He goes on to say autistic babies may be “enhanced” so keep them…
He’s like an atheistic version of Pat Robertson.
Note the logical fallacy used by this guy on this video. His intention is nothing more than interfering with the free conduction of a business. If you don’t note the logical fallacy here, you’re hopeless! Here is a man who should know better, but deception is better than sapience nowadays!
Let me help you: being a man or a woman is not a choice; saying grace before a meal is!
So sayeth science. Well, actually, a “science writer.” I’ve scanned the article and could not find much in collaborative evidence. Don’t get me wrong. I want to believe that science says our metaphysical urges are hardwired and part of our evolutionary tract and thus suggest atheism is not tenable, or even human; however, to write as the author did with only bit quotes — no footnotes or the internet equivalent, links — is to seriously undermine his thesis:
Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.
For instance, when I google the quotes here,
This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”
I get articles quoting the original piece. However, I suspect that the quote comes from this article. If it does, and it does, the “science writer” misquotes Lawton who is paraphrasing Boyer. The context is this:
Some scientists – notably Pascal Boyer at Washington University in St Louis – have even claimed that atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think. They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.
Indeed, the conclusions in Lawton’s original piece may in fact surprise the “science writer.” Basically, his assumptions go like this. Atheists can’t exist because humans are hardwired to express/desire the common elements found in religion. You should be able to see through that pretty easily.
But, I want to add another wrinkle, if I may. What if there are no believers or atheists? If free will is an illusion, then we are but what we are meant to be in some fashion. This doesn’t mean I am in favor of determinism, but if our “choices'” are shaped by external influences, then our choices are chained to that which surrounds us. Thus, if one is an atheist or a believer, then it has something to do with an outside influence and cannot be the individual’s choice. Thus, there is no conscious effort to believe in God (thus, no believers) and there is no free will analysis capable of producing an unbelief in God (thus, no atheists) because we follow the path laid out before us and can only work within those influences.
Anyway, the article is slightly better than what Jim West writes regarding evolution.
Thom Stark transcribed this and it is awesome.
Josh Green: Russell, quit hating on Dawkins. You know religion has done more harm than good!
Russell Brand: How can we measure that? What you call religion, I call territorialism, and sort of an ideological imperialism. I don’t think it’s good to go around on crusades or do jihads or lie at people or have a go at people. But I do think it’s good to have a system that connects the known and the unknown and for us to have a ritualized way of understanding the limitations of our own perspective and embracing ideas that are beyond our consciousness. And that’s what religion’s meant to be for me. And ol’ Dicky Dawkins, with his way of judging the world, prevents the positive things about religion. And I think if we eschew those positive things, then we ain’t got any chance of countenancing [sic] the materialistic ideologues that currently govern us. You know like governments, big corporations and that. So I think religion might be a way of circumnavigating them. I don’t think we can do it with old leftist ideas or old revolutionary notions. I don’t think they work anymore. Obviously there’d have to be loads of administration, collectivisation, all that. But what I’m saying is part of it is a sense of spiritual connection. So, Josh Green. I don’t hate Dawkins, anyway. I’m just pointing out that that sort of scientific dogmatism and materialism actually shares quite a lot with the aspects of religion that they claim to dislike, like being sort of quite judgmental and limiting and all that kind of stuff. And anti-mystical. I don’t like it.
Reason has more than one side. That which is reasonable and fair has to have other considerations than simply an “imposition” which is what “reasonable” is when it is one sided. A very poor constructed sentence, but it depicts exactly the mistake many are making today when they claim that “modern changes in societal rules and even laws” cannot be challenged by those who have benefited for centuries by the old ways even if it has been proven for centuries that the old ways have worked well and may not require changes.
Christians, and all kinds of conservatives, or other derogatory names one wants to use for this group not only have the right, but the duty to, and in fact, are doing society a favor, when they contest, protest and manifest against the rapid changes in society today because some of these changes have no track record of benefiting humanity. It seems that scholars and scientists will always appeal to history, evidence and a track record of fact to ascertain that whatever issue they are attempting to establish is feasible and that its implementation will be of a benefit to all. Except when it comes to issues where religion and/or tradition is involved. Then, who needs evidence, who needs history, who needs facts? It is almost as if they have made up their minds: “If it is religiously or traditionally prescribed, then it is wrong; let us change it”, even when in fact, there is history, a time span as old as history itself, that the old ways have worked so far.
