Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

New Dawn #102

By Gregon

The latest issue of New Dawn magazine is out, and as usual there are a few free articles on the website to give you a taste of the print version. One of those articles is written by me myself, on the topic of Richard Dawkins and his crusade for atheism – would enjoy hearing people’s comments on the article, so get on over there and check it out. Also on site you’ll find an interview with Daniel Reid on ‘The Tao of Detox‘, and other things beside. Head over to the ND website for the full rundown of content in #102, and of course pick yourself up a copy of the print mag if you like what you see.

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.

35 Comments

  1. Bravo! good onya mate
    Thank you for that excellent article which also pulls-in additional moderate voices. The black/white thinking of Dawkins and Randi (et al) and the false dichotomies of the neo-Darwinists seems to echo the polarized nature of most discourse these days. Thank you for seeing some shades of gray.

    I am also reminded of Ken Wilber’s “quadrant” theory wherein the lower-right (exterior-collective) quadrant won’t even admit that any other perspectives exist.

    1. Taylor on Dawkins
      hi Greg,

      I lost the original to this post due to the “Preview Comment” word snatcher problem.

      I enjoyed reading your review of Dawkins’ book. I tend to agree with Dawkins’ position. However, it is unlikely that he will win any converts with a title that states the concept of God is a delusion.

      Unfortunately, moderate religionists don’t appear to buy up a lot of air time. The religious media is saturated with mystic materialists, whose image of God is akin to a plastic dashboard icon whose sole purpose is to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. There is not much mention of feeding the poor or clothing the hungry from these types – and why would there be, as poverty (according to the mystic materialists) is simply a result of lack of faith.

      If only the poor had chipped in to buy Kenneth Copeland’s new Cessna Citation, they too would have been rewarded by the great bearded grandfather in the sky and lifted out of their financial wretchedness. [from apostasywatch “Along with the new Citation X, the Copeland’s also have a Cessna Citation 550 Bravo (valued at $3.4 million), PLUS a Grumman Gulfstream II (worth $4.5 million) AND a Cessna Golden Eagle AND a Beech E-55 AND assorted lesser aircraft AND his own airport. … Yes sir there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Kenneth Copeland needed another private jet.”]

      OK, so I digressed a little.

      Dawkins mistake is that he espouses the non-existence of God with as much certainty as a rabid fundamentalist would muster to make the opposite claim. Perhaps that is a result of how he has chosen to depict this creature. As you noted, “and one can only be struck by the ridiculous realisation that the acerbic Oxford professor, one of the intellectual giants of our time, is engaging religion on the same philosophical level as ‘Bubba’ from the deep South of the United States of America” I wonder if jaako has any thoughts on this comparison.

  2. I hope you don’t mind Greg
    If I say a few words about your article.

    I don’t know that I would have expected Richard Dawkins to say anything good about religion when the title of his book is The God Delusion.I imagine he would leave that to some other writer.

    I am surprised that you quoted evolutionary biologist H.Allen Orr..

    Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that (1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism;and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything,was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.

    I just don’t get it when people try to quantify and qualify evil.Cliff Pickover did just that with his Evil People where he asked people who was the most evil person who ever lived.
    Evil is.
    Preposterous is.
    An evil act is just that, an evil act.
    Every evil act is of itself an evil act.

    I am surprised that you went down the road of who will set the moral compass.
    Who will set the moral compass?
    Not you or me, and not Jerry Falwell who said that he did.
    No human being can set a moral compass for any other.
    That’s what the problem has been for 2000 years, that some people have been setting the moral compass for others.
    What we need are decent people setting decent laws that as a society we must abide by.
    There have been some great sci-fi stories along these lines so someone must have had that dream.

    But as long as one human being believes he can set a moral compass for another, then we are going to have religious fundamentalism and wars.

    In my humble opinion, the term religious experience should be changed to spiritual experience.
    You don’t need to belong to a religion to have a spiritual experience.

    I disagree with Deepak Chopra that nature shows intelligence.I think it shows a pattern, not necessarily intelligence.I am interested in what you wrote about complexity theorist James Gardner who wrote Biocosm and proposes that life and intelligence have not emerged in a series of Darwinian accidents but are essentially hardwired into the cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death and rebirth.

    Now that is real food for thought.Thank you.

    shadows

    1. Morals or Dogma
      [quote=the shadow]I don’t know that I would have expected Richard Dawkins to say anything good about religion when the title of his book is The God Delusion.I imagine he would leave that to some other writer.[/quote]

      Hi Shadows,

      Well, to be strictly logical, a delusion of God does not preclude religion being good in any sense.

      There are many, many people who believe in God, and are part of organised religion, who are – quite simply put – better people for it. I can see many benefits of organised religion, from the ‘community’ aspect of the organised part, to the ‘mystical’ side of the religion. To be sure, there’s plenty bad about organised religion as well. But the point is that Dawkins is fundamentalist himself in ignoring the former.

