayling entitled ‘On Religion’. Part of a series put on by On Theatre, a group concerned to produce and introduce new drama dealing with very broad intellectual questions. So there have been other examples on ego, on love and on death.

I’m sorry, he’s going to use a work of fiction by two different writers who are broadly influenced by Dawkins as an illustration of Dawkins’ own views? This is going downhill fast.

This very remarkable and dramatically very successful play pivots around a family problem. Grace is a senior scientist and a passionate Dawkins-style atheist. She’s married to a lapsed Jew, Tony. And they have a son who to everyone’s horror has converted to Christianity and decides to become a priest. He, Tom the son, is engaged to Ruth who is a much more hesitant unbeliever. Prepared to take religion seriously because she takes Tom seriously and therefore attacked by almost everybody else in the play. But Grace is not only a distinguished scientist, she is also a distinguished anti-religious apologist with a public platform, very much a Dawkins character. And here is Grace delivering a lecture.

‘There are four kinds of answer usually given to the questions of why religions exist: one, they offer explanations, answers to the basic questions about the origins of the Universe, why it exists, what purpose its existence serves, why apparently inexplicable things happen in it, and why it includes suffering and death. Two, religions provide comfort, giving hope of life after death and providing reassurance in a hostile world, also that they offer through prayer and sacrifice and good behaviour, to get a better deal in this world. Three, religions make for social cohesion; they bind families together (Tony chuckles) consolidate communities and countries and bring a useful sense of order. Four, religions are born of humankind’s natural ignorance and superstitiousness. So: explanation, comfort, cohesion and superstition.’

Grace’s little speech sums up very elegantly the Dawkins case.

No. It doesn’t. It is an oversimplification of a latter chapter that deals with what Dawkins sees as an only mildly interesting side-issue. It doesn’t even mention the core of Dawkins’ argument.

This is intellectual dishonesty on an appalling scale.

Here in the human world we have a variegated, widespread, long-lived phenomenon called religion. It is an irrational phenomenon. It rests on no basis of evidence. Its effects are both beneficial in some areas and fantastically destructive in others. It’s not obviously a strategy for survival, so what’s it doing here? How did it get here onto the human scene? And why is it still around? And given all that, what do we do to guarantee that it will stop being around?

And the distortions just keep rolling in. Dawkins problem is with faith not religion. He’s said (as recently as the Four Horseman video I posted recently) that he wouldn’t have a problem with a non-faith religion, such as what Spong advocates.

Now, the question as posed takes a number of things for granted, as Grace’s explanations suggest. And both in Grace’s world and in Richard Dawkins’ writings there is one very interesting factor affecting the whole discussion and that is the assumption that, loosely speaking, Darwinian Theory is a theory of everything. It’s not just a theory about biology; it’s a theory about history and culture. It’s a theory which explains the history of ideas. Every feature of culture like every feature of biology requires an explanation in Darwinian terms: that is in terms of survival strategies. Darwin’s system is extraordinarily comprehensive and successful in dealing with biology. It allows every aspect of the history of organisms to be understood in terms of a clearly defined process. But Dawkins assumes (as indeed do many others) that a theory which works so successfully in biology must be a theory whose potential extends across the whole of human culture. Every feature of culture must be in come sense a survival strategy.

Wrong again.

It’s worth noting that assumption, that you can carry over from biology to the study of culture without too many questions asked. But if this is more than trivially true; (true in that very general and un-technical sense) that things survive because they have survivability – ideas included – then the idea that biology carries over into everything does have a number of implications for rationality itself, never mind morality. Reasoning practices in any area are there because they have survival capacity. They are successful strategies for getting through. And that, as countless of critics have pointed out, is something which always in danger of undermining the whole idea of rational explanation, including biological explanation.

Huh? This doesn’t even make sense.

Again for the slow-witted Archbishop: Memetics is a speculation that Dawkins threw out there in 1975, abandoned, and then came back to when Dennett’ picked it up and ran with it to spectacular effect in the 1990s. Dawkins sees it as a cute idea that is worth pursuing. He doesn’t see it as a grand unified theory of everything. Hell, not even Dennett says that.

And again, memetics is a small part of a latter chapter that deals with a side issue in The God Delusion. The good Archbishop is completely ignoring the central argument of the book.



<goes on with irrelevant straw man argument in a way I found too irrelevant and boring to continue reading>

Hastur, if there's a point at which this becomes worth taking seriously, please point to it. Right now I've given up. He's completely lost all credibility with me by this point.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I’m sure hearing such a thing is unpleasant. But if its true, then there’s nothing wrong with it.

...

This smells like a smear to me, but I’ll let it pass.

There's repeated points in the book where Dawkins is telling Christians what they believe. And he's wrong. Alister McGrath has a more complete list in "The Dawkins Delusion", but I'll pick the mangling of the Doctrine of Original Sin and the whole "Ultimate 747" argument. Also, in the first chapter everyone who disagrees with Dawkins is either a coward (Gould), self-deceptive (Winston) or a delusional liar (the pope) - that's not debate, that's an "exercise of power"

No. It doesn’t. It is an oversimplification of a latter chapter that deals with what Dawkins sees as an only mildly interesting side-issue. It doesn’t even mention the core of Dawkins’ argument.

Yeah, I wish he had figured out how to present a popular account of negative theology in a way that wasn't going to be misinterpreted by the press. I'm hoping it's something he's working on. However, it is a good summary of chapters 5 and 6, drawing in threads from subsequent chapters.

And the distortions just keep rolling in. Dawkins problem is with faith not religion. He’s said (as recently as the Four Horseman video I posted recently) that he wouldn’t have a problem with a non-faith religion, such as what Spong advocates.

Rowan doesn't believe that faith without religion is possible or even wise to attempt (remember his response to Spong as the Bishop of Monmouth?). To use a personal example, I can't even imagine the number of intellectual justifications you had to go through in order to make it through a Christian wedding service - to me it seems like breathtaking hypocrisy.

