|
time_is_now
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 13:27:24, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Richard Dawkins' contention that the Christian God is one of the most unpleasant characters in fiction ... Richard Dawkins? That upstart?! Harold Bloom said the same thing about the Old Testament God ages ago ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 13:29:36, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Unfortunately Richard Dawkins himself is one of the most unpleasant characters in "real life"...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 13:47:22, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Unfortunately Richard Dawkins himself is one of the most unpleasant characters in "real life"...
Well, unpleasant he may be, but the point is valid - if you deconstruct the good Bishop's thinking you come up with something like: - God is angry with people for their immoral lifestyle - God is omnipotent so he sends something really unpleasant to show his anger. This involves thousands of people - most of whom will be entirely innocent (even in the Bishop's eyes) - losing their possessions, in some cases their homes, and suffering the trauma of being flooded out. This is of course only a minor outburst of pique - our omnipotent god reserves his real wrath for spectaculars like 9/11, earthquakes and tsunamis. - God is perfectly entitled to do this - after all, he's the boss. So in order to placate him, it is necessary to do as we are told by the church. (At the same time, it is appropriate to protect clerical paedophiles, who will face God in their own time, because it protects the public authority of the church from pesky liberals). - in particular, we don't want upstart Governments - based on spurious notions of democracy and accountability - usurping the church's traditional role of telling people what to think and how to behave. Man may be made in God's image but that doesn't mean that he or she is allowed to think. I don't think unpleasantness really begins to describe the implications of this ideology. It is, in one sense, the purest form of power politics. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 13:50:09, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Civil stuff is all quite silly; still far off getting anywhere in Ireland; the Dail (parliament) essentially blocked the latest bill that came up on it in march (they put it on indefinite hold). Grrrrrrrrr. I have no personal experience with people effected by the lack of C.P., but I do know that it's a serious pain for a lot of people over here. I think they should have a register of all the single people as well...that way nobody will feel left out; partnership'll just involve changing from one register to another  (To my knowledge, polyamory hasn't caught on big in Europe here yet; I personally have no objections to the idea of extending partnerships to include several partners myself. But anyway). Unfortunately Richard Dawkins himself is one of the most unpleasant characters in "real life"...
Why'd you think so? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 14:01:58, 03-07-2007 » |
|
). Unfortunately Richard Dawkins himself is one of the most unpleasant characters in "real life"...
Why'd you think so? Because he is as bigoted an evangelist for the atheist corner as the believers he so consistently lays into. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 14:11:53, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Why'd you think so?
Because he is as bigoted an evangelist for the atheist corner as the believers he so consistently lays into. I really don't see how the term "bigot" fits him very well. And as a public figure - well, he has certainly done a lot for the public awareness of Science; I see his general role as a general "upholder of reason" a little silly, but only because he's one of the few high-profile figures taking the stand that he does on these matters. As for laying in to; the way he does talk to people is generally hard to fault, so far as I've seen. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 14:17:29, 03-07-2007 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TimR-J
Guest
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 14:13:21, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Unfortunately Richard Dawkins himself is one of the most unpleasant characters in "real life"...
Well, unpleasant he may be, but the point is valid - if you deconstruct the good Bishop's thinking you come up with something like: - God is angry with people for their immoral lifestyle - God is omnipotent so he sends something really unpleasant to show his anger. This involves thousands of people - most of whom will be entirely innocent (even in the Bishop's eyes) - losing their possessions, in some cases their homes, and suffering the trauma of being flooded out. This is of course only a minor outburst of pique - our omnipotent god reserves his real wrath for spectaculars like 9/11, earthquakes and tsunamis. - God is perfectly entitled to do this - after all, he's the boss. So in order to placate him, it is necessary to do as we are told by the church. (At the same time, it is appropriate to protect clerical paedophiles, who will face God in their own time, because it protects the public authority of the church from pesky liberals). - in particular, we don't want upstart Governments - based on spurious notions of democracy and accountability - usurping the church's traditional role of telling people what to think and how to behave. Man may be made in God's image but that doesn't mean that he or she is allowed to think. I don't think unpleasantness really begins to describe the implications of this ideology. It is, in one sense, the purest form of power politics. Except that such arguments - including Dawkins' - rest on the assumption that God (divine) and religion (man-made, and therefore hopelessly fallible) are one and the same thing. Obviously I think the Bishop's points are ridiculous, but I don't see how they invalidate belief in a God, as someone like Dawkins would presumably wish them to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 14:18:53, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Why'd you think so?