      [quote]t get it when people try to quantify and qualify evil.Cliff Pickover did just that with his Evil People where he asked people who was the most evil person who ever lived.
      Evil is.
      Preposterous is.
      An evil act is just that, an evil act.
      Every evil act is of itself an evil act.[/quote]

      Good points – I’m not one who ascribes to the ‘evil’ thing too much either. But I think there is a difference between it being some sort of intrinsic nature of an individual that motivates them to act, and describing certain acts as ‘evil’. I have no qualms describing the acts of the Holocaust as ‘evil’. Perhaps that’s just a personal viewpoint, I’m not sure.

      [quote]That’s what the problem has been for 2000 years, that some people have been setting the moral compass for others.
      What we need are decent people setting decent laws that as a society we must abide by.[/quote]

      I’m not sure if I understand this correctly, to me it is contradictory. Laws must be set based on some sort of moral compass. Or are they arbitrary? If John Howard tomorrow said that murder is no longer a crime, would you argue with that and why? Part of the philosophical debate here is where do our morals come from?

      Thanks for your thoughts!

      Kind regards,
      Greg
      ——————————————-
      You monkeys only think you’re running things

      1. Morality
        Morality is a cauldron, and I think this is so because we fear to tread …
        I don’t think a free-for-all morality can ever exist. I say this for two reasons. First of all, we have to separate a form of fundamental morality from lifestyle. For instance, ‘it is wrong to kill’ must stay in any moral society.
        Lifestyle, on the other hand, should be as the person wants, provided he does no involuntary harm to others. Yet even here, we must ask: does any society have an understanding of a norm? If so, yes, lifestyle morality is up to personal choice, but we should also think of the sensibilities of those who think different, and tone ourselves down in public.

        …

        Morality takes two. One to do and one to judge

        Anthony North

        1. Not a religion IMHO
          Judge not lest ye be judged. I suppose that is true Anthony.

          If I take care of my sick, my elderly and my little children. If I do so with their best interest at heart. To not harm them in any way. Then, I take that same deep and abiding compassion, care and love, and also apply it to my own self. To nourish my own self in order to do this difficult daily never ending job of caring for these many that are sick, or old, and the babies. It is survival in the best sense. The best societies do these things.

          People/children learn by doing. Why not make a concerted concious choice to do these acts with love? If people are not loving themselves the child knows that, the sick person knows that, the elderly are really aware of it. Then the perpetuation of an error is then passed on. The error of our ways. Those ways of error can be corrected.

          I thought that religion meant alignment. That it was a series of thoughts set in a particular system of beliefs.

          The ethneogens bring about another awareness. If it is a religion then it is it’s very own, not one akin to everyday mundane living. It takes one out of that realm and into another. Would not that be like escapism? A novel approach to an old problem.

          One day someone ate the wrong root, or mushroom or piece of bark, whatever. This experience was spoken of and related, this experience was relived by the ingestion of that particular ingredient by others.

          I just don’t know if you could classify it as a religion.

          Just me rambling again. Love, Pam —————————–Truth is stranger than fiction.

      2. I don’t think you understand me Greg
        I don’t think anyone can set a moral standard for another.But we can set laws.
        Throughout history the moral compass has been set by religion and you can see where that has taken us.
        Obviously it is time for religion to step out of the business of morals.
        A moral compass can be set by a community of people all taking part in discussion, and being led by those of the community who have shown a capacity to care for others in that community.
        It would mean participation by each member of the community for the good of the community.They would see the necessity of being involved in the setting of the laws.
        What is harmful to others would not be allowed.
        The laws would focus on what could be done for the care and concern of the members of that society.
        Morals are another thing entirely.
        Murders are often something done in the heat of the moment,in the heat of summer even,when the temperatures are raging,so that it is more of a reaction that a lack of morals.
        But murder is bad and against the law.

        The problem as I see it is that people have confused morals with laws.Morals and laws are different things.
        It is wrong to murder, but is it immoral if you react when you are tired and broke and things are against you and you strike out?
        Our society does not even note the diffence between the nuances in play in many deaths.
        If you are rich you would maybe get charged with accidental manslaughter.
        If you are poor it will be murder.

        The great thing about Christianity was that Christ offered something no one else had ever offered before, he offered for certain that if you did what he said you had a life waiting for you when you died.A reward.
        But Christ was not the person he claimed to be, all loving, all forgiving.There were darker aspects of him.

        And the great fat Buddha, rolling in his own blubber, did not get to that weight by eating vegetables alone.

        I think too Greg that you should declare yourself when writing such an article….for instance see the link you posted to the profile of Dawkins written by Michael Behe.
        You seem to me to be writing as a Christian, or a closet Christian even.
        Or maybe you are defending Christianity for someone who needs it.
        I think you should say so.
        I know that you believe that if religion helps you through the bad times then it is a good thing.
        But cream helps me through the bad times and it puts up my cholesterol.