Wrong again.

Um - chapter 5? Particularly the first few pages?

Huh? This doesn’t even make sense.

Again for the slow-witted Archbishop: Memetics is a speculation that Dawkins threw out there in 1975, abandoned, and then came back to when Dennett’ picked it up and ran with it to spectacular effect in the 1990s. Dawkins sees it as a cute idea that is worth pursuing. He doesn’t see it as a grand unified theory of everything. Hell, not even Dennett says that.

And again, memetics is a small part of a latter chapter that deals with a side issue in The God Delusion.

Again, chapter 5. And where does Rowan mention "memetics"?

The good Archbishop is completely ignoring the central argument of the book.Because the central argument isn't relevant to Christianity as the Archbishop practices it

[Atticus_of_Amber]

There's repeated points in the book where Dawkins is telling Christians what they believe. And he's wrong. Alister McGrath has a more complete list in "The Dawkins Delusion", but I'll pick the mangling of the Doctrine of Original Sin

Maybe, I don't know enough about that to be sure. But it seems a minor point to me given that Dawkins' chief concern is the Ultimate 747 argument.

and the whole "Ultimate 747" argument.

As discussed in the other thread and below, the Ultimate 747 argument applies to any belief statement of the form: "the universe was designed and created by an intelligent [insert noun here]".

Also, in the first chapter everyone who disagrees with Dawkins is either a coward (Gould), self-deceptive (Winston) or a delusional liar (the pope) - that's not debate, that's an "exercise of power"

No, it's an exercise in robust criticism and it happens all the time in other disciplines. Gould and Dawkins, who were distant friends, said far worse about each other in their scientific debates. Stop being a pussy.

However, it is a good summary of chapters 5 and 6, drawing in threads from subsequent chapters.

No, it isn't. Williams' travesty isn't even a good summary of Dawkins' latter chapters on the side issue. Indeed, his whole discussion of "survivability" reveals a complete misunderstanding of the central neo-Darwinian insight.

Rowan doesn't believe that faith without religion is possible or even wise to attempt (remember his response to Spong as the Bishop of Monmouth?).

You mean his non-response? More non-sequiters than a Bush speech.

To use a personal example, I can't even imagine the number of intellectual justifications you had to go through in order to make it through a Christian wedding service - to me it seems like breathtaking hypocrisy.

No hypocrisy at all. I'm a Christian atheist. No more hypocrisy than Spong being a bishop.

And where does Rowan mention "memetics"?

He mentions the word meme or memetics five times. His whole critique shifts incoherently between an attack on memetics and an attack on conventional neo-Darwinism, and he demonstrates a howling misunderstanding of both.

Because the central argument isn't relevant to Christianity as the Archbishop practices it

Then the Archbishop of Canterbury is an atheist, because the Ultimate 747 argument applies to any belief statement of the form: "the universe was designed and created by an intelligent [insert noun here]".

[Northcott]

Heh. A Christmas gift!

We've debunked the 747 argument in here before. You weren't comfortable with it then, so I've no doubt you've erased it from memory.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Heh. A Christmas gift!

We've debunked the 747 argument in here before. You weren't comfortable with it then, so I've no doubt you've erased it from memory.

Norththug, as usual, "reads with a broad brush".

The "debunking" he refers to was a possible limitation of the argument pointed out by a poster last time Hastur tried to avoid the issue.

The poster who pointed out the possible limitation of the Ultimate 747 argument, btw, was *me*.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

No, it isn't. Williams' travesty isn't even a good summary of Dawkins' latter chapters on the side issue. Indeed, his whole discussion of "survivability" reveals a complete misunderstanding of the central neo-Darwinian insight.

Oh yes it is. (it is Panto season after all)

If I and Williams have misread the narrative thread through the second half of the book, please tell me what it is. Because I think it's about how religion evolved, why it's function is now unnecessary, and what alternatives are available. And I'm pretty damn sure that Dawkins doesn't think it evolved through group selection

No hypocrisy at all. I'm a Christian atheist. No more hypocrisy than Spong being a bishop.

Nice try at getting an emotional response out of me, but I'm not playing. I'm assuming that a traditionalist like you went for the Book of Common Prayer service including a nuptial mass? In that case, what was going through your head when you said "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty..." etc? (it's a very personal question and "fuck off - it's none of your business" is a perfectly acceptable answer)

(tangent: did you get Morbidity to say she'd obey you?)

He mentions the word meme or memetics five times. His whole critique shifts incoherently between an attack on memetics and an attack on conventional neo-Darwinism, and he demonstrates a howling misunderstanding of both.

My mistake; it's not in the passage you quoted. Given that you can't give me a formal, testable, falsifiable definition of what a "meme" is, you don't understand the concept well enough to critique someone else's understanding.

Dawkins believes in a memetic application of neo-Darwinism to culture - He invented it and he still writes about it. Given this, when critiquing Dawkins ideas, what's the problem with switching between critiquing memetics and critiquing neo-Darwinism?

I've read multiple Dawkins books, critiques (from Christians and non-Christians) and popular science articles around the subject and I think that Rowan gives a pretty good presentation, given his audience. Maybe I'll think differently after I've read Dennett, but I'll probably still think it's a good critique of the ideas as presented by Dawkins. Is there a mind-virus clouding my thoughts or something?

Happy Christmas by the way

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Oh yes it is. (it is Panto season after all)

If I and Williams have misread the narrative thread through the second half of the book, please tell me what it is. Because I think it's about how religion evolved, why it's function is now unnecessary, and what alternatives are available. And I'm pretty damn sure that Dawkins doesn't think it evolved through group selection

You really want me to give you Clift Notes to TGD? Wouldn't it be easier if you just read it with a less broad brush?