No, this is not to say that we should not change and modernize society and make if fairer and comfortable to all! This is simply to say that it is fair for Christians and all kinds of conservatives to struggle with the idea of change for “change’s sake” in that which they perceive to be a threat to what they have known as the best for humanity in general. Not always stating that something is wrong is purely a religious exercise. Although I acknowledge that more frequent than not it is a religious exercise, some are sincerely concerned whether the recent changes in society, such as marriages, rules about “respecting other cultures to the point of surrendering to them” may not be solely basing their concerns on religion. People can protest for other reasons and it is fair and good that they do so when changes are in the process of proving itself as useful to society as it is for a group within that society, who, because of factors beyond our understanding, decided to impose their view of society upon all others.
I am a firm believer that one cannot legislate religious beliefs, no matter how well intended they are. Equally, I am a firm believe that one, or a group, cannot legislate their religious unbelief on others. In both counts protest is fair and acceptable. A great scholar is all over social media spreading the notion that Christians are attempting to legislate their beliefs upon society. Well, the facts belie such a scholar, who is not and cannot be a scholar in predicting the future consequences of changing society on society itself! Non-Christians are indeed imposing their beliefs, rather, their unbelief upon Christians with the aggravating circumstance that they practice such imposition against the will of the people of the community they choose to impose their unbelief. I am fully aware that we have to check if an acceptable degree of legal fairness is being afforded to all citizens and not only those who would prefer that tradition would remain as it has been for ages. However it is not by winning in courts that the imposition occurs; the imposition occurs when business, people who exercise their individual conscience, religious or not, have to comply with the peripherals of their victory and now have to act totally contrary to what they have held as truth functioning and comfortable to their own life styles all these years. So, by imposing, forcing, people to comply with their wins, those who win by the act of a single often non-elected office of the court, with his own biases and prejudices, reverse the issue of unfairness and begin themselves to act unfairly. Again, the facts have proven that Christians and other conservatives are adapting to the world that now surround them, but they should not have to live as a blind man by the road side taking whatever others dish out to them; they can rightfully establish limits. Certain services and profession when exercised to a person or group imply endorsement of that group or person. If you do not understand that you have never been in business, and your position is fully understandable. The refusal, however, of a businessman to provide services that automatically imply his endorsement and participation in that which he does not agree should be expected and understood and such understanding would be reasonable!
By now most presume to know that about which I am talking. No, for your surprise it is not only the issue of gays; it is also the celebration of America, American values, supposedly Christian symbols (that are not really Christian), and those that are indeed genuine Christian symbols, the liberation of drugs, and now some ridiculous rulings, which are too ridiculous to mention. People of faith and out of faith who want to preserve a certain heritage without waiving, who love to wear shirts that extol the quality of their military relatives, American Flags, etc. who feel threatened by lawsuits and other artifices of the “indignation industry”, and yes, those who do not agree with abortions and the gay issue, should not now, all of a sudden, be forced to comply or else. What is reasonable? If we want a fair society, then lets offer fairness rather than demanding it and in the process progress in an environment without hostility and division, and such environment is not a fertile ground for corrupt politicians, but not having corrupt politicians coming out of every sewerage is a fringe benefit of this new world of fairness! That is expected and reasonable!
Dawkins has a generous self-centredness. Everything associated with him is blessed – his parents for giving birth to him, Ali, the ”loyal’’ family servant in colonial Africa, and Balliol College, Oxford, which had the good fortune to admit several generations of Dawkins men. When he admires others, one is made to feel how lucky they are.
The review is a hoot and three-quarters, but the title leaves me a bit dissatisfied. It plays into the notion the atheist believes himself to be god and thus would have no other god before him.
If this was only true of atheists, maybe we could like titles and slams like this slide, but it is not. Not only does this employ a bad definition of god, but it ignores the myriad of Christians who treat themselves in the same regard — or higher — than we are led to believe Dawkins treats himself.
Anyway, for fans, or foes, or Richard Dawkins, the above article is… needed reading.
‘Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a kind of fundamen- talist himself.’