        As I said the Biocosm thing is terrific.May I just point out there that I have been thinking along those lines for a while although not in a scientific bent.Well I couldn’t, for a start.
        But I formed a theory a while back that there is no god but there are aliens who are controlling the universe.And universes, and all things of and in the universes.

        It’s a great debate and I hope others will join in.Pam seems to have got it right.Morals are how you live your life.
        And yes I agree that Dawkins is attacking this problem like a tiger defending it’s young, but for the first time in history, atheists are feeling it is safe for them to come out and declare their atheism.

        In all the debates between Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, and there were many and some very nasty, I was on Gould’s side because he allowed for the existence of god.
        Dawkins categorically didn’t.

        shadows

        1. The conundrum
          Thanks Shadows, excellent discussion. And I would agree with much of what you say, although it is Utopian (IMO). If Dawkins is correct (and this was my original point in the essay that we are discussing), then the principles of natural selection should win out. Natural selection and Utopianism are not good bedfellows. I agree, I certainly don’t want fundamentalists setting a moral compass for me. But Dawkins needs to be more than Utopian in his thinking about this, because I certainly don’t want to live in a world ruled by the principles of natural selection either.

          [quote=the shadow]I don’t think anyone can set a moral standard for another.But we can set laws.
          [snip]
          A moral compass can be set by a community of people all taking part in discussion, and being led by those of the community who have shown a capacity to care for others in that community.[/quote]

          Your two statements are contradictory. Is it that no-one can set another’s moral compass, or is it that those in the community who have shown a capacity to care for others can set another’s moral compass?

          This is the conundrum faced when living in a community. Who sets the borders as to what is right, and what is wrong? And at what point is something right? If a father has two children about to die from starvation, and he kills a man of terrible character to steal his food, is it wrong? By natural selection, no. By modern laws, yes. By a particular person’s moral standards, the opinion could vary widely.

          Apart from my points though, I agree that the best possible solution is to have community leaders doing so. Unfortunately, this is a bit Utopian, and in real life we devolve into the same situations involved in ‘electing’ any sort of leader, with influential groups putting their own choices for leader forward to serve their own points of view.

          Furthermore, some things that were moral and legal a few hundred years ago are certainly not so today, such as slavery, and subservience of women. In a few hundred years, I could see numerous things in modern society that could go the same way (or not, as the case may be) – pre-emptive war, the eating of, or lab testing of, animals (most especially at this stage, primates and mammals). If laws were changed to accommodate this, what are they based on if not the morals of the time?

          Maybe Dawkins is right after all….
          😉

          [quote]The problem as I see it is that people have confused morals with laws.Morals and laws are different things.[/quote]

          They are indeed. But as I pointed out in my previous post, where do laws come from? Most often, from moral guidelines. Again, we enter philosophical realms here. Why is killing ‘wrong’, and against the law? Because it is intrinsically part of our make-up, or because as we were raised it was drummed into us to care for others, and that killing of another was a terrible thing?

          [quote]I think too Greg that you should declare yourself when writing such an article….for instance see the link you posted to the profile of Dawkins written by Michael Behe.
          You seem to me to be writing as a Christian, or a closet Christian even.
          Or maybe you are defending Christianity for someone who needs it.
          I think you should say so.[/quote]

          Okay, I’ll say it. I will defend the right of any person to pursue whatever religion or creed they wish (as long as they don’t get in my face with it), and I will do so with vigour. And that includes Dawkins. It’s just that he’s starting to get into our faces…

          Again, the point of the essay is that Dawkins’ view is (to a degree) as intolerant as any fundamentalist faith.

          BTW, I’ll have to add to my list now that I am now a Christian, as well as also anti-Christian, a global warming believer, a radical anti-global warming campaigner, a leftie, a rightie, a Jew-hater, a Zionist sympathiser, a woman hater, and a proponent of the sacred feminine. Amazing the things people assume based on the news we post, isn’t it…
          😉

          [quote]But cream helps me through the bad times and it puts up my cholesterol.[/quote]

          So you’d be fine with Richard Dawkins calling you a delusional idiot who can’t think for yourself, for eating that cream?

          [quote]for the first time in history, atheists are feeling it is safe for them to come out and declare their atheism.[/quote]

          Not true. For the first time in very modern Western history perhaps. I think it would have been pretty safe to declare your atheism under Stalin…
          😉

          Kind regards,
          Greg
          ——————————————-
          You monkeys only think you’re running things

          1. Russia is hardly an example of the world
            Ahhh I knew you were a Christian.Not that there’s anything wrong with that 😉

            Russia is not the best example to go with in regard to declaring atheism.In western countries, that is those countries that call themselves Christian, it is still very hard to announce to the world that you are an atheist.I watch the editorials in papers at religious holidays to see an example of this.Any editor who announced his atheism in an editorial would sound the death knell for his paper.
            They generally mention that this is a Christian country and of late they have been adding that there are also people of other faiths here as well.
            Try saying in America that you are an atheist when applying for a job.
            The woman who ran the society for atheists in America was kidnapped along with her entire family and all were brutally murdered.