Nice try at getting an emotional response out of me, but I'm not playing. I'm assuming that a traditionalist like you went for the Book of Common Prayer service including a nuptial mass? In that case, what was going through your head when you said "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty..." etc? (it's a very personal question and "fuck off - it's none of your business" is a perfectly acceptable answer)

(tangent: did you get Morbidity to say she'd obey you?)

I wasn't trying to get an emotional response. I was just trying to be honest.

I treat the Creed the same way you seem to do: as a recitation of a traditional formula that I don't believe as part of a traditional ceremony. (If you believed the creed, then you couldn't avoid the Ultimate 747 argument.)

(Obey? People still have that in their vows? It was never even discussed. I'm actually astounded that might have been an issue. No, she didn't swear to obey and I wouldn't have wanted her to.)

Happy Christmas by the way

Ditto.

[Northcott]

The "debunking" he refers to was a possible limitation of the argument pointed out by a poster last time Hastur tried to avoid the issue.

The poster who pointed out the possible limitation of the Ultimate 747 argument, btw, was *me*.

You're amusing when you're being obtuse and/or dishonest. :D

Hastur wasn't avoiding the issue -- he was pointing out the flaws in your assumptions quite directly. You failed to grasp the basic concept being introduced, and as is usual for you when you fail, you blamed it on others. In this case you directly impugned Rich's honesty. Why he's so polite to you, I'll never understand. You're utterly undeserving of such courtesy.

You could say that you pointed out a "possible limitation"... but you'd be lying. You tripped over it in making dismissive comments, had it pointed out to you by a couple of people, then blithely ignored that point until enough time had passed that you thought you could bring it up again as though the idea actually held merit.

It must be nice to be able to cuddle into that warm blanket of faith every night, ignoring all the big, bad logic that proves it wrong. ;) Your hypocrisy is staggering.



I've done you the courtesy, at least, of not bothering to quote your ham-handed attempt at an insult. Do stop embarrassing yourself this way. Continued use of the Gopher Moat just further erodes what little credibility you have left around here. With a spate of new posters who are treating you like you've got something resembling cognitive faculties, do be a good lad and try to humour their misimpression for as long as you can. It's the polite thing to do.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Does anyone have any idea what little Northy is gibbering about? Because it read like non-specific paranoid ravings to me. Steroid overuse perhaps? Or did bring humiliated by Hastur in the "excluded middle" debacle break what wa left of his mind?

Happy to respond if anyone wants to translate it into sane...

[Northcott]

Does anyone have any idea what little Northy is gibbering about? Because it read like non-specific paranoid ravings to me. Steroid overuse perhaps? Or did bring humiliated by Hastur in the "excluded middle" debacle break what wa left of his mind?

Happy to respond if anyone wants to translate it into sane...

http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=28967&postcount=65
Hypocrite, liar, and slanderer: all three apply to you.

1)The 747 theory (or at least your interpretation of it) was shot down ages ago.
2) You keep referencing a supposed humilation that nobody else remembers, as if it will make this true.
3) You decry notions of rationality and faith being compatible, and rather than face that your gospel is wrong, when faced with the flexibility of other people's beliefs you simply dismiss long-held notions or core elements of belief systems when they invalidate your erroneous assumptions.

When you ask Rich what his point of view is, you respond to any honest answer by insulting his honesty or intelligence. Your particular brand of intellectual cowardice is particularly distasteful simply because you spend so much time braying about how enlightened a mind it takes to adopt your current stance. If you are incapable of actually debating a point, then kindly shut the fuck up about it. Sweet Kung-Fu Jesus! You whimper about how mean I am to you, but at least I stay on topic and tear your points apart while insulting you. But you? You whine like gutless, shit-crawling dross weasel when somebody winds up and reminds you that the gross sum of mendacity you project has you bordering on the superfluous. Perpetually complaining that the Big Bad Man doesn't validate your pathetic metrosexual pretensions of pseudo-intellectualism by playing nice -- and then have the gall to turn around and address the very real replies you receive by simply dismissing them as "bullshit", or calling a direct reference to a long-standing and respected element of theological thought "a retreat" that makes him a "practical atheist". How cunning. Next you'll enlighten us as to how supporting the idea of publicly-funded healthcare makes somebody an extreme capitalist.

I suppose that's still not direct or pointed enough for you. At the moment I cannot afford to purchase a helper monkey for the disabled and send it to Australia to aid you in your quest for basic comprehension strategies. I assure you that should that day come, I will spend the money on something far more inclined toward success -- such as generating cold fusion from a moonshine still.


Merry Christmas! :D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Once again, if anyone wants to translate that into little rant into sane, I'll happily respond.

[Varaj]

Once again, if anyone wants to translate that into little rant into sane, I'll happily respond.

Basically he says you are a poopy head. He thinks you are a poopy head because you are arguing something that depends on an unprovable start point and you both have different start points. So when you say x and he says x doesn't make sense you are both correct depending on the start point but since neither of you are willing to accept the other's start point you both think the other is talking nonsense.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Basically he says you are a poopy head. He thinks you are a poopy head because you are arguing something that depends on an unprovable start point and you both have different start points. So when you say x and he says x doesn't make sense you are both correct depending on the start point but since neither of you are willing to accept the other's start point you both think the other is talking nonsense.

That might make sense, but it needs to be filled out with more detail. What is his starting point and what would you say is mine?

[Varaj]

That might make sense, but it needs to be filled out with more detail. What is his starting point and what would you say is mine?

His starting point that logic doesn't have to apply to the concept of God, yours in the opposite. It is my major problem with the 747 argument. (As read from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)

3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane" not a "skyhook," for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.

The who designed the designer isn't a larger problem if you are willing to accept and belief that God is/was/will be and doesn't need anything else.
Sure it doesn't really fit in with how we understand the world from a science point of view but the position of many folks is that is perfectly fine. That position is one of faith and can't really be argued.