Professor Higgs also told the newspaper: ‘The growth of our understanding of the world through science weakens some of the motivation which makes people believers.
‘But that’s not the same thing as saying they are incompatible. It is just that I think some of the traditional reasons for belief, going back thousands of years, are rather undermined.
Sorry, just had to post this. Saw this floating by on Facebook today (HT to DM) and I guess I missed it.
Anyway, it is a hoot and a half.
I like Dawkins, btw, but he gets more than a few things wrong. I agree with Higgs here – Dawkins approaches belief systems like a fundamentalist.
“Given that — and this is the key point — God’s mercy has no limits, if you go to him with a sincere and repentant heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience,” Francis writes in his letter.
“Sin, even for those who have no faith, is when one goes against their conscience,” he added. “To listen and to obey to (one’s conscience) means to decide oneself in relation to what’s perceived as good and evil. And this decision is fundamental to determining the good or evil of our actions.”
Call me crazy… but do you think the Holy Father is reading Tillich?
Maybe not, but this is interesting…
Not that it matters what his religion was. He’s still a hero in my book. There’s a book that may change your mind if you think he was hostile to religion though.
This is a post by Edmund Standing:
Here’s Richard Dawkins on the question of a referendum on EU membership:
In UK We elect MPs to decide complex issues [sic]. Why a plebiscite on, of ALL things, a subect [sic] as complex & hard to understand as EU membership?
This is a very revealing comment. First off, here’s where Dawkins is wrong:
In the UK, we have a representative democracy. The fundamental principle behind representative democracy is that we, the electorate, vote for the person we think best represents our views and our interests overall. We do not vote for an ‘expert’ who will ‘decide complex issues’ for us, but rather for one of our peers who we send to London to express our views in the House of Commons. Of course, we do not have the time to collectively undertake detailed studies on every issue that will be debated in Parliament, but we nonetheless work on the basis that our MP will do his or her best to approach those issues with the views of those who elected them in mind. We do not elect MPs to act as wise overlords who take away the need for us to think or have an opinion. MPs are public servants – they serve us, they do not dictate to us.
Dawkins’ argument is fundamentally elitist and is arguably only a few steps removed from an assault on the notion of democracy itself. After all, if the electorate cannot understand ‘complex’ issues and need others to ‘decide’ what is best for us, then what is the point in allowing the electorate to vote at all? Why not simply form a council of wise men and women who will decide what is best and leave us to follow whatever decisions they may make? If EU membership is too ‘complex and hard to understand’ then what right do we have to hold opinions on topics such as the economy? Why is EU membership any more ‘complex and hard to understand’ than education policy or energy policy, for example?
What this reveals, I feel, about Dawkins’ overall outlook is that he is thoroughly elitist and deeply contemptuous of the views of ‘non-experts’ on any topic. This is perhaps unsurprising, given the utter contempt he seems to show towards religious believers. Belief in God is not simply wrong in Dawkins’ eyes but is, rather, a delusion, a form of mentally disordered thinking. Once you’ve happily accepted that the majority of the world’s population is in the grip of a kind of mental disorder, it is perhaps not such a leap to thinking that the majority of people do not have the right to an opinion on anything and should reverentially bow before their intellectual superiors instead.
Dawkins likes to talk about the need for rationality and evidence and claims that faith is ‘the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence’, yet at the same time he clearly suggests that for most people, thinking about and evaluating evidence is something that is far too ‘complex and hard to understand’. Why should it be that looking at the evidence for evolution by natural selection is something we are all capable of, yet looking at the arguments for and against EU membership is beyond most of us? In reality, I would argue that Dawkins actually thinks that most people are too stupid to do either. As a result, he thinks that scientists like him should be able to dictate the truth or otherwise of any and all statements regarding both the natural world and its origins (i.e. the things we should all believe about these topics) and that professional politicians should be able to dictate what we should accept as true when it comes to political matters. Dawkins claims to favour debate and rational thought, yet his statements on the EU and the dogmatic manner in which he promotes atheism both point to someone who actually thinks that debate is a waste of time and that what we lesser mortals should be doing is shutting our mouths and unquestioningly accepting the wisdom of higher authorities. Which sounds rather like fundamentalism to me.