            Cream and religion….don’t see the likeness.I know cream is bad for me, and fully aware of that I occasionally eat it.
            There is no delusion on my part.
            Maybe I’m missing something here.

            I don’t see why you cannot see where morals come from.I hate the word morals anyway.But I think what is good is that which causes no harm to anyone and allows each person to live the way they choose within a society which prospers as a result of it.
            I haven’t read Dawkins’ book so I can’t comment on what he has written and I suppose I should, but I already have two books of his on my book shelf I haven’t read yet.

            It is difficult to say these days what is intrinsic to our nature.Now that we know that genes predispose us to certain behaviour we maybe should set new parameters for what we consider to be right or wrong.
            If Dawkins is proposing natural selection then I think he is out of his tree.But we already have that to a certain degree because the smart people prosper while the dumb people don’t.
            I don’t think it is at all Utopian to suggest a new way of working out boundaries for our society.

            I suggest we remove the word moral from any discussion and substitute the words right and wrong.
            Lately I have found myself in agreement with that fellow from South America who says he is the Anti-Christ.( Now I’m really going to Hell).
            He teaches that there is no such thing as right or wrong, only the law.Things are either lawful or unlawful.
            Instead of issuing a blanket statement that to take another’s life is wrong, we should have laws that allow each act to be decided on it’s own merits.

            Unfortunately I think we have left for too long the decision to think differently from that which we have long believed to be the only truth.
            As you say Greg, there are too many variables now that we must consider and they are not being considered.
            From that perspective then Dawkins is doing the world a service to wake people up to religion and force a new way of thinking on them.

            But I have to agree with you about the way he is doing it…with too heavy a hand, but again…maybe that’s what it takes.

            shadows

          2. What’s good?
            [quote=the shadow]But I think what is good is that…[/quote]

            To be very brief, that’s the innate problem I’m raising here. You and I and 5 billion other humans would disagree on all manner of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’.

            (I’m sure the cows and pigs, whales and monkeys would have a few words in edgewise too, if they could talk. Maybe even the cream…)
            ;P

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

  3. great artical Greg,
    Dawkins is an extremist, all extremists are dangerous to the fabric of society. Only because there are just enough nuts out there to take it to heart and go that one step further.
    Morality doesnt need to have laws and religion to exist. People are not robots to be programed, yet this is what has been happening. Peoples first lesson in morality is by their parents who inturn have been programmed by societies aceptance of “whats right and whats wrong”, yet evil exists in the actions of people. So what has been missing?
    Maybe the lessons and programming is faulty. Or at best inadequate. Take away the need for religion and laws and you have solved the morality problem and problems associated with fundamentilists, exstremist and unjust laws. Like I have said before, a society based on lies has a weak foundation and will fall. Same goes with religion, its based on lies and therefore will fall. Its a matter of time. But morality will still exist because it has a strong foundation abeit mis-guided now.

    “While contemplating on their life, anyone who says they have no regrets and would do it all the same again, have not learn’t anything.”
    LRF.

    1. Back to Basics?
      In the UK the above statement would cause dread – the last Tory government tried it with disastrous rpercussions, but the problem was, it didn’t go ‘back’ far enough.
      The problem with morality is it has always been decreed by a human authority. When that authority was placed under the authority of a god, no problem. Superstition guaranteed there were not too many questions asked.
      Once religion declined, it left morality is limbo, and it has been there ever since. Morals and laws are mis-understood, but it is right that one comes from the other.
      If we want a definitive morality without religion, then we have to look somewhere that is without human interference. So I would ask, can nature give us any clues? Seeing we came from there, we can’t go further back than that.
      This first statement may lead to disagreement: as a general rule there is a system where murder or theft, as humans would understand it, rarely happens in the natural world.
      If – I say again, IF – this is true, does it suggest we can separate morals into a fundamental morality, dealing with crime?
      If so, we take away many of the ambiguities and cop-outs of moralising. And it leads us to only have to deal with a morality of lifestyle – a societal morality, if you like.
      Can nature help us here, too? One thing we know about nature is that it requires absolute diversity to thrive. Could this suggest a natural morality would demand absolute diversity? If so, we’re beginning to get things morally right in the modern world.
      But nature is also tied to instinct. In other words, there is a natural bar to certain action as it would upset the on-going natural order of nature. Does this suggest there should be a norm as a form of over-culture, which everyone could subscribe to, but underneath this, a personal moral ethic to be who you want to be?
      These are just a few quick points, separating crime from other moral action, but I think the idea holds that we will not get morality right until we remove human agency. I can see no other place but nature.

      …

      Reality, like time, is relative to the observer.