You keep saying that is the problem with faith that discourse can't occur about it and you are right, that is why it is so stupid to argue the specifics of faith and why arguments like the 747 are pretty retarded. If you think the danger of faith is the lack of reason you can't apply the 747 argument because you know it will fail; if it works the position that the danger of the faith is lack of reason isn't correct and then you need a better reason to try to tear down faith. Trying to use will only hurt not help.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

His starting point that logic doesn't have to apply to the concept of God, yours in the opposite. It is my major problem with the 747 argument. (As read from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)



The who designed the designer isn't a larger problem if you are willing to accept and belief that God is/was/will be and doesn't need anything else.
Sure it doesn't really fit in with how we understand the world from a science point of view but the position of many folks is that is perfectly fine. That position is one of faith and can't really be argued.

You keep saying that is the problem with faith that discourse can't occur about it and you are right, that is why it is so stupid to argue the specifics of faith and why arguments like the 747 are pretty retarded. If you think the danger of faith is the lack of reason you can't apply the 747 argument because you know it will fail; if it works the position that the danger of the faith is lack of reason isn't correct and then you need a better reason to try to tear down faith. Trying to use will only hurt not help.

With respect, I think you're missing the strategic purpose of the 747 argument.

It's purpose is to expose just the observation you made: that you can't defend theism with reason and evidence, that it is a matter of faith dogma.

Only once you've made that point does the whole Harris critique of dogma apply to theism in the same way it applies to, communism of nazism.

The point of logical arguments against God is to show that belief in God can only ever rest on faith, on dogma. Then make the critique of the political, psychological and spiritual dangers of dogma.

In a sense, if you accept that theism must rest on faith/dogma, then you've already agreed with Dawkins' central point. You're real argument from there is with Harris. And since Dawkins latter chapters are a rather half-assed summary of Harris, you're better off getting it from the Buddha's mouth.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

His starting point that logic doesn't have to apply to the concept of God, yours in the opposite. It is my major problem with the 747 argument. (As read from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)



The who designed the designer isn't a larger problem if you are willing to accept and belief that God is/was/will be and doesn't need anything else.
Sure it doesn't really fit in with how we understand the world from a science point of view but the position of many folks is that is perfectly fine. That position is one of faith and can't really be argued.

You keep saying that is the problem with faith that discourse can't occur about it and you are right, that is why it is so stupid to argue the specifics of faith and why arguments like the 747 are pretty retarded. If you think the danger of faith is the lack of reason you can't apply the 747 argument because you know it will fail; if it works the position that the danger of the faith is lack of reason isn't correct and then you need a better reason to try to tear down faith. Trying to use will only hurt not help.

With respect, I think you're missing the strategic purpose of the 747 argument.

It's purpose is to expose just the observation you made: that you can't defend theism with reason and evidence, that it is a matter of faith dogma.

Only once you've made that point does the whole Harris critique of dogma apply to theism in the same way it applies to, communism.

The point of logical arguments against God is to show that belief in God can only ever rest on faith, on dogma. Then make the critique of the political, psychological and spiritual dangers of dogma.

In a sense, if you accept that theism must rest on faith/dogma, then you've already agreed with Dawkins' central point. You're real argument from there is with Harris. And since Dawkins latter chapters are a rather half-assed summary of Harris, you're better off getting it from the Buddha's mouth.

The only other reasons to read Dawkins after you've agreed with his central point are his speculations on the origins of religion (and that's dealt with with far more rigour by Dennett in Breaking the Spell) or his discussion of the roots of morality (which is actually very good, IMHO, though a bit of a vein of The Selfish Gene. But no one here appears to seriously make the argument that you can't be good without god, so that material is peripheral to the debate in this community.)

[Varaj]

With respect, I think you're missing the strategic purpose of the 747 argument.

It's purpose is to expose just the observation you made: that you can't defend theism with reason and evidence, that it is a matter of faith dogma.

People think you defend theism with reason? :confused: Seems to me their is a reason it is called faith.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

People think you defend theism with reason? :confused: Seems to me their is a reason it is called faith.

Yes, many people do. And other people sometimes do and sometimes don't, depending on how hard they're pressed.

Once someone has admitted that their belief is a matter of faith/dogma and not reason, then the important conversation about anti-dogmatism can begin.

[Varaj]

Yes, many people do. And other people sometimes do and sometimes don't, depending on how hard they're pressed.

Once someone has admitted that their belief is a matter of faith/dogma and not reason, then the important conversation about anti-dogmatism can begin.

The 747 seems a poor choice to accomplish that. At best all I can see it being used for is a counter to ID.

If somebody is saying their faith is based on logic and reason just ask them to provide the proof between it and the nearest neighboring faith.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The 747 seems a poor choice to accomplish that. At best all I can see it being used for is a counter to ID.

If somebody is saying their faith is based on logic and reason just ask them to provide the proof between it and the nearest neighboring faith.

Not so much ID but the argument from design more generally.

Indeed, that was my criticism of the Ultimate 747 argument: that it's not an argument so much as a brilliant rebuttal to the argument from design. It shows that the argument from design is actually an argument for atheism.

But the more I think about it, the more I've come around to thinking it is a free standing argument after all: "God did it" is actually far more imrobable that "it just happened by accident" - and there's mounting evidence that it wasn't an accident at all anyway.

Moreover, my more immediate point stands: it would be an act of grotesque intellectual dishoneste for someone to purport to review TGD without addressing its central argument.

[Varaj]

Not so much ID but the argument from design more generally.

Indeed, that was my criticism of the Ultimate 747 argument: that it's not an argument so much as a brilliant rebuttal to the argument from design. It shows that the argument from design is actually an argument for atheism.

But the more I think about it, the more I've come around to thinking it is a free standing argument after all: "God did it" is actually far more imrobable that "it just happened by accident" - and there's mounting evidence that it wasn't an accident at all anyway.

Moreover, my more immediate point stands: it would be an act of grotesque intellectual dishoneste for someone to purport to review TGD without addressing its central argument.

