Now what?
Joel Landon Watts is a Masters of Theological Studies student with a focus in Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific ideals of the past century. Currently, he is a TA for Old Testament at United Theological Seminary under Dr. Vivian Johnson, Associate Professor of Old Testament. His first book, Rhetorical Strategies of the Evangelist: Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark, is expected to be published by Wipf and Stock early next year. He is currently co-editing a book on moving from Fear to Faith (Energion, 2013).
Great talk as usual from Dawkins. I do prefer the term empiricist to atheist or non-theist though, because it seems better to define a worldview by what it is rather than by what it is not. Theo is just as irrelevant for an empiricist as the Yeti, the tooth fairy or Roswell aliens, yet those irrational beliefs don’t determine what we are called.
Bill
Well, I just usually call all my atheists friends wrong.
I suspect that doesn’t usually ‘convert’ them
, or do you then usually back that up with some strong arguments?
Bill
Bill, my only argument is – the bible said, I believe it.
Seriously, if we are discussing it, I usually take the philosopher’s route – not with doctrine, etc… I understand that they have every right to wrong, just like they understand that believing in an invisible superman helps me sleep at night.
On the other hand, I don’t like militant atheism any more than I like militant religion, when one believes that riding the world of the other will appease the gods of progress.
I think when Dawkins talks about militant atheism he is merely suggesting we atheists – sorry, empiricists
– start opening our mouths and openly reject all irrational beliefs. Don’t expect us to pick up arms any time soon 
. The mind is our weapon.
Bill
Whew, if the mind is the weapon, we should be good for another few generations at least
I don’t think he means arms either, but I do believe that he means a very vocal end to civil discourse in democratic societies. We can not long be ‘to each his or her own’ or ‘live and let live’ but now must openly criticize those with a different believe system in manners ill befitting to our civilization.
This is what bothers me, that there is no longer a civility to many disagreements.
Great talk as usual from Dawkins. I do prefer the term empiricist to atheist or non-theist though, because it seems better to define a worldview by what it is rather than by what it is not. Theo is just as irrelevant for an empiricist as the Yeti, the tooth fairy or Roswell aliens, yet those irrational beliefs don’t determine what we are called.
Bill
Well, I just usually call all my atheists friends wrong.
I suspect that doesn’t usually ‘convert’ them
, or do you then usually back that up with some strong arguments?
Bill
Bill, my only argument is – the bible said, I believe it.
Seriously, if we are discussing it, I usually take the philosopher’s route – not with doctrine, etc… I understand that they have every right to wrong, just like they understand that believing in an invisible superman helps me sleep at night.
On the other hand, I don’t like militant atheism any more than I like militant religion, when one believes that riding the world of the other will appease the gods of progress.
I think when Dawkins talks about militant atheism he is merely suggesting we atheists – sorry, empiricists
– start opening our mouths and openly reject all irrational beliefs. Don’t expect us to pick up arms any time soon 
. The mind is our weapon.
Bill
Whew, if the mind is the weapon, we should be good for another few generations at least
I don’t think he means arms either, but I do believe that he means a very vocal end to civil discourse in democratic societies. We can not long be ‘to each his or her own’ or ‘live and let live’ but now must openly criticize those with a different believe system in manners ill befitting to our civilization.
This is what bothers me, that there is no longer a civility to many disagreements.
I can’t stand Dawkins. He’s a pompous ass who completely charicatures and misrepresents those whom he disagrees with. His “evidence” about the bigotry of Christians is George H. W. Bush?
The idea that Darwinian evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that the scientific method is likewise exclusive of Christianity is absurd (apparently there is a failure to realize that Western science has been held, cherished and supported by Christians – not right-wing fundies, no, but Christians none the less – since its existence). I have no issue with evolution or Darwinism (both evolutionary and social). Natural selection doesn’t conflict with Scripture, and neither does it “disprove” the existence of God.
Empiricism has little to say, from what I can tell, about beauty, forgiveness, justice, hope and freedom – all things which most empiricists desire, but don’t seem to be able to account for. If someone bases what they know of the world on the universal goodness and rightness of these “virtues” and not simply in what is visible or testable. I don’t think that somehow makes such a person an idiot or unqualified to hold public office (which Dawkins suggests).
Have a look-see at David Bentley Hart’s REAMING of “Ditchens”-ian pop-atheism: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300111908/thechuofjesch-20/
Bazoingdoing, of course natural selection doesn’t disprove the existence of God. Nothing will ever be able to do that, precisely because the God hypothesis is irrefutable. What would convince you of the non-existence of God? I don’t think any piece of evidence can. This is of course precisely the weakness of the God hypothesis (well, one of the weaknesses). This hypothesis has never been helpful in explaining anything.
Empiricism has nothing to say about beauty, forgiveness, justice, hope and freedom? Really? Perhaps you should be a little bit more specific about what you have in mind, but since they are for the most part psychological concepts, they can be studied by psychologists. Adding a supernatural agent to your model of the world helps nothing.
Why do you think the leading scientists of the past were Christian? Do you think it is because of the strong evidence in its favor, or do you think it might have something to do with the fact that practically everybody around them was Christian? Might it have something to do with tradition and social influences (plus the dangers of admitting atheism of course). Having said that, why do you think the majority of top scientists these days are atheists? Obviously it is not as dangerous or as radical to adhere to atheism these days.
Bill
Bill, for me, I have ‘evidence’ but I cannot prove it to you. And as you say, there would be nothing to disprove God to me as well.