      Anthony North

      1. simple rule…..
        that has been echoed over time by many masters….”treat people how you want them to treat you”.
        Unfortunatly it is too simple for a complicated organism as humans.
        Religion and science are superstitions. Science, like religion, has it’s necessary mysteries. Science believes one day these mysteries will be revealed. Religion spouts the same stuff. The dogma of religion, the dogma of science.
        But there very good at keeping people controlled, averted from a truth that hits every single person in the face everyday.
        Morality is nothing more then thinking, behaving and treating your inviroment around you with respect. This in turn gives you a happy inviroment to live in, which inturn inproves your health and quality of life. You don’t need an hierarcy to give you guide lines and rules for this process. But an hierarcy can take your power to do so away from you. Religion does this successfully. Limiting your choices. Science shows you results of experiments that are undisputed. What science does not tell you is these FACTS, theories and equations are based on an unknown mystery. A giant leap of faith. Sound familiar?
        Atheism can create the same dogma as religion and science. But its one thing to say you don’t believe and another thing to prove the reasoning behind it.
        Dawkins is misguided in his attacks on religion when he himself can not substanciate his stance.
        Either way, the debate is one hot patato that will take forever to cool down.

        “While contemplating on their life, anyone who says they have no regrets and would do it all the same again, have not learn’t anything.”
        LRF.

      2. Well said Anthony
        You are thinking outside the square.
        Although I can’t see that morals and laws should come from the same place.
        I think we should totally abandon all ideas of morals, and just have laws.
        You don’t have to base the laws on morals.You can base them on what the majority consider to be the best thing for a community to thrive.
        Morals are something that religion gives you.

        I just had a band of religious loonies at my door a few minutes ago telling me that I needed to look at what the scriptures say so that I may live my life the right way.I find this offensive, that these people come onto my property, knock on my door on a Sunday morning, and then tell me how to live my life.

        We are always going to have this situation unless we change dramatically the way we view things.
        As Greg says the world is a far different place from what it was when religion got its claws into people.
        Leave morals out of it, and institute a new idea what is lawful or what is not.

        shadows

        1. no morals
          Shadow: “I think we should totally abandon all ideas of morals, and just have laws.”

          If we did that, would anyone retain a sense of moral obligation in adhering to those laws?

          I have some sympathy with your view. Imposed morality is (in my opinion) a blunt tool for setting behavioural norms. That may have something to do with the personal inconsistencies of those who assume the right to set the moral agenda for others. Ted Haggard slips easily off the tongue here.

          It seems to me (and I’d be happy to be challenged on this) that laws are no less external impositions of other people’s ideas on what is right or wrong than are morals.

          1. I think we should drop moral obligation
            and substitute lawful obligation.

            No matter how you look at it, moral obligation implies religion.
            You have to have laws or a society would go bust, but we have to change the entire way we see the world so that religion is not informing our decisions all the time.

            At the moment we do not kill one another, not only because it is unlawful, but because it is a commandment.
            This is where the law is stupid.When a woman is abused for most of her married life by her husband, and finally cracks and kills him, she will still be jailed for murder, or if she is very lucky, only manslaughter.
            IMHO, the bastard had it coming.
            The law says if you kill you go to jail.
            Change the bad laws.

            The commandments say that killing is a sin.I don’t think anything is a sin.We do what is wrong or we do what is right.I do not recognise sin.Sin is something that God says people do when they don’t do what he wants.
            Who makes god in his image?
            Man.
            That’s why the woman has to go to jail, because killing is a sin based on the religious laws and thus the civil laws.
            Change the laws.

            Again, as in abortion.We are told killing is a sin.A friend of mine, a clinical psychologist (nutters,all) told me that she would prevent anyone she knew from having an abortion as she would prevent a murder happening if she could, and would’t I do the same?
            No.
            I am not my brother’s keeper, as in religion.
            And there are worse things than death….see Pam’s blog about containing fear….the attempted murder of a soul while the body is still alive.

            There have to be laws, unfortunately, because we are only human and there are so many of us.
            Although I remember well the time of the big electrical union strike in Brisbane which went on for weeks.
            The street lights were out of course, and I used to have to travel to PA Hospital each day to take someone for treatment.I was amazed that without lights to indicate when to go or stop or even to cross the road, I was able to navigate that horrible stretch of road very ably.

            The trouble with laws is that we have tolerated very bad laws for a very long time and when we want to change them the religious people declare it is against the teachings of Jesus Christ to do so.
            Take away the power of all the churches to interfere in politics as it should be,and then make the laws based on what is best for communities.

            shadows

          2. morality does not of necessity imply religion
            Hi Shadows,

            It’s fairly radical to make the comment “The law says if you kill you go to jail … Change the bad laws.” Are you saying it is a bad law where murder is punishable by incarceration? Would you prefer that murder was punishable by death, or (on the other end of the spectrum), should we just give killers a big group hug and ask them if they wouldn’t mind playing more nicely from now on?