It is only more improbably from an atheist point of view. From a person of faith probability doesn't even play into the question. Their isn't any point of using the word with faith comes into play. Faith removes the question of probability.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It is only more improbably from an atheist point of view. From a person of faith probability doesn't even play into the question. Their isn't any point of using the word with faith comes into play. Faith removes the question of probability.

Exactly. Faith is believing in spite of the massive improbability that the belief is true. Once we get that put in the open, we can have a productive discussion of whether faith is a good thing.

But that doesn't change my primary point that it is intellectually dishonest to review TGD without addressing its central argument, even if your method of addressing it is to "confess and avoid" as we lawyers used to say (i.e. admit it's correct but then argue (not just assert) that its irrelevant).

[Varaj]

Exactly. Faith is believing in spite of the improbability. Once we get that put in the open, we can have a productive discussion of whether faith is a good thing.
But that doesn't change my primary point that it is intellectually dishonest to review TGD without addressing its central argument, even if your method of addressing it is to "confess and avoid" as we lawyers used to say (i.e. admit it's correct but then argue (not just assert) that its irrelevant).

I haven't read the book so I don't know how central it is to the book. I'll take your word for it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I haven't read the book so I don't know how central it is to the book. I'll take your word for it.

Dawkins has repeatedly said, both in TGD and in interviews and speeches to promote it, that the core of the book is the chapter "Why God Almost Certainly Doesn't Exist". If there's a secondary "core", it's his argument against labelling children with the religions of their parents before they're too young to decide for themselves and his opposition to teaching children about Hell.

Yet people seem determined to ignore the core of TGD and concentrate on the peripheral chapters where he throws out multiple speculations on the origins of religion. If you're interested in the origins of religion, for God's sake don't talk to Dawkins - he doesn't really care. All he really cares about is [childish Dawkins voice]"But is it TRUE?!?"[/childish Dawkins voice]. Those "Roots of Religion" chapters are interesting, but he's really just spit-balling. If you want evolutionary explanations for the origins of religion, you talk to Daniel Dennett - who is the opposite of Dawkins in the sense doesn't really care if religion is true, what he cares about is where it came from, what function it serves and how it can be made less dangerous.

The other interesting spit-balling chapters are the ones dealing with the origins of morality. If I have a criticism of the book (aside from its habit of being a second-rate crib of Sam Harris on the "end of faith" issues), it's that Dawkins really is intellectually equipped to grapple with these evolution of morality issues and he largely squibs it with some less than analytical hand-waving about the "shifting moral zeitgeist". That was a spit-balling chapter that could have been something more robust. It's as if after working so hard on the "Why God Almost Certainly Doesn't Exist" chapter (a masterpiece, IMHO), Dawkins just curled up with Lalla and a bottle of brandy and shot the breeze for the rest of the book (we're talking about Lalla Ward here, who wouldn't rather curl up with her than work on something one found only peripherally interesting?). As you'd expect, fascinating as after-dinner conversation (and the cherry picking point is brilliantly expressed), but not very rigorous.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

You really want me to give you Clift Notes to TGD?

Yes please. Because if chapters five+ of TGD aren't about the possible origins of religion, its function within society, why religion is no longer necessary (or even wise) and the alternatives that are available, then I really don't know what these chapters are about. Heck - look at the chapter and section headings! "The roots of religion", "The roots of morality: why are we good?".

The reason why certain critics fixate on his application of neo-Darwinism to human culture (with memes as the unit of inheritance) is twofold:

a) it's the weakest part of his argument

b) it's the only original part of the book.

If, when responding to TGD, you can use a phrase like "This book isn't just bad theology, it's bad science", and be able to back it up, it's crushing. I'm still waiting for a formal, testable, falsifiable definition of "meme". I get that a gene encodes the information necessary to copy itself and to create it's product, but what does a meme encode and how does it encode it?

"The Ultimate 747" argument is a dressed-up version of "Well, who created God, then?" - and that one dates back to Plato. The rest of the book is warmed-over nineteenth century criticisms with a neo-Darwinian twist (exceptions: Russell's critique of the ontological proof, and the dismissal of Uwin's Bayesian argument). There's no real difference between "humanity has outgrown the need for faith" and "humanity has evolved beyond the need for faith"

At least Voltaire is funny

[Northcott]

Basically he says you are a poopy head. He thinks you are a poopy head because you are arguing something that depends on an unprovable start point and you both have different start points. So when you say x and he says x doesn't make sense you are both correct depending on the start point but since neither of you are willing to accept the other's start point you both think the other is talking nonsense.

Actually, I'm saying he's a poopy head because he asks for a poster's point of view while claiming that he wants open discourse, then talks shit about said poster when that point of view is given in good faith -- and then trumps even that crap by turning around and whining about how he's treated.

Me? I really don't give a fuck what somebody else's philosophy or theology is, unless they're going around pimping it and trying to find converts. Then I wish they'd just shut the fuck up. It's like those wankers on the street corner that are constantly recruiting for Mormonism/Jehovah's Witness/Scientology, or whoever's at King and Queen that day. People can believe whatever they want. I'm even glad to sit down and listen to the ins and outs of what they believe, as it expands the experience a little. I just have no patience for perpetual proselytization... particularly when it's based chiefly around shitting on other people.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I think the opposing parties in these arguments just need to fuck and get it over with. :D

[Northcott]

I think the opposing parties in these arguments just need to fuck and get it over with. :D

Dirty fucking hippy. :D He's a lawyer: I wouldn't fuck that skank with your dick.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Yes please. Because if chapters five+ of TGD aren't about the possible origins of religion, its function within society, why religion is no longer necessary (or even wise) and the alternatives that are available, then I really don't know what these chapters are about. Heck - look at the chapter and section headings! "The roots of religion", "The roots of morality: why are we good?".

See my previous post in this thread. Notice in particular the term "spitballing".