Because he is as bigoted an evangelist for the atheist corner as the believers he so consistently lays into. I really don't see how the term "bigot" fits him very well. And as a public figure - well, he has certainly done a lot for the public awareness of Science; I see his general role as a general "upholder of reason" a little silly, but only because he's one of the few high-profile figures taking the stand that he does on these matters. As for laying in to; the way he does talk to people is generally hard to fault, so far as I've seen. From the Compact OED: bigot /biggt/ • noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others That fits him to a T (imho) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 14:20:59, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Except that such arguments - including Dawkins' - rest on the assumption that God (divine) and religion (man-made, and therefore hopelessly fallible) are one and the same thing. Obviously I think the Bishop's points are ridiculous, but I don't see how they invalidate belief in a God, as someone like Dawkins would presumably wish them to.
His arguments aren't purely metaphysical however. Some Occam might be necessary. If god cannot be tied to any living religion, and doesn't interact with things in any obvious way, then what's one to know about him? It seems like the notion is a bit redundant from this point of view. (so says the geometer who still uses coordinates :/ ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 14:26:15, 03-07-2007 » |
|
From the Compact OED:
bigot
/biggt/
• noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others
That fits him to a T (imho)
You see, from what I've seen of him talking to people, he's exactly *not* prejudiced. He has thought long and hard about things before coming to the views he has. And, when talking to people, he does adopt a respectful tone with whoever he is talking to. His general way of talking to people involves correcting them when they say things are wrong, or drawing out their more controversial opinions and maybe, after confirming them, saying that he thinks they are absurd. He is, I will agree, intolerant of uninformed opinions. Nothing wrong with that! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TimR-J
Guest
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 14:43:23, 03-07-2007 » |
|
You see, from what I've seen of him talking to people, he's exactly *not* prejudiced. He has thought long and hard about things before coming to the views he has.
But why assume that no one with religious views has thought long and hard about them, too? If god cannot be tied to any living religion, and doesn't interact with things in any obvious way, then what's one to know about him? It seems like the notion is a bit redundant from this point of view. I would agree with you, except that your "in any obvious way" betrays the point - just because something isn't obvious doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 14:44:07, 03-07-2007 » |
|
[/quote]
Obviously I think the Bishop's points are ridiculous, but I don't see how they invalidate belief in a God, as someone like Dawkins would presumably wish them to.
[/quote]
Quite agree: I am sure that there are plenty of Christians who would be horrified bt the Bishop's claims. What I was hoping to do was to expose the logic behind his comments, and to demonstrate that his argument was, at root, about a powerful (but in some senses declining) body maintaining its influence through irrational argument.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
IgnorantRockFan
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 14:45:37, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Well, obviously God only thinks we're a little bit immoral. I mean, compared with The Flood, which annihilated almost everything living creature (guilty or not), wetting a few houses in Yorkshire is a bit pathetic. What are you trying to tell us, God? That you don't really mind homosexuals too much really? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Allegro, ma non tanto
|
|
|
|
TimR-J
Guest
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 14:49:21, 03-07-2007 » |
|
Quite agree: I am sure that there are plenty of Christians who would be horrified bt the Bishop's claims. What I was hoping to do was to expose the logic behind his comments, and to demonstrate that his argument was, at root, about a powerful (but in some senses declining) body maintaining its influence through irrational argument.
I couldn't agree more! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pim_derks
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 15:38:51, 03-07-2007 » |
|
"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Does anyone here remember Britain and the Beast, that hilarious MRA-book written by Peter Howard?  Speaking of Carlisle: that was the place were Quentin Crisp would have opened a knitting shop had sex-change surgery existed in the 1930s.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"People hate anything well made. It gives them a guilty conscience." John Betjeman
|
|
|
|