            Like yourself, I don’t hold much truck with religion. Having said that, I don’t feel particularly oppressed by religion either. In reference to one of your other recent posts, I don’t recall ever feeling terribly oppressed by society for holding atheist-agnostic views.

            If you “take away the power of all the churches to interfere in politics as it should be, and then make the laws based on what is best for communities” does that mean churches should not be deemed a valid part of the community?

            Hope you’re enjoying the day, because that’s just the way God would want it to be.

          3. God had nothing to do with it
            I enjoyed the day because my son and I made it so.If God had anything to do with it I would have gone to church.

            Where exactly did I say that murderers should not be punished or should be incarcerated/executed/group-hugged,etc?
            I wrote about specific occasions…. I do not think abortion is murder, nor do I think it is murder when an abused person,female yes… because that’s the way that a lot of men like it… react to the years of abuse.
            Why are you arguing from a point of view of every person who ever killed?

            Where did I say churches are not a valid part of the community?
            I don’t care what anyone does in their spare time, and that goes for dear little God-believers like you, darlin’.
            What I actually said was that I think churches, by the very fact that their beliefs are based on FAITH and not REASON should not be allowed a say in the making of laws.

            You’re too smart to be arguing apples and oranges when the subject is oranges.

            shadows

          4. Sorry, I thought I was arguing tomatoes (they are a vegetable).
            shadows: I enjoyed the day because my son and I made it so. If God had anything to do with it I would have gone to church.

            a2: You know I was just kidding. So was God.

            shadows: Where exactly did I say that murderers should not be punished or should be incarcerated/executed/group-hugged,etc?

            a2: I could have been misreading your post, but it seemed to me that you were implying that if a woman kills her husband she should be exonerated if it turns out the husband was beating her. As you say, “the bastard had it coming.” I would not at all condone the actions of the husband. Nor would I condone the wife (in this example) for murdering the husband. In most circumstances, the woman would have the ability to leave. In this instance, it happens to also be an alternative to murder.

            shadows: I wrote about specific occasions…. I do not think abortion is murder, nor do I think it is murder when an abused person,female yes… because that’s the way that a lot of men like it… react to the years of abuse. Why are you arguing from a point of view of every person who ever killed?

            a2: I dunno … were you arguing that every battered woman should murder the offending husband? Frankly, I agree with you on abortion. Then again, frankly, as a male I don’t believe it’s any of my goddamn business. However, I do disagree that the woman in your example would not be culpable for murder or (as you say) at least manslaughter. I agree that extenuating circumstances, years of trauma and reduced responsibility should very much be taken into account. I agree that those factors would be pertinent in considering the length of sentence. However, “taken into consideration” does not equate here to “that’s a good excuse for murder.”

            shadows: Where did I say churches are not a valid part of the community?

            a2: You said “Take away the power of all the churches to interfere in politics as it should be,and then make the laws based on what is best for communities.” Making laws that are based on what is best for communities preferably requires community input into the decision making process. That often involves individuals and groups engaging in political activism and interchange. If churches were to be separated from political engagement, that would lead to a fairly significant number of citizens being denied access to political and legislature change.

            shadows: I don’t care what anyone does in their spare time, and that goes for dear little God-believers like you, darlin’.

            a2: Uh, did I mention I sit more comfortably in the atheist-agnostic spectrum ? About the closest I come to being religious is that I am rather partial to “Recreational Christianity.” I often wonder what ever happened to Psycho Dave (weirdcrap.com) … last I heard was two or three years ago when he was off ‘shrooming. Maybe he never came back? I’d be very interested to know if anyone has a lead on what he’s up to these days.

            shadows: What I actually said was that I think churches, by the very fact that their beliefs are based on FAITH and not REASON should not be allowed a say in the making of laws.

            a2: I reckon devotees of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Blind Chihuahua have as much right as anyone else to have their say in making laws. Then again, their faiths are most reasonable.

          5. Leave the chihuahuas out of it A2 ….
            I have chihuahuas so I am interested in what happens to them but I do not have an Invisible Pink Unicorn nor a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
            Well strictly speaking they’re not really chihuahuas, they’re just little bastards, but I love them for what they are.

            OK about women who are abused and strike back.See my comment to Dustincole on Enigmni Freak’s blog about peace.A lot of women are abused and take it for various reasons not of their making.
            They should not be charged with murder if they eventually retaliate.
            Yes, maybe manslaughter.
            On the same note, I believe in Texas it used to be the law that if you found your wife with another man you could shoot her and not even be charged for it.I don’t agree with that.
            Abortion is a difficult issue for me…as a woman and a mother I don’t like the idea of killing anything,specially an unborn baby but sometimes the life of the mother has to take precedence.That’s just how it is.I would not interfere in another’s right to decide how to live her life.

            About churches not being allowed a say in community laws I stick to my guns on that.The people from the church yes,on a voting issue, but no church leaders involved.
            Why the heck should churches be allowed into civil areas anyway.
            If it means members of a church being disenfranchised then so be it.
            See the comment from Omphalos who wrote an excellent piece without calling me a murderer-lover or insinuating that I should be thankful to God because he made my day.