The reason why certain critics fixate on his application of neo-Darwinism to human culture (with memes as the unit of inheritance) is twofold:

a) it's the weakest part of his argument

Of course it is - he's spitballing. Laying out a series of possibilities for further research. It's not part of his central argument.

b) it's the only original part of the book.

Nope, it's not. None of the book is original, except his twist on the Ultimate 747 argument. All of it is stuff he's written before or a crib of stuff other people have written before. What ever gave anyone the idea that the TGD was meant to be "original"? Even the Ultimate 747 was pretty much put (though with a little less elaboration) in Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker back in 1986.

If, when responding to TGD, you can use a phrase like "This book isn't just bad theology, it's bad science", and be able to back it up, it's crushing.

Crushing? Yes. Honest? No.

I'm still waiting for a formal, testable, falsifiable definition of "meme". I get that a gene encodes the information necessary to copy itself and to create it's product, but what does a meme encode and how does it encode it?

No definition is "testable" or "falsifiable". Those words properly apply to hypotheses. As for the rest of it, go back and re-read what I've already written, but this time read with a less broad brush.


The Ultimate 747" argument is a dressed-up version of "Well, who created God, then?" - and that one dates back to Plato.

Actually, it's an original twist on an old argument. That argument was less persuasive in the past because Darwin hadn't been born yet. Once we understand the Darwinian algorithm, the argument (which was best used in the past by Hume) works much better. See Daniel C Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life (1995, Simon & Schuster, USA) at 155 for the historical precedents for Dawkins' argument in The Blind Watchmaker back in 1986, which (with some tweaking) became the Ultimate 747 argument in TGD.


The rest of the book is warmed-over nineteenth century criticisms with a neo-Darwinian twist (exceptions: Russell's critique of the ontological proof, and the dismissal of Uwin's Bayesian argument). There's no real difference between "humanity has outgrown the need for faith" and "humanity has evolved beyond the need for faith"

On the pejorative use of "nineteenth century", see TGD itself at 156-7.

The whole of TGD is the repackaging of criticism of religion that Dawkins and others have made elsewhere. With the exception of the slightly more sophisticated Darwinian twist on the Ultimate 747 argument, it doesn't claim to be original.

The purpose of TGD is to more widely publicise criticisms of religion that have been made before and that theists have never persuasively addressed in the past and to keep hammering them until they're either answered or admitted. If you want original you go to Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett. TGD is about getting the word out.

The major difference between Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins on religions is that, after 9/11, Dawkins has decided to stop being polite and take the gloves off.*

At least Voltaire is funny

Strange, most people who've reviewed it, even the intellectually dishonest ones, have admitted it's a damn entertaining read. I was laughing my head off the first time through. (And the Douglas Adams quotes were even funnier.) The only recent New Anti-Dogmatist book that's funnier than TGD is Hitchens' God is Not Great, but Hitchens' book is almost content-free and is really just comedy and nothing else. (Sam Harris has since developed a dry sense of humour, but it's not there in The End of Faith - given that it was written in a frenzy in the days and weeks after 9/11, I imagine he was too angry to be funny.)

*A good example of Dawkins' change of attitude after 9/11 is his essay "Time to Stand Up!" (http://ffrf.org/timely/dawkins.php), written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and republished in The Devil's Chaplain. As Dawkins wrote in 2003 in the introduction to the reprint of that essay in The Devil's Chaplain: "... it has a more savage tone than I customarily adopt. Were I to write it now, I should probably tone it down, but that was an extraordinary time when people spoke with extraordinary passion, and I admit that I was no exception." it seems the experience of things like the Bush Adminsitration and Tony Blair's "faith schools" madness got him back to that tone by 2006.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

See my previous post in this thread. Notice in particular the term "spitballing".

I have to admit that I don't understand your use of either of the colloquialisms "spitballing" or "broad brush" in this context. I thought I did, but I now I realise I don't. Can you try to use a more international dialect?

No definition is "testable" or "falsifiable". Those words properly apply to hypotheses.

Then why the fuck is he calling memetics a theory when it isn't even a hypothesis?

Have you just conceded that memetics isn't a theory?

On the pejorative use of "nineteenth century", see TGD itself at 156-7.

Which is why I used the phrase. What Dawkins fails to understand is that these are old arguments and if they were genuinely crushing then religion would have been eradicated by now. Hey! Here's an idea! Maybe they're not addressing concepts of God as held by believers?

The whole of TGD is the repackaging of criticism of religion that Dawkins and others have made elsewhere. With the exception of the slightly more sophisticated Darwinian twist on the Ultimate 747 argument, it doesn't claim to be original.

I think it was Giles Fraser's review that commented that at least all the arguments against the existence of God could now be found in one place

Strange, most people who've reviewed it, even the intellectually dishonest ones, have admitted it's a damn entertaining read. I was laughing my head off the first time through.

Ok, so I cracked a smile once or twice. He does have a good turn of phrase. I think if he worked with more accurate material he could produce some genuinely entertaining satire

He's no Voltaire though: "Everything is for the best - in this, the best of all possible worlds." Gets me every time.

I have to admit that (after taking some perspective and reading a goodly chunk of the complete Father Brown I got for Christmas), I did find it very inspiring, but in almost the complete opposite way to what Dawkins intends. Christians have got to raise their game; today we have to be more discerning and more inquiring than at any time in history and frankly we're crap at it. Heck some of us are Young Earth Creationists. Thanks for encouraging me to read it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Then why the fuck is he calling memetics a theory when it isn't even a hypothesis?

Review Breaking the Spell and we can talk memes, indeed it would be intellectually dishonest to avoid them then. But in the context of a discussion of TGD, I'm not going to talk about a speculative side-issue (which Dawkins, despite having coined the term, is actually quite crap at as a practitioner) while you're being so intellectually dishonest as to ignore the central argument of the book.

Let me put it another way: To focus on the evolutionary speculations in the "Roots of Religion" chpaters in a discussion of TGD would be like focussing on the "Souring of the Shire" in a review of LotR. To focus on memes in a review of TGD would be like writing a review of LotR focussed on Tom Bombadill.