I believe that for a long time, Christianity and Science was not opposed. We read as early as Augustine about science and exploration of the physical world. I believe that scientists where Christians, regardless of social influences, because they saw the use of science but still held to an overarching supernaturalism. Do you believe that religion, Christians, are only real if they are fundamentalists?
I believe that the first reason for supernaturalism is that it creates a moralism which supercedes religious practices. Bill, I am not a religious defender, seeing religions as evil, and harmful to mankind when used – as they usually are – to subjugate another; however, religions do generally teach justice, hope and freedom and some push the search for beauty.
Polycarp, I’m guessing with ‘evidence’ you are referring to some personal religious experience(s) you have had, which you interpreted as coming from a supernatural being. Maybe a revelation, or an event which you interpreted as a miracle, or perhaps a very successful prayer request. I don’t think this is the place to get into each of these in detail, but maybe you understand why each of these are considered problematic as ‘evidence’. I know some people close to me who have had religious experiences and from a psychological experience I find them quite interesting.
Humans can and do develop moral rules without believing in the supernatural. Social evolutionists certainly have views on this. As we live together and depend on each others actions morality is inevitable.
Modern religions do indeed teach justice, hope and freeedom, but what does this imply? This of course says nothing of the validity of the supernatural worldview, nor does this help us in our understanding of these concepts.
Anyway, thanks for this discussion! I’m sure I’ll be back to bug you again when you touch on the subject of the existence of God or atheism
Bill, as I said before, it is difficult to share these evidences with you – just it would be difficult for a Muslim, or other religionist to share with theirs with me. I fully acknowledge that.
I enjoy these discussions, and would welcome you anytime.
I can’t stand Dawkins. He’s a pompous ass who completely charicatures and misrepresents those whom he disagrees with. His “evidence” about the bigotry of Christians is George H. W. Bush?
The idea that Darwinian evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that the scientific method is likewise exclusive of Christianity is absurd (apparently there is a failure to realize that Western science has been held, cherished and supported by Christians – not right-wing fundies, no, but Christians none the less – since its existence). I have no issue with evolution or Darwinism (both evolutionary and social). Natural selection doesn’t conflict with Scripture, and neither does it “disprove” the existence of God.
Empiricism has little to say, from what I can tell, about beauty, forgiveness, justice, hope and freedom – all things which most empiricists desire, but don’t seem to be able to account for. If someone bases what they know of the world on the universal goodness and rightness of these “virtues” and not simply in what is visible or testable. I don’t think that somehow makes such a person an idiot or unqualified to hold public office (which Dawkins suggests).
Have a look-see at David Bentley Hart’s REAMING of “Ditchens”-ian pop-atheism: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300111908/thechuofjesch-20/
Bazoingdoing, of course natural selection doesn’t disprove the existence of God. Nothing will ever be able to do that, precisely because the God hypothesis is irrefutable. What would convince you of the non-existence of God? I don’t think any piece of evidence can. This is of course precisely the weakness of the God hypothesis (well, one of the weaknesses). This hypothesis has never been helpful in explaining anything.
Empiricism has nothing to say about beauty, forgiveness, justice, hope and freedom? Really? Perhaps you should be a little bit more specific about what you have in mind, but since they are for the most part psychological concepts, they can be studied by psychologists. Adding a supernatural agent to your model of the world helps nothing.
Why do you think the leading scientists of the past were Christian? Do you think it is because of the strong evidence in its favor, or do you think it might have something to do with the fact that practically everybody around them was Christian? Might it have something to do with tradition and social influences (plus the dangers of admitting atheism of course). Having said that, why do you think the majority of top scientists these days are atheists? Obviously it is not as dangerous or as radical to adhere to atheism these days.
Bill
Bill, for me, I have ‘evidence’ but I cannot prove it to you. And as you say, there would be nothing to disprove God to me as well.
I believe that for a long time, Christianity and Science was not opposed. We read as early as Augustine about science and exploration of the physical world. I believe that scientists where Christians, regardless of social influences, because they saw the use of science but still held to an overarching supernaturalism. Do you believe that religion, Christians, are only real if they are fundamentalists?
I believe that the first reason for supernaturalism is that it creates a moralism which supercedes religious practices. Bill, I am not a religious defender, seeing religions as evil, and harmful to mankind when used – as they usually are – to subjugate another; however, religions do generally teach justice, hope and freedom and some push the search for beauty.
Polycarp, I’m guessing with ‘evidence’ you are referring to some personal religious experience(s) you have had, which you interpreted as coming from a supernatural being. Maybe a revelation, or an event which you interpreted as a miracle, or perhaps a very successful prayer request. I don’t think this is the place to get into each of these in detail, but maybe you understand why each of these are considered problematic as ‘evidence’. I know some people close to me who have had religious experiences and from a psychological experience I find them quite interesting.
Humans can and do develop moral rules without believing in the supernatural. Social evolutionists certainly have views on this. As we live together and depend on each others actions morality is inevitable.
Modern religions do indeed teach justice, hope and freeedom, but what does this imply? This of course says nothing of the validity of the supernatural worldview, nor does this help us in our understanding of these concepts.
Anyway, thanks for this discussion! I’m sure I’ll be back to bug you again when you touch on the subject of the existence of God or atheism
Bill, as I said before, it is difficult to share these evidences with you – just it would be difficult for a Muslim, or other religionist to share with theirs with me. I fully acknowledge that.
I enjoy these discussions, and would welcome you anytime.