            OH, I believe tomatoes are a fruit.:)

            shadows

          6. Anubis and God – Strange Bedfellows
            [quote=the shadow]See the comment from Omphalos who wrote an excellent piece without calling me a murderer-lover or insinuating that I should be thankful to God because he made my day.[/quote]

            Hi Shadows,

            I think you’d be wise to treat statements from A2 about God with a big dose of salt. He does like to take the pi** quite frequently on that matter…
            😉

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          8. Community…
            [quote=the shadow]Take away the power of all the churches to interfere in politics as it should be,and then make the laws based on what is best for communities.[/quote]

            Unfortunately, there are many things ‘best for communities’ which I don’t agree with. Perhaps the community votes to terminate all pregnancies with indications of deformity, to lower their tax burden and improve their genetic stock. Perhaps the community doesn’t like parrot noises in the neighbourhood, so ban anybody having them as pets?

            Yes, I have little faith in the wisdom of a group of people together. Heck, give a community a chance, and they might even elect a cowboy moron as the leader of the free world…
            😉

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          9. OK you boys….Greg and A2
            This is all just my humble opinion.None of it is going to happen.
            My parrot does not make noises, except when we’re in bed together.

            shadows

          10. We’re not seeing the problem right
            Good morning, everyone.
            Shadows, I think the problem between morals and laws is being mis-understood generally. Could it be that your points would be better addressed by looking at sentencing.
            Okay, we believe, morally, that it is wrong to kill, so we have laws that say it is wrong to kill. Neither expresses the idea that some deaths may be more deserved than others.
            So I’d see the problem like this. A general assumption that killing is wrong must remain in a society, and therefore punishment MUST represent this abhorrance. But what type of punishment?
            I’m a great believer in the idea that a punishment must fit the crime, but a sentence should fit the perpetrator. Take theft. It is not right that a person who steals because he is starving should receive the same sentence as someone who steals for greed. Sentencing should be such that each person is given what is needed – the former should have a light sentence and help, the latter a heavier sentence.
            Euphanasia is a good example. As a society we must demand that the law says killing is wrong, and the perpetrator should be found rightly guilty. But we can understand WHY he maybe did it. So I’d say a suspended sentence is right.
            If such commonsense was used in sentencing, we could negate much of the argument between morals and laws.

            …

            I must agree with Greg that ‘best for community’ is the worst form of lawmaking. Look at the French Revolution. Good philosophy becomes tyranny in such circumstances. And where are minority rights is such a system?

            …

            Sin is what you’ve done once you’ve been caught.

            Anthony North

          11. You’re right Anthony
            The sentencing must be sorted out on all crimes.I don’t think that drunk drivers who kill people are really getting what they deserve.But what do they deserve? Some will argue they are not responsible for what they did because of the alcohol.

            Best for community is a difficult thing to argue as if it is not good for a community it will gradually degrade it.Best for an individual can only work as long as it does not impose on any other individual.

            Well I’m not smart enough to know the answer.But I do know that with God in the equation you lose sight of the reality of life But then maybe that’s a good thing.

            shadows

  4. Dawkins’ Delusion
    What has always struck me about Richard Dawkins is that he sounds so angry, an anger born, I guess, of sheer frustration that other people can’t see the blindingly obvious. After all, Darwinism works, and explains things that creationism just can’t explain (such as, for example, tree kangaroos: I mean, what God would intentionally create a kangaroo that lived up a tree?). This, I think, is the source of Dawkins’ problem: he seems to think that if he can satisfactorily explain something that traditionally needed God, ie the existence of organised complexity, then religion ought to pack up its trunks and leave the scene. Does he actually understand the first thing about religion?

    I’m personally not religious, because I don’t like religion, not because I don’t believe in God, about which I think the only reasonable position is agnosticism, skewed in the direction of belief or unbelief according to personal preference. If instead of targetting God, Dawkins concentrated on religion, he might be on safer ground.

    So here goes:

    The main problem with religion, I suggest, is its irreducibility. It combines, at a deep level (and therefore an inseperable one) a number of strands that, religion aside, have no business going together. These include:

    A metaphysical theory about the existence of a supreme being.

    A quasi-scientific theory about the origin of the universe. This, of course, is Dawkins’ major target.

    The “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” that is the source of religious and mystical experience: the coming-into-contact with a Something Out There that only a minority actually experience. Among that minority are most founders of world religions (but perhaps not all: I have my doubts about LRon, Joseph Smith and, in my blacker moods, Mohammed)

    A sense of transcendental ethics, which is linked with an inner impulse to do good to others. This is the best part of religion. Secularists can of course be ethical, but any secular system of ethics tends to run into trouble, because there is something profoundly illogical about moral norms.

    Kant was, ultimately, religious, despite his scepticism, because he intuited this.