Now if you're going to review TGD honestly, you have to talk about the "Quest to Destroy the Ring", um, I mean, the Ultimate 747 argument.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

At least Voltaire is funny

Well, if you want funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

(Someone please tell me how to do that cool thing where you embed youtube vids in a post? EDIT: Thanks Dacke.)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Review Breaking the Spell and we can talk memes, indeed it would be intellectually dishonest to avoid them then.

Hang on, I thought memes were defined in "Consciousness Explained"? Does he also provide a formal definition in "Breaking the Spell"?

[Dacke]

(Someone please tell me how to do that cool thing where you embed youtube vids in a post?)
(media) tags. As in (media)http://www.youtube.com/blahblah(/media), except with [] instead of ().

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hang on, I thought memes were defined in "Consciousness Explained"? Does he also provide a formal definition in "Breaking the Spell"?

Daniel Dennett ouvre:

Pre-1991 - lots of academic stuff, well respected philosopher of science. rare distinction of being admired by both philosophers and scientists

1991 - Consciousness Explained. Purports to have solved the problem of consciousness using the idea of memes. Refuses to go away when laughed at. Has the temerity to rather brutally ridicule several major figures in debates on the issue. Huge volumes of criticism written against him. Everybody agrees he's wrong but can't agree on why - indeed, some of the most acrimonious debates have been between camps over why he's wrong and where (no he's right there, he's wrong here!; no it's the other way round!). Dennett has the gall to sit back and laugh while continuing to work with neuroscientists (who by no means all agree with me, but aren't nearly as snotty as the philosophers) about ways to test the theory. My guess (base on second hand summaries, I still haven't read the book) is that Dennett is wrong, but in a really useful and revealing way that may get us to teh right answer eventually.

1995 - Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Similar reactions. Mostly holdovers from people still mad at him over Consciousness Explained. Memes are a big part of it, but only one part among several. Causes the last great spat between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins when Gould pans DDI in a review and Dawkins comes to Dennett's defence in very robust terms (mostly over group selection, but a little bit of the blood was spilled over memes).

2006 - Breaking the Spell. Dennett's study of how science and/or memetics might be used to study religion. Doesn't really care whether there is a God or not (though he says he's an atheist in most people's eyes). Concentrates on the function and evolution of religion (drawing heavily on memetics) and ways the meme might be engineered so as to inhibit the toxic varieties and encourage the helpful ones. The first appendix to BTS is a response to critics on memes, which draws heavily on the stuff in DDI.

Basically, Richard Dawkins floated the meme idea in the Selfish Gene in 1976. People laughed at him and he retreated from it, saying it was just an idea (which, for him, it was) and would people please shut up about it now. Several people try to pick it up and fail and Dawkins basically keeps his mouth shut. Then Daniel Dennett comes on the scene with his tour de force in Consciousness Explained, followed by DDI and BTS. Dawkins changes his mind and starts reminding people that it really was all his idea in the first place after all. Dennett says the equivalent of "Yes Richard, it was your idea. But you did fuck all with it because you didn't have the guts to put your fame on the line for it and as a philosopher, you're no more than a talented amateur. I'm the bastard who did all the work and took all the risk (and I have the scars to show for it). But everybody knows that, and I really like you, so I'll let you take some of the credit." In short, Dawkins may have invented the term, but he sucks as a "memeticist". He's just the guy Dennett cites all the time to be nice. (Occasionally, Dennett very gently smacks Dawkisn round the head when he says something silly. I've stumbled on a couple of such passages while skimming DDI. BTS was, IIRC, written before TGD.)

(You should note that the "roots of religion" chapters of TGD are all very tentative, especially compared to the other parts. I suspect one reason for that is not fear of being criticised by colleagues (this is Dawkins we're talking about, after all), its fear of being criticised by someone he respects so much he recently called him his "intellectual elder brother", Daniel Dennett. Dawkins had to know Dennett was writing BTS and he had to know it would make the "roots of religion" chapters in TGD look like an enthusiastic undergraduate's essay by comparison if he started making solid claims.)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

(media) tags. As in (media)http://www.youtube.com/blahblah(/media), except with [] instead of ().

Thanks.

While we're posting funney, while Marcus Brigstoke's last one (which I posted above) is great, the following one is just plain unfair - but bloody funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnoGJJhlucE

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm really sorry Atticus, but I'm going to have to ask the question again. Where does Dennett produce a formal, testable, falsifiable definition of the word "meme"? Is there one in "Breaking the Spell"?

To the best of your knowledge, is Dawkins using the same definition?

[Varaj]

I'm really sorry Atticus, but I'm going to have to ask the question again. Where does Dennett produce a formal, testable, falsifiable definition of the word "meme"? Is there one in "Breaking the Spell"?

To the best of your knowledge, is Dawkins using the same definition?


Then why the fuck is he calling memetics a theory when it isn't even a hypothesis?

Have you just conceded that memetics isn't a theory?


I've got to ask what does that have to do with the definition of the word meme?
You are asking the wrong question, you should be asking about memetic theory not the definition of a word.

I also think you have a serious misunderstanding of the word theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

From reading the wiki on memetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics) it does appear to meet, and allow me to quote Stephen Hawkings, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations".

Is it well tested? Hell no. Is it new? Yes. Will it bear out? No idea.

Really at best Hastur you can say it fits in this category. "The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Currently_unverifiable_theories (copy and paste the redirect messup the # part)

But at least one thesis that meets what you want is found here, http://memetics.chielens.net/master/index.html
This one is interesting. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/MemeticsNamur.html

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I've got to ask what does that have to do with the definition of the word meme?
You are asking the wrong question, you should be asking about memetic theory not the definition of a word.

Atticus appeared to be having difficulty understanding the questions I was asking, so I was breaking it down

I also think you have a serious misunderstanding of the word theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I've read it. In layman's terms a theory is a tested hypothesis (as we discussed in my thread on the scientific method)

Really at best Hastur you can say it fits in this category. "The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation which is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Currently_unverifiable_theories (copy and paste the redirect messup the # part)

Bingo. Applying it to memetics is sloppy usage of the word. It's bad science. forgivable (just) when used by a grad student like the first you linked to (who is also using the word "meme" when I think he should be using "meme complex" or the dreadful portmanteau "memeplex"; those virus hoaxes are definitely composed of multiple units of information). It's unforgivable when used by a "chair for the public understanding of science"

This one is interesting. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/MemeticsNamur.html

Great paper, and, finally, a definition. Now, when we can see how a particular meme is encoded into the brain like we can see how a particular gene is encoded into DNA, then and only then will I stop wincing when people call memetics a theory.

I know I'm being stroppy and possibly unreasonable about this, but in an age when people are attempting to redefine science so that creationism slips in, it's vital that we are precise

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm really sorry Atticus, but I'm going to have to ask the question again. Where does Dennett produce a formal, testable, falsifiable definition of the word "meme"? Is there one in "Breaking the Spell"?

To the best of your knowledge, is Dawkins using the same definition?

First, I'm not talking about memes in a discussion based aroung The God Delusion. Tom Bombadil and all that. Start a new thread, unrelated to The God Delusion, and we can talk memes.

Second, I'm not talking about memetics because I don't know enough about it to have a firm opinion yet. If you start that thread, you're going to find me very non-commital, because I don't fully understand Dennett yet.

Third, no definition is "testable or falsifiable" - those are characteristics of hypotheses.

Fourth, while I can't be sure because I don't know enough yet, it seems to me that memetics no more needs an understanding of how memes work in the mind than Charles Darwin needed an understanding of Mendelian genetics or the chemical structure of DNA. Which is to say, having it would be great, but it isn't critical.

Fifth, I'm taking a beak for a week or so. Maybe Varaj will follow you down your memetics tangent, but for me this is all a distraction from the main issue - which has NOTHING to do with memetics.

[Varaj]

I've read it. In layman's terms a theory is a tested hypothesis (as we discussed in my thread on the scientific method)

Not really, or in a very at best a basic level. "Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context." from the Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)


Bingo. Applying it to memetics is sloppy usage of the word. It's bad science. forgivable (just) when used by a grad student like the first you linked to (who is also using the word "meme" when I think he should be using "meme complex" or the dreadful portmanteau "memeplex"; those virus hoaxes are definitely composed of multiple units of information). It's unforgivable when used by a "chair for the public understanding of science"

I said at best since it looks to me that it is testable.
It is unforgivable? Really? You are going to come jumping on a physicist talking about string theory?



Great paper, and, finally, a definition. Now, when we can see how a particular meme is encoded into the brain like we can see how a particular gene is encoded into DNA, then and only then will I stop wincing when people call memetics a theory.

You tell me when we can see a thought or is cognitive theory another one like this? :rolleyes:



I know I'm being stroppy and possibly unreasonable about this, but in an age when people are attempting to redefine science so that creationism slips in, it's vital that we are precise

You are being sloppy and past unreasonable into plain childishness, probably because you are tired of arguing with Atticus.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

At 2 am this morning I woke up with a way of falsifying memetics, based on analogy with genetics. Luckily I remembered it this morning

How would you falsify Darwinian evolution through genetic inheritance? As one famous biologist (whose name I'm currently blanking on) put it "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"

Unless I'm still half-asleep, we can apply this idea to memetics. The discovery of a lost scroll of Plato where he deconstructs (say) the Illiad using a technique recognisable as quasi-Derridian would be the memetic equivalent of fossil rabbits in the Precambrian - the discovery of a postmodern meme in the premodern age

Can someone check my working?

Not really, or in a very at best a basic level. "Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."

Got it. Thanks

You tell me when we can see a thought or is cognitive theory another one like this?

We can see thoughts. We can see which bits of the brain light up when you show an eye a particular shape. Heck, if I'm reading the Sam Harris paper that Atticus posted correctly, we're beginning to be able to see quite high level processing

[Varaj]

We can see thoughts. We can see which bits of the brain light up when you show an eye a particular shape. Heck, if I'm reading the Sam Harris paper that Atticus posted correctly, we're beginning to be able to see quite high level processing

Those aren't thoughts anymore than seeing a light bulb glow is seeing electricity. :D

[AZRogue]

I admit that I haven't read all of the source material or seen previous arguements (and I'm sure that Hastur and Atticus have had them) where memes have come up, but it seems to me that it's just a way of talking about the transmission and retention of ideas? Is that right? I suppose I'm not understanding how they are really important to the conversation, either way, other than as an interesting experiment in quantifying the spread of ideas.

[Varaj]

I admit that I haven't read all of the source material or seen previous arguements (and I'm sure that Hastur and Atticus have had them) where memes have come up, but it seems to me that it's just a way of talking about the transmission and retention of ideas? Is that right? I suppose I'm not understanding how they are really important to the conversation, either way, other than as an interesting experiment in quantifying the spread of ideas.

Atticus keeps saying that it isn't relevant. Hastur seems to think it is. I have my theories as to why, but perhaps Hastur is the best one to answer.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Those aren't thoughts anymore than seeing a light bulb glow is seeing electricity. :D

Ow. I think an important part of my mind just melted

Atticus keeps saying that it isn't relevant. Hastur seems to think it is. I have my theories as to why, but perhaps Hastur is the best one to answer.

Executive summary: I fucked up

[Varaj]

Ow. I think an important part of my mind just melted


At least I didn't say that those are no more thoughts than seeing a smile is seeing happiness. :D


Executive summary: I fucked up

Let's not get carried away. We still love you.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

At least I didn't say that those are no more thoughts than seeing a smile is seeing happiness. :D.

Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Sooner or later you'll melt something I need.

Are these my legs?