    Social and legal norms, imposed in the name of God or religion. This is where the trouble starts, yet it seems somehow inevitable given the irrational nature of transcendental ethics. In other words, the good intuitions that religion provide end up in suttee, “honour killings”, and obsession with sexual purity.

    A belief in the rightness of one’s religious “team”; this tends towards crusades, blasphemy laws, terrorism etc.

    Logically, there’s no reason why a theory about the existence of a supreme being should issue forth in burkhas; why a personal encounter with a transcendant Source should have any link with ritualistic behaviour; or why a belief in innate morality should produce book-burnings. But religions puts all these things together in ways which I think are probably impossible to separate, and it seems impossible to have the good things without the bad. I suspect that the reason why Dawkins and people like him are so angry about religion is that they resent the way the good stuff is interfused with the bad, and (more than that)that religion is so damned attractive.

    1. Religion is so damned attractive!
      Isn’t it though?

      Omphalos,you make darn good sense.Wish I could write and think like that.

      I saw a TV program the other day about stigmata and the person concerned was I think in the Phillipines.Can’t be sure as I only saw about 10 minutes of it.
      The people clamouring to get to her and buy her tacky little souvenirs in her garden were heart-rending.

      You only need to read about the Ganesha statues taking milk and the visitations of the Virgin Mary and see the thousands and thousands of people who all want to be part of it to realise how damned attractive religion is.

      For my own part I love the way that old folk say to people ‘God Bless you’ when you’ve done them a favour.
      I indeed feel blessed.

      Yes Dawkins should have called his book The Religion Delusion and that would have been more palatable I think.
      Its funny though how angry people get when you debate with them about the presence or absence of a god.
      Of course if you believe in god then there is indeed a god.

      shadows

  5. Thanks
    Thanks to all for the comments in this thread – a good, fun, philosophical discussion, with all sorts of points of view being raised. Great stuff!
    🙂

    Kind regards,
    Greg
    ——————————————-
    You monkeys only think you’re running things

    1. You think that’s fun …
      I’ve spent the last few hours exploring Amanda Fielding and her 1960’s LSD induced “electric drill into my head” self trepination technique and a guy named ‘Darwin Fish’ (real name) from “A True Church” who believes he’s “God’s” only truly chosen one for the last 2000 years.

      I would be interested to know of other TDG’ers opinions as to interesting websites or unusual ideas they’re coming across.

      2. I’ve read about these people
        Who bore holes in their skulls and others who want limbs amputated.
        They can be cured by medication and counselling only it’s usually too late to save the skull or limb.

        Whatever floats your boat I suppose.Personally what floats my boat is a nice cuddle with my parrot and dogs, all on the bed together.

        shadows

  6. Tao of Detox
    Ummm, he is just repeating, basically, all the the same advice I posted over the years. First, I posted with the Adele Davis lifestyle of homegrown fresh foods, then the Prevention magazine information, and then the links to toxic stuff we ingest in processed foods. Plus all the links I had sent Greg (that probably freaked him out) about cleaning the body from the inside out. The heavy metals in injections for infants and military/hospital personnel. The horrible recidivcism rates (87%) for American detox facilities (a really nifty way to make a buck) because they are sure to come back as it’s a mental as well as physical addiction.

    Just this guy was smart enough to compile it all together in a book. Damn it all.

    Love, Pam —————————–Truth is stranger than fiction.

  7. BusHitlerCowboyChimpFratboy etc…
    The article was well done, overall. My only gripe is with the political jabs, but not because I represent the opposing position. I don’t support the Bush administration, and I am pro stem cell research.

    Perhaps I shouldn’t call it a gripe, its more a matter of taste: I’m sick of George Bush popping up in articles that have nothing to do with him. Even Hitler didn’t get so many name drops. I can’t read a lasagna recipe without some sort of snarky reference to the cowboy / fratboy / etc.

    I think revile of Bush is literally becoming the “force that gives us meaning”. Writers drop his name as a cheap way to establish instant rapport with readers, just as people do in real life at parties, etc. But this rhetorical gimmick, just like Bush himself, must soon be put to pasture, so we should find a better common ground.

    Also, I found this phrase a little peculiar:

    ” Current US leaders rely far too heavily on ‘heartland’ support by the large Christian voting blocks to allow research into stem cells – even if the arguments against seem to be at best scare campaigns based on faulty logic”

    That “faulty logic” sticks in my craw. Opinions on the matter involve moral judgment, and flaws in the mechanics of voters’ logical deductions really have little to do with it. Neither do “scare campaigns”. Christian evangelicals have used scare campaigns for various effects, but it seems to me that on the stem cell issue it is the less sensational “influence of the pulpit”. I’ve had conversations with many anti-stem cell people, and in it seems some were simply following their church leaders. Others spoke from personal conviction, which I respect, though disagree with the moral judgment. They don’t all fit the flag-waving imbecile caricature which has become an unquestioned premise as of late in the blogosphere.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal