Green Party campaign launch video
Here are some highlights from Sunday’s campaign launch, including Robyn Malcolm, a Jeanette Fitzsimons and Russel Norman.
Bookmark to:
96 Responses to “Green Party campaign launch video”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“…right to beat their children….”
I don’t recall anyone, at all, asking for the right to do that.
Perhaps you’d like to name them, hmmm?
October 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Fa*il*, Fi*st.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Beat?
You see, it’s emotive garbage like that that really gets peoples backs up.
Not to mention the sanctimonious posturing that only one group cares, or knows how to deliver, a better future for our children.
There’s nothing to suggest a hardline, far left eco-economy will deliver them anything other than low wages and third-world status.
As an aside, I was at a 21st a few weeks back. We were referred to as “the oldies” (being over 40, and all). Anyway, most of the bright young things I talked to were all planning on going to Australia. Why was that, I asked? Better wages, was their reply.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Can you release my post Frog? Or give me some indication of what I’m doing wrong?
October 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Fair enough BP, its just that when people object to our wanting to remove a proven defense for beating kids with pieces of wood and hose pipes (both have occurred), its fair to ask if they therefore see these things as OK?
October 7th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Beating a child with pieces of wood and hose pipes is clearly unacceptable.
Buy most people can tell the difference between that and a smack, and they take issue with being lumped in together with child abusers.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“Beating a child with pieces of wood and hose pipes is clearly unacceptable.”
Hence the need to repeal s59, since that is what it enabled people to get away with.
“Buy most people can tell the difference between that and a smack, and they take issue with being lumped in together with child abusers.”
Again fair enough. Would have been great if the smackers (and the stupid media who should have spotted the ruse) hadn’t built this issue into a huge conspiracy then.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
BP
I am surprised that the bright young things were all going to Aussie, from what you read here I would have thought they would have stayed and been part of the Green revolution that is going to save the planet despite the fact that we only produce 0.02% of the worlds carbon emissions.
I know this because Russ told me so it must be true.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
“Beat?
You see, it’s emotive garbage like that that really gets peoples backs up.”
On the other hand BP, having just listened to what Russel actually said, he was talking about those who made death threats over s59. So if they don’t like how they were characterised, tough!
October 7th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
>>hadn’t built this issue into a huge conspiracy then
I think Bradfords approach made it inevitable.
>>been part of the Green revolution
Heh. Not many I talked to had much in the way of political views. I got the distinct impression politics was irrelevant to them.
I found them quite inspiring, actually. They were very ambitious, the party was nowhere near as wild as those I’d attended in my youth, and they’d negotiated with the neighbours about the noise levels beforehand! And these are uni students!
Not like that in my day….
October 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
>>those who made death threats over s59
Why characterise the debate by what the lunatic fringe do? I can’t think of any other reason than to try and associate all opponents with that lunatic fringe.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Valis
What is worse, death threats from a few nutters or an MP who thinks that Pol Pot was a great leader?
October 7th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Or a blog troll that repeats a lie knowing it is a lie?
October 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Valis
I have provided proof that Keith Locke was/is a supporter of Pol Pot, why do you have a problem with that?
October 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
big bro - sometimes your provocative comments are a good stimulus for greenies visiting frogblog, who might have become complacent and overly accepting of issues and arguments, and sometimes your comments are idiotic.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“I have provided proof that Keith Locke was/is a supporter of Pol Pot, why do you have a problem with that?”
You provided an unattributed quote that said the same thing as another similar quote that I’d just debunked. I asked for the source, which you refused to provide, implying no more than since you’d read it somewhere it must be true.
What’s particularly interesting now is how you’ve extended the lie. Even those who believed the original lie only attributed it to Keith’s position in 1975. Today you’ve not only repeated this, but added too additional lies, that Keith is still a supporter of Pol Pot and that he thinks he was a great leader.
Can you just not help yourself? What are we to think of all the other things you say? I always hope that while I may disagree with someone’s political position, I can at least trust their integrity. Its obvious we can’t do that with you.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
That statement about death threats from the “fundamentalists” is disgraceful and also deeply offensive.
My opinion of the greens just dripped further after watching that.
It reveals that the greens do in all honesty see themselves as the enemy of christians, that statement is blatant fear mongering.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“That statement about death threats from the “fundamentalists” is disgraceful and also deeply offensive.”
I’d have more sympathy if you found the death threats themselves deeply offensive too.
“It reveals that the greens do in all honesty see themselves as the enemy of christians…”
Only the ones that want to murder us.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
If they wanted to murder you, they could not by definition be “fundamentalist” christians now could they!!
October 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
You must be joking. Plenty of death and mayhem has been caused in the world by people doing it for their god. Being religious doesn’t exempt one from hypocrisy.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
So if I go and cut a Rimu down while wearing a vote green party cap it means I did it in the name of the green party?
The term fundamentalist has been miss used.
If someone believe’s in the fundamental teachings of Christ they can’t go round threatening to kill people now can they.
You and Russel should be able to make that distinction without smearing people who are as horrified as you are on those death threats.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“So if I go and cut a Rimu down while wearing a vote green party cap it means I did it in the name of the green party?”
How silly. It would just make you a hypocrite.
“The term fundamentalist has been miss used.”
Perhaps. The word is often used in common parlance to mean “extremist”. I didn’t receive the death threats, but do know generally that the most vitriolic responses to removing the defense for beating children came from people with very strong religious beliefs. I also think the death threats came with a fair amount of “wrath of god” stuff, so the conclusion that they were religious extremists doesn’t seem far fetched.
“If someone believe’s in the fundamental teachings of Christ they can’t go round threatening to kill people now can they.”
Of course they can. Heard of the abortion doctor murderers in the States? How about the Crusades? People can rationalise themselves into *any* crazy action they want (and frankly, if one already believes in a lot of non-rational stuff that can’t be proven, then I think one is more likely to fall into such a trap, but I’m just stirring now aren’t I).
“You and Russel should be able to make that distinction without smearing people who are as horrified as you are on those death threats.”
Again, I’m sure Russel meant extremist. I personally wouldn’t have said it though, because it *is* inflammatory and can so easily be misconstrued.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
“How silly. It would just make you a hypocrite.”
Exactly, it would be grossly unfair to assume all greenies would behave the same way. Unfortunately many don’t afford the same logic to people of faith, and like to smear an entire group of people with equally outragious claims.
“Of course they can. Heard of the abortion doctor murderers in the States?”
Yes but we are getting into different territory here. The nutters that do this sort of thing also have an even greater hatred for evangelical christians as they see them as too tolerant. In my opinion these were the type of people who also cried out “crucify,crucify” to Jesus, as he didn’t measure up to their ideals, they would likely do the same today.
Do you see why evangelicals get upset by the media’s constant attempt to put us all in the same basket?
October 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I won’t deny your experience, Shunda. I can only say that I’ve never made that connection, nor noticed it particularly in the media. Being an atheist may partly explain why I’ve not been sensitive to the issue. But specifically, I’ve not seen “evangelicals” conflated with “fundamentalists”. I have seen “fundamentalist” used interchangeably with “extremist” as I’ve said, but this isn’t usually even religion specific and applies to muslims as well as christians.
“Yes but we are getting into different territory here. The nutters that do this sort of thing also have an even greater hatred for evangelical christians as they see them as too tolerant. In my opinion these were the type of people who also cried out “crucify,crucify” to Jesus, as he didn’t measure up to their ideals, they would likely do the same today.”
I really can’t see this as different territory. “Nutters” seems like just the people I’m talking about. That there is such a diversity of christians would really not be apparent to most people, let alone atheists. I can see the problem, but not sure what you can do about it. But again, I haven’t noticed all christians being lumped in with the nutters by the maiinstream media at least.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
> If they wanted to murder you, they could not by definition be “fundamentalist” christians now could they!!
yes they could. The term ‘fundamentalist’ was coined in the early 20th century to refer to people whose values correlated with the message of a book called ‘the fundamentals of Christianity’, which argued that believing in things like Adam and Eve, the great flood, Immaculate Conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ were the fundamental principles that one had to believe to be a true christian.
This is presumably in opposition to people who believe some other group of ideas from the Bible are the fundamental principles of Christianity, such as ‘thou shalt not kill’, ‘love thy neighbour’, or the idea that you should not plant two different crops in the same field.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
kahikatea, Fundamentalist is a derogatory term to evangelical christians, It is generally used today to define an extreme group of people that claim to be “christian”. Often evangelicals are mistaken for this group because they also hold to the foundational doctrines of the faith, basically that the bible is the word of God.
The people that are refered to as “fundamentalists” are people that believe things such as dancing, going to the movies,and certain types of music are evil as well as just about anything else!!
While there are some people like this in NZ, the vast majority are more evangelical in nature, even Destiny church is not really a true “fundamentalist” church and they certainly wouldn’t make death threats against anyone.
The difference could be summed up as fundamentalism being more legalistic in nature with hard performance based rules and regulations, where as evangelical is based more on extending grace for people to work things out in their own time, with a greater emphasis in the new covenant teachings of Christ.
To those on the inside it is like two completely different religions.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Shunda - take a deep breath friend. I think you are confusing Christians with Christ. Christians, including the evangelical crowd, are as flawed, goofy and mistaken as the rest of us. You are carrying some righteous indignation and giving the Greens a serve that isn’t deserved.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:37 am
The only way I as a rationalist human being can tolerate a person of faith is if the person of faith backs up their claim of believing in god by stating that the god they believe in doesn’t exist in the physical universe and itsn’t able to interact with the physical universe.
If their god does exist in the physical universe or interacts with the physical universe then a christian invites ridicule since in making the above claim you are steping onto and into the domain and realm of science, science is a place you don’t want to bring your bronze age mythology’s.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Turnip why do you even care?
Perhaps you could explain to me the accepted theory of abiogenesis, oh wait, there isn’t one!!!
If you think atheists have got all there is to know about the universe pretty much nailed, then good for you, I prefer to keep my options open.
“Christians, including the evangelical crowd, are as flawed, goofy and mistaken as the rest of us”
Yes greenfly they most certainly are and I was not trying to suggest otherwise, just that the vast majority are not going to threaten to kill any one as part of their religious duty.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:18 am
By the way turnip, saying the only way you can “tolerate” people of faith is if they change there beliefs is probably more “bronze age” tahn you realise.
Its this sort of intollerance that led to the murder of 6 million jews, and is why Dawkins could be one of the most destructive people the modern era has ever produced.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Turnip,
Time to get your rabies shot before it continues to make its way through your central nervous system.
I certainly have no love of those sectors of society whom fail to question the way of things and accept all blindly at face value and I recognize the detrimental effect that such things have on the progress of human society and the damage it does, to that degree I agree with Dawkins; though not all religious folk fit that mould and nor are all athiests excluded.
Unlike Dawkins, and his naïve empirical atheism which fails to recognize its own assumptions, I recognize the utility that religion provides. Despite all its evils; religion keeps order, it may stifle progress but it keeps the retarded majority of society in cheek; it has a purpose and is benificial to society.
You claim to be rationalist; though that normally shows in your arguments you fail to display such traits in your statements on this thread, instead you endorse atheism; a stream of thought as uterly naïve as the religion which you criticise.
Both theism and atheism are based on naivity and fail to reliase their own assumptions; both exist purly on the basis of belief, to criticise one is to criticise the other.
Any individual truly rationalist will eventually realise all the assumptions that one makes and in doing so will realise that there exists no basis to eaither religion or atheism, or indeed for any of their beleifs as to the nature of this world, any true rationalist will eventually become a nihilist. From nihilism they may find true existenialism and in doing so they will realise the nature of knowledge and of reality and delibratly choose to live life on certain assumptions; some may choose to make the assumption that there is indeed a god as that satisfies them, others may choose to not believe, others still may choose to believe they themselves are god; but reguardless of what they choose they know their assumptions and can not truly be called christian nor atheist but instead they become part of a spectrum of higher agnosticism. Both blind atheism and blind religion are utterly naïve.
Dawkins may be well respected but he is just as naïve as the monotheists he persucutes, and probally more so than the pope (whom I am convinced does not accually believe there is a god). Lol.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Sapient you misrepresent Dawkins and myself since neither of us are Atheists as being an Atheist is an impossible position since true and false do not exist in the physical sciences. It is impossible to say god does not exist. Dawkins has even said that over and over again but nobody ever listens.
Shunda barunda’s position is a dangerous one, both arguing that you must be tolerant and it is intolerant to disagree. You must be very careful of people who talk like this as they don’t understand freedom of speech. A persons belief system in a country that believes in freedom of speech is totally open to ridicule. If someone stands up and claims that the bible is the word of god and that the good book is telling them how society should enact laws then you need to stand up to such a person and attack what it is they believe in, if you give them any ground you will quickly find freedom of speech is gone.
Dawkins attack position has irk’d a lot of people why because nobody has ever stood up to christians in the US and said hey those ideas you are getting from that book which was written by men not god is full of stupid ideas.
Its very rich for you living in NZ a non-religous country. I used to be just like you Sapient when I lived in NZ but I have changed my position since living in the US. I am glad for Dawkins, since he came out on the attack people who don’t beleive in god here in the US can actually talk about their non-belief in public, this is a very good thing.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Turnip the fact that I am even on this blog blows your carefully reproduced dawkinism out of the water. Dawkins is an individual who has simply tried to legitamise hate, ignorance and personal prejudice as legitamate disscussion and “freedom of speech”.
Why does Dawkins go to such great pains to explain to people it is ok to humiliate, segregate, and villify people of faith?
I can tell you right now, his knowledge of the “church” is absolutely pathetic.
I will never forget the first Dawkins debate I watched, I was expecting a highly intelligent man that may challenge my belief system, yet all I saw was an intelligent man making an ass of himself.
His arguments appeal to the fundamentally ignorant looking for an excuse to persecute people they don’t like.
I know Dawkins is actually religious cause he sounds and behaves EXACTLY the same as some ignorant preachers I have heard.
The similarity is absolutely uncanny.
Nobody should endorse this preacher of hate and division.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Its this sort of intollerance that led to the murder of 6 million jews, and is why Dawkins could be one of the most destructive people the modern era has ever produced.”
Shunda, that’s a ridiculous thing to say about Dawkins. Its like blaming Darwin for social Darwinism.
“Unlike Dawkins, and his naïve empirical atheism which fails to recognize its own assumptions, I recognize the utility that religion provides. Despite all its evils; religion keeps order, it may stifle progress but it keeps the retarded majority of society in cheek; it has a purpose and is benificial to society.”
Dawkins doesn’t deny the utility of religion, though he does ask “at what cost” and believed it to be far too high. But his main question is whether people should believe something for which there is no scientific proof just because it has some positive impacts (among the negative ones).
“Any individual truly rationalist will eventually realise all the assumptions that one makes and in doing so will realise that there exists no basis to eaither religion or atheism, or indeed for any of their beleifs as to the nature of this world, any true rationalist will eventually become a nihilist.”
I’ve never been able to buy this. I don’t deny that we’re bound by our senses, but it seems we’re able to discover some objective truth nonetheless. Anyone who gets on a airplane accepts the truth of Newtonian physics.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
“Dawkins is an individual who has simply tried to legitamise hate, ignorance and personal prejudice as legitamate disscussion and “freedom of speech”. Why does Dawkins go to such great pains to explain to people it is ok to humiliate, segregate, and villify people of faith?”
Dawkins is very careful to critise people’s beliefs, but not the people themselves. That he is respected by senior Anglican church leaders, who are happy to sit down and discuss his views, gives a good indication that you’ve, shall we say, over reacted to a message you don’t want to hear.
“I can tell you right now, his knowledge of the “church” is absolutely pathetic.”
Which he is happy to admit. He compares it to his knowledge of astrology, which he also feels free to critise, despite not understanding it in detail. Its because neither have offered a shred of scientific evidence for him to consider.
“I will never forget the first Dawkins debate I watched, I was expecting a highly intelligent man that may challenge my belief system, yet all I saw was an intelligent man making an ass of himself.”
The standard response of those who don’t wish to have their irrationality challenged.
“I know Dawkins is actually religious cause he sounds and behaves EXACTLY the same as some ignorant preachers I have heard.
The similarity is absolutely uncanny.”
You are wrong in so many ways, but there’s a HUGE difference in approach that you overlook too. Dawkins is happy to change his views on presentation of factual evidence that what he believes is wrong. You’re preachers (all of them, not just the ones to which you refer) will continue believing what they do no matter what evidence they have to ignore.
“His arguments appeal to the fundamentally ignorant looking for an excuse to persecute people they don’t like. Nobody should endorse this preacher of hate and division.”
If you stop hyperventilating for a moment, you’ll see that you’ve twisted yourself into yet another conspiracy theory.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Dawkins is a man deeply offended with something he claims he dosen’t care about. He is a classic case of how intelligence and wisdom are two totally separate things.
Your post is once again casting all those of faith in the same basket and slapping a nice label on it, while promoting Dawkins as a reasonable thinking human being.
While Dawkins himself may never harm any of those he has such contempt for, history has shown those who follow him may very well do just that.
You constantly here those interviewing him saying “is it really ok to talk about people like that?” of which he explains yes its just fine cause I am smarter than you are and I know these things.
I can imagine in 1938 Germans saying “is it really ok to talk about Jews like that?” the rest is history.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Turnip,
it is true that i may have misinterprited dawkins posistion, though given the nature of his media that is rather foreseable.
So then we agree on the level of ontology?
Im too lazy to continue this fruitless discussion, but i shall say that i do not support the views of one being forced apon another, esspecially not through the institutions of state. i understand that it is bad in america and that agnostics feel outnumbered and surrounded, but the answer cant be inspiring hatred between two groups.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Rubbish Shunda, dawkins is attacking your belief system so you take offense and then come up with your silly posts that try and compare him to Nazi Germany. Oh man you must be so new to the internet to be making that comparison, so funny
October 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Dawkins is a man deeply offended with something he claims he dosen’t care about. He is a classic case of how intelligence and wisdom are two totally separate things.”
He cares very much about religion, as he thinks it is a mainly negative force in modern society and that we should be able to move beyond it.
“Your post is once again casting all those of faith in the same basket and slapping a nice label on it, while promoting Dawkins as a reasonable thinking human being.”
Two points. Neither I nor Dawkins claim that believers are wholly irrational. Most people happily take a rational approach to most aspects of their lives, with the exception perhaps of politics :-). In fact, it is the willingness to suspend the rational in this one area that is so interesting.
Second, in what way are all believers not in the same basket when it comes to accepting things with no proof? Yes, your beliefs vary wildly and some are much more bizarre than others, but there’s no basis in fact for any of it, which is the point.
“While Dawkins himself may never harm any of those he has such contempt for, history has shown those who follow him may very well do just that.”
So you would do what - keep him from talking? You’d be guilty of what you fear. The only real issue is whether he’s right. If he is, you have to deal with it, you can’t just pretend otherwise. If he isn’t, he’ll go away, but the bar is high. He’s said what would make him change his beliefs. What would change yours? Is it at all possible?
“You constantly here those interviewing him saying “is it really ok to talk about people like that?” of which he explains yes its just fine cause I am smarter than you are and I know these things.”
That’s certainly not what he says. The interviewer is usually discussing the fact that religious beliefs are usually not discussed so forthrightly as Dawkins does. He says he has always wondered why religion is out of bounds for civilised debate. I’ve heard him say that the approach he takes in questioning people of religion is much more tame than you’d expect to receive if you stood up and said you believed 2+2=5. As there is no more evidence for their religious beliefs, he feels it should be fair game to call people out on this topic as well. Seems reasonable to me.
“I can imagine in 1938 Germans saying “is it really ok to talk about Jews like that?” the rest is history.”
Sure, but they were demonstrably wrong about Jews and should be challenged for it. Dawkins isn’t being challenged for being wrong, but for daring to speak out, a very different thing. I have to agree with turnip28 on this.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Turnip you are still responding Dawkins style.
I do not feel attacked by Dakwins at all, more disturbed that people accept his shallow disguise for blatant intollerance.
You think Dawkins ramblings are just harmless fun? well you are not the one who has to put up with the increasingly agressive attitudes of your more ignorant atheist bretheren. You or Dawkins may not abuse individual christians but atheism’s intellectually challenged offspring sure are taking a liking to it.
The only people I have met that will not even stand in the same room as a christian are atheists.
The form of atheism that Dawkins is releasing is exactly the same as the nutters that burn down abortion clinics. Both groups deserve each other.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Are we talking about Richard Dawkin’s? “The Selfish Gene” Dawkins? “The Blind Watchmaker” Dawkins? I haven’t read anything into his books that resembles the attitudes you’re attributing to him. I can look again.
I think Shunda, that he talks about “Young Earthers” and “Fundamentalists” and in PARTICULAR “Creationists”… and the difference and distinction between them and the “Evangelicals” is rather hidden behind the things that seem rather a lot the same to those of us who aren’t particularly attentive to matters of theology.
Which would be me, but I pay enough attention to know that there are plenty of perfectly decent Christians out there who I can get along with no matter what they believe God does and doesn’t do. Not creationists, not fundamentalists… I tend to make them really really angry if I start on them, but as you point out, they are not the majority of Christians.
BJ
October 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Valis, Dawkins is trying to approach this whole issue as if the world is one giant science class in a sterile scientific mannor on one hand, and silly spagehtii monsters on the other.
The problem is his discussion involves a very large number of people’s lives which is a little different to a mathmatical delusion.
People deserve to be treated with dignity regardless of how informed they are or are not, that is why Dawkins comes across as arrogant and intollerant.
He is taking the lazy approach to debating this issue and even his atheist peers have critisised him for his lack of understanding of theology or even basic christain doctrine.
This is why his approach is more popular with your more red neck variety of atheist than intellectual, and it is becomming very apparent in the community around us.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“You think Dawkins ramblings are just harmless fun?”
No, very serious stuff and a debate that is long overdue.
“well you are not the one who has to put up with the increasingly agressive attitudes of your more ignorant atheist bretheren. You or Dawkins may not abuse individual christians but atheism’s intellectually challenged offspring sure are taking a liking to it.”
That some people’s actions are deplorable is not Dawkins’ problem. He would be among the first to criticise them.
“The only people I have met that will not even stand in the same room as a christian are atheists.”
I’ve never met one of those. Again, Dawkins would be among the first to object.
“The form of atheism that Dawkins is releasing is exactly the same as the nutters that burn down abortion clinics. Both groups deserve each other.”
First, you are so wrong that it seems to me you don’t really know your subject matter here. And Shunda, you were so put out the other day about all christians being lumped together, but you’re happy to do the same with us!
“Valis, Dawkins is trying to approach this whole issue as if the world is one giant science class in a sterile scientific mannor on one hand, and silly spagehtii monsters on the other.”
I can’t see the problem. He’s looking at objective facts. You might find this sterile, but Dawkins finds the real world spiritual in the sense of causing awe and wonder. That the flying spaghetti monster is no more provable than any other god is a problem for the religious, not Dawkins.
“The problem is his discussion involves a very large number of people’s lives which is a little different to a mathmatical delusion.”
But a factual delusion nonetheless. Again, he’s either right or wrong and that’s what he wants to talk about. Prove him wrong and he’ll shut up. Otherwise, you shouldn’t expect him to just stop.
“People deserve to be treated with dignity regardless of how informed they are or are not, that is why Dawkins comes across as arrogant and intollerant.”
Not that I have ever seen. Give me an example.
“He is taking the lazy approach to debating this issue and even his atheist peers have critisised him for his lack of understanding of theology or even basic christain doctrine.”
In no way is he being lazy. I’ve seen some peers argue that he’s pissing off possible allies in the fight against extremism. That may be true, but it is very different from what you imply.
“This is why his approach is more popular with your more red neck variety of atheist than intellectual, and it is becomming very apparent in the community around us.”
Your conclusion is wrong because your assumptions are wrong.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As I continue to repeat Dawkins and myself have no problem with Christians as long as the GOD they talk about stays out of the physical universe and society in general.
Do you support homosexual rights to marry Shunda.
Do you support abortion rights for women Shunda.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
There are a greater percentage of atheists working at JPL than there are in the general population.
I think Dawkins has been polarized by a lot of the stuff that has come at him over the years, but he’s not preaching hate that I can see. If anything he is regarding religion as a sort of self-imposed frontal lobotomy. I tend to agree.
Religion is about having an answer to the question “Why?” when no answer is presented by science. It allows the “Why?” which is built into our brain at the hardware level because knowledge is survival positive for us, to be short-circuited with the answer “God”. This makes people with Religion more comfortable and secure about the universe than people like me who live with and have found ways to make peace with the words “I don’t know”.
As long as the short circuit is limited in scope, the person who uses it is happier and able to concentrate on other things. If it doesn’t exist, he/she has to be smart enough to accept not-knowing as a valid condition for some questions. When it is overused you get a “fundamentalist” who is failing to learn things that he/she really ought to know and believing every line in some sacred text.
There is a Latin or Roman quotation - “Beware the man of one book”.
Have to see if I can get some of Dawkin’s more recent books.
respectfully
BJ
October 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.
– Stephen Henry Roberts
October 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
The problem is simple
Dawkins is attemping to proclaim that God is dead and any one who thinks otherwise is at best a delusional nutter with a “nurological disorder”
Why is God dead? cause a patchy theory says he is, it is remarkably arogant when you think about it, a bit like the patent office closing cause they thought everything had been invented!! Christians have been rightly critisized for narrow mindedness and so should atheists.
What position should people like myself take in societey? are you suggesting that unless I renounce beliefs that others don’t like, partial citizenship should be revoked? that a persons value to a political system should be based on what they do or do not believe?
Dawkins does not give people of faith a clear position in societey, it would appear that we should just quietly crawl off under some rock and die.
No where do I see christians(excluding minority nutters) making these implyed demands of atheists, homosexuals or anybody else.
Christians can live peacefully with atheists but I doubt whether the reverse is true.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Dawkins is not proclaiming god to be dead he just wants you to provide him with proof. Do you actually believe that everything in the bible Shunda is true.
If christians don’t like something in society its fine for them to not let other christians do it however it is most certainly not fine for them to restrict non-christians from doing it or to allow their vote to be influenced by that belief. In short leave God in your home and your church, God has no place in your civic life Shunda.
Note since the Family First party is a political party in NZ its clear that we have some people in NZ who do not believe in the separation of church and state. Ever since the creation of MMP we have had a number of christian parties try and get into parliment thank goodness they haven’t made it past the 5% mark. There is no place for a christian party in a society that values a separation of church and state.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I love it, a Green supporter who wants to tell us what we can eat, how we heat and light our homes and how we discipline our kids decides that they do not like the way Christians attempt to influence our lives.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I don’t see anything in Dawkins writing or in my own that is telling you that “God is dead”. We’re mostly saying that religion is superfluous and unnecessary. We’re pointing out why and where religion can cause problems.
It can also help a society, as it puts a limit on Kings and Emperors, and it allows (providing its basic moral tenets are sane) a means of persuading people to do “the right thing” without them having to reason out why it is right.
Overall I think its value may have turned net negative over the years, but its not all bad by any means. I CANNOT expect everyone to be able to think the way I do, yet all of my society has to accept the same basic moral code for it to work.
I clearly have to get my hands on those books.
respectfully
BJ
October 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
1.Do you support homosexual rights to marry.
2.Do you support abortion rights for women.
1.No.
2.Only in a very few instances.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
turnip, What sort of conoluted logic has led you to confuse seperation of church and state with seperation of belief and democracy?
October 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
BB
Who are you talking about? I haven’t noticed any Christians attempting to influence ME
Probably best for them that I do not notice.
respectfully
BJ
October 8th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
This is the guts of the issue, christians are not supposed to have an opinion because we are openly religious, yet people who quietly push their own agenda (aka Sue Bradford) are considered legitimate politicians even though they have never been directly elected to parliament.
Atheists have the luxury of picking over 2000 years of history to find mistakes in the church, yet tell us atheist tyrants like Stalin and Mao are off limits to christians looking to respond.
Christianity, whether you like it or not is the reason the western empire is as sucessful as it is, that would indicate a net positive influence for all but revisionist atheists. If you want to take over from here then good luck, but you will be casting off the single bigest advantage that we have had to date.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I always though that “god is dead” was Friedrich Nietzsche
October 8th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“The problem is simple
Dawkins is attemping to proclaim that God is dead and any one who thinks otherwise is at best a delusional nutter with a “nurological disorder”
I don’t think this is true, but so what? He debates many people. Someone should be able to prove him wrong if he is.
“Why is God dead? cause a patchy theory says he is, it is remarkably arogant when you think about it, a bit like the patent office closing cause they thought everything had been invented!! Christians have been rightly critisized for narrow mindedness and so should atheists.”
Actually its that God never lived, which, conveniently you may argue, puts the onus of proof on you.
“What position should people like myself take in societey? are you suggesting that unless I renounce beliefs that others don’t like, partial citizenship should be revoked? that a persons value to a political system should be based on what they do or do not believe?”
Your hyperventilating again. We just want to be able to discuss and debate these things openly, like we can for every other area of factual reality. I promise, no demotion in citizenship.
“Dawkins does not give people of faith a clear position in societey, it would appear that we should just quietly crawl off under some rock and die.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury, to name one, seems entirely comfortable with this debate and not at all threatened by the likes of Dawkins, who he has around to tea.
“No where do I see christians(excluding minority nutters) making these implyed demands of atheists, homosexuals or anybody else.”
Certainly there are some mainstream christians who would like to see homosexuals climb under a rock when they start marrying each other.
“Christians can live peacefully with atheists but I doubt whether the reverse is true.”
So long as we don’t challenge you to rational debate it seems.
“This is the guts of the issue, christians are not supposed to have an opinion because we are openly religious, yet people who quietly push their own agenda (aka Sue Bradford) are considered legitimate politicians even though they have never been directly elected to parliament.”
This is what you were getting at all along? I should have realised Sue had something to do with the problem
For the record, I don’t entirely agree with my fellow posters on this one. There should be a thick wall between church and state of course, but that the state will resemble the population in its morals and norms is inevitable and correct.
“Atheists have the luxury of picking over 2000 years of history to find mistakes in the church, yet tell us atheist tyrants like Stalin and Mao are off limits to christians looking to respond.”
This is because atheists are criticising actions done in the name of religion or the church. If it is simply done by someone who believes in god but took the action for some other reason, it is not a valid example. Likewise, Stalin and Mao were atheists, but did not act to advance their atheism. They acted to advance communism, in which they were as dogmatic (by which I mean not open to factual falsification of their views) as religious people can be. Communism can lead to atheism (not the other way around), because communism puts the state first in all things. Anything that threatens to knock it from this high position must be destroyed. God is so obviously a necessary early target.
“Christianity, whether you like it or not is the reason the western empire is as sucessful as it is, that would indicate a net positive influence for all but revisionist atheists. If you want to take over from here then good luck, but you will be casting off the single bigest advantage that we have had to date.”
Where to start. Biggest advantage? I’m sure we could argue that. I’d say it was science and our scientific heritage came out of the Enlightenment, which was a desire to lean about the world and unify all knowledge. Religion was included in this, but the church has fought it ever since it discovered the threat knowledge represents.
But even if you are correct it is irrelevant in the sense that we’re now able to ask questions of objective fact regarding religion and provide alternate hypothesis that don’t require a god. You’re asking us to pretend this isn’t the case, which I can actually really sympathise with, as I can see what it would do to have one’s world view so capsized. But run from it you can’t.
I’ve had these sorts of discussions with religious friends, who often want to convince me there is some ledge of objective fact to cling to regarding religion and have given me books and articles to read, hoping to convince. I used to look forward to these challenges as I don’t like to become complacent in my thinking. I was lent a book by Francis Collins, who led the human genome programme and is also a christian. It purported to provide some factual basis for a god, so I was keen to hear from such a person. So I was doubly disappointed to find it was little more than recycled arguments from CS Lewis.
Where this has led me is to suggest to religions friends that to maintain some semblance of consistency, they should at least give up trying to claim that any factual proof of god exists and try not to conflate their religious beliefs with the description of the physical world science give us. This means that when new facts arrive, they will have to just incorporate them (interestingly, the Catholic church does this better than many, having accepted evolution, for instance). They can still have their religious beliefs if they must, but let it inform their philosophy and morality only. It seems to me this shouldn’t be too hard to do. After all, god moves in mysterious ways I hear, so what’s to say it is wrong?
October 8th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
bjchip, yes, do go get those books. I’ve read all but one and they are all marvelous. Here’s a quote from Dawkins’ The devil’s Chaplain to whet your appetite:
“So, the Devil’s Chaplain might conclude, Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresight–something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selection; and the gift of internalizing the very cosmos.
Safety and happiness would mean being satisfied with easy answers and comforts, living a warm comfortable lie. The daemonic alternative urged by my matured Devil’s Chaplain is risky. You stand to lose comforting delusions: you can no longer suck at the pacifier of faith in immortality. To set against that risk, you stand to gain `growth and happiness’; the joy of knowing that you have grown up, faced up to what existence means; to the fact that it is temporary and all the more precious for it.”
While I’m at it, do also have a look at Dan Dennett’s stuff. He is well worth the time as well. This from Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon:
“What these people have realised is one of the best secrets of life: let your *self* go. If you can approach the world’s complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only just scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to *proper* size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay *centered*, and *engaged*, you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. That, I propose, it the secret to spirituality and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul, or in anything supernatural.”
October 8th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“We’re mostly saying that religion is superfluous and unnecessary. We’re pointing out why and where religion can cause problems. ”
Perhaps you should look for any positive aspects and be honest about them and the enlightened thinking they’ve brought to humanity.
People like John Hus, Jon Amos Comenius, and count Nikolaus Ludwig Von Zinzendorf made a massive difference to western civilisation yet most people wouldn’t have a clue who they are.
This on Comenius
“Jon Amos Comenius could be included on a short list of those who have had the most impact on the modern world. He is recognized as the father of modern education, and is still considered by many to be the greatest genius to ever work in that field. His contribution to the science of learning can be traced as a primary cause for the great increase of knowledge that has been the hallmark of the past few centuries”
and also
“Comenius believed that wars, which had brought so much tragedy to the world as well as his own life, were the result of basic human ignorance.”
Maybe when atheists preach about ignorance to christians they should take a look at who created the platform they are standing on.
Comenius was an evangelical christian and part of the Moravian church in Europe, he was one of many, at great personal cost who shaped the learning institutions many, including atheists take for granted today.
But lets make sure christians don’t have an influence today with their bronze age religion.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I have often thought that tribalism is the world’s greatest evil and that religion is the most evil form of tribalism, in that it is righteous tribalism.
Everyone has belief.
Atheism is a belief.
God(s) is/are a belief.
Theist or Atheist I’m happy to respect them all, because I sure as heck don’t know all the answers.
However banding together into religions where “Our God is greater than your god!” and “Thou shalt believe what we believe!” is pure evil.
I despise all religions, including The Church of Atheism.
Society should treat belief like masturbation; personal, gratifying and no-one else’s business!
October 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Samiam
“Society should treat belief like masturbation; personal, gratifying and no-one else’s business!”
Outstanding, simply outstanding…
My vote for post of the year.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
-”Atheism is a belief”
Er, actually it isn’t.
Is disbelief in Santa Claus “a belief”?
Is disbelief in the Tooth Fairy “a belief”?
Is disbelief in Zeus “a belief”?
Is disbelief in Thor “a belief”?
Is disbelief in Yahweh “a belief”?
Is disbelief in pixies “a belief”?
You might want to think about this stuff a bit more. We’ll be in the pub.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
“the church of atheism”, lol.
You mean the Brights movement to which Dawkins belongs?
“Reason and Purpose
Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures, even politically/socially repressed. To be a Bright is to participate in a movement to address the situation. (Note: the upper case Bright signifies someone who fits the definition and registers on this Web site.)
There is a great diversity of persons who have a naturalistic worldview (free of supernatural and mystical elements). Some are members of existing organizations that foster a supernatural-free perspective. Far more individuals are not associated with any formal group or label. Under the broad umbrella of the naturalistic worldview, the constituency of Brights can undertake social and civic actions designed to influence a society otherwise permeated with supernaturalism.
The movement’s three major aims are:
Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
This website of The Brights’ Network registers brights into an Internet constituency of Brights and serves as a communications hub for actions that align with the aims and principles of the Brights movement.”
October 8th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
wat,
yes, i think you will find they all are.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Well yes because in an estimated 100 billion galaxies it’s pretty tough to prove non existence of anything.
Glad to push you button BB!
October 8th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Valis I posted above before I saw your 2 lengthy posts.
I would love to engage in a discussion of origins with you and my own personal beliefs on spirituality, as I can see you are at least respectful of your opponent, however I don’t think frog blog is the place to do it.
I will say that I think one of the bigest issues that has brought such tension between atheists and “fundamentalist” christians is the whole creation science war.
I personally feel ashamed of the way some christians have pursued this whole area, as they have preyed on their fellow christians ignorance of basic science and history, and in my opinion brought considerable error into the main stream church. I do understand the reaction from the scientific community and in some ways conceed that christians have brought this upon themselves.
But sugesting that science and faith are incompatable is a little premature. I have always had an interest in science and have no trouble relating my faith in this area, although initially I had trouble with some popular creation beliefs.
You say that Christians can’t prove God exists, but neither can Dawkins prove he dosen’t , if the creationists hadn’t given him the creation evolution debate he wouldn’t occupy the supposed high ground you guys keep refering to. Some how proving God became about disproving the theory of evolution which is not really necessary, there are ways to tie in scripture that don’t conflict with much of the current theory at all.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Sapient,
Let me see if I’ve got this straight.
Belief in the existence of a door that you’ve just stubbed your toe on is precisely on a par with disbelief in same; there is equal merit and nothing to favour one view over the other.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Its the same as the theory of evolution, no one knows how abiogenesis occured yet they have “faith” that it did through an as yet undetermined process, oh but its not God!!!!! everyone knows thats impossible!!!
October 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Sorry Shunda evolution is a fact. Ask any farmer, they select/cull on any trait that they desire/not desire and in a very few generations the flock will have altered. What you are questioning is the origin of life (universe) I suspect? What about the origin of God?
October 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Wat,
reguardless of the perceived truth of the matter, to beleive that something exists is a beleif, if or if not it accually exists is irrelivant to it being a beleif.
Shunda,
i could go into much more detail and further the explanation to a before and after phase but im too lay.
Abiogenesis happened through the random collisions of different forms of energy, as those forms collided more complex forms arose which interacted with the surrounding environment in different ways until eventually a form complex enough to sucesfully initiate a series of events which brought about its own self replication was created and that was the first life, gradually the form of that first life also changed, with forms which did not continue to replicated being broken down whilst those that were more succesful became more proliferate untill eventually we get the first membranes and from there the rest is even more simple.
That is of course a vastly complex process broken down into the most simple of possible explanations
We know how abiogenesis can happen, or atleast there a plethora of possibilities, the question is meraly which process created us.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
samiam, sorry dude but selective breeding is not evolution, any biologist will tell you that.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“Comenius was an evangelical christian and part of the Moravian church in Europe, he was one of many, at great personal cost who shaped the learning institutions many, including atheists take for granted today.”
No one here has tried to take anything away from anyone’s contribution in the past (or present of that matter). Of course religious people did great things in *every* field of learning. There was a time when almost all science was by the church. This is simply our history and culture, and religion has played an intricate and undeniable role in its development. No one has said otherwise.
“But lets make sure christians don’t have an influence today with their bronze age religion.”
Only to the extent that we want an open competition of ideas. It is not about persecution of individuals. At the moment it seems like you who are trying to exclude.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
sam,
god is the alpha and omega remmember, he/she does not need a reason to exist or a process through which he/she came into being - we cant understand god, its outside of our understanding, outside of logic and the laws of the universe - i mean like, duh!
gotta love the logic of the unquestioning.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
“We know how abiogenesis can happen, or atleast there a plethora of possibilities, the question is meraly which process created us.”
Thats just a smart way of saying “we don’t know but we think we do”
October 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Have to correct you there Sapient. Apollo actually had a mother. Her name was Leto.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Any biologists in the lillypond? It sure as heck is, just anthro-selection rather than natural-selection, either way the result is evolution. Another example, fast enough for our pathetic attention spans, is flu virus coming back wearing new clothes every year to sneak past our defenses.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
shunda,
accually selective breeding is a form of evolution - any biologist will tell you that.
evolution happens primarily through natural selection (me breed most, my genes become most proliferate) but it also happens through artfical selection (or do all breeds of dog have the same genes and the differences between them and between wolves all arise from the environment in which they a raised?).
In its most basic form evolution is a change is the distribution of genes within a population or environment.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Sapient; Gee and I thought the answer was 42.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
wat,
how did we get to mythology? i dont beleive i mentioned apollo anywhere, though i remmbmer you mentioned zeus.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Samiam,
42 is an error code!
October 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Apollo, Zeus, Yahweh, Rah…
October 8th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
“Valis I posted above before I saw your 2 lengthy posts.
I would love to engage in a discussion of origins with you and my own personal beliefs on spirituality, as I can see you are at least respectful of your opponent, however I don’t think frog blog is the place to do it.”
I agree and would enjoy that too.
“But sugesting that science and faith are incompatable is a little premature. I have always had an interest in science and have no trouble relating my faith in this area, although initially I had trouble with some popular creation beliefs.”
Then you are already doing as I suggest. I do personally find the two incompatible, but as I say, it is when people use their religious beliefs to explain the physical world that things go horribly wrong. You seem to agree with this re creationism at least.
“You say that Christians can’t prove God exists, but neither can Dawkins prove he dosen’t…”
Which he fully admits. But that doesn’t make the two positions equivalent. Take Bertrand Russell’s teapot example. That we can’t prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere doesn’t lead us to believe there is one. Why is that? Its because we make a judgment about the probability of something being true based on the available evidence. In this case, we’d all admit we can’t prove it doesn’t exist, but would say the likelihood is so small as to be comfortable believing it doesn’t. God is a more complex idea, but as there is the same level of physical proof, many of us reach the same conclusion.
“…if the creationists hadn’t given him the creation evolution debate he wouldn’t occupy the supposed high ground you guys keep refering to.”
Maybe, but irrelevant.
“Some how proving God became about disproving the theory of evolution which is not really necessary, there are ways to tie in scripture that don’t conflict with much of the current theory at all.”
That’s good for you then, but I predict it will become harder and harder as more knowledge mounts.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
“In its most basic form evolution is a change is the distribution of genes within a population or environment.”
Yes but that is not macro evolution, even the more nutty creationists believe what you guys just said.
Unless you can show me a selectively bred half cat half dog or “catwawa”
October 8th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“Its the same as the theory of evolution, no one knows how abiogenesis occured yet they have “faith” that it did through an as yet undetermined process, oh but its not God!!!!! everyone knows thats impossible!!!”
Shunda, please don’t do this. Within the scientific world, its as good as impossible because there is no evidence that god exists in the first place. There are lots of things we don’t know. The hypotheses put forward to explain them are developed based on what *is* known. Just suddenly postulating a god because we don’t understand something is the height of logical fallacy.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Yes valis you are correct, however if the argument from experience was allowed it could make things very interesting.
Why does Dawkins not allow this? (its a serious question I really don’t know)
October 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
wat,
you know full well i was refering to the monotheistic Yahweh/God of the abrahamic faiths.
the polytheistic systems are alot more rational and atleast alittle plausable, compared to the monotheistic systems that is. lol.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“I have often thought that tribalism is the world’s greatest evil and that religion is the most evil form of tribalism, in that it is righteous tribalism.”
No particular problems with that.
“Everyone has belief.
Atheism is a belief.
God(s) is/are a belief.
…
I despise all religions, including The Church of Atheism.”
samiam, the English language fails us here, as “belief” means slightly different things depending on context. To say that the “beliefs” of someone who believes contrary to all evidence is equivalent to the “beliefs” of someone who believes precisely because of the evidence is highly illogical thinking.
There is no church of atheism. Churches are dogmatic in that they are not open to the factual falsification of their beliefs. Atheists, at least those that reach that conclusion due to scientific knowledge like Dawkins, are precisely the opposite. They simply insist not to be asked to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
It is important to note here again, that their “belief” in no god is not absolute, but based on probability. If the evidence shows a vanishingly small probability of something, it should be safe to say you don’t “believe” in it without being accused of dogmatism.
“Society should treat belief like masturbation; personal, gratifying and no-one else’s business!”
If it stays in social circles, fine. When it affects public policy, we all have a stake in the result.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Spot on, Valis. Great post.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“Yes valis you are correct, however if the argument from experience was allowed it could make things very interesting.
Why does Dawkins not allow this? (its a serious question I really don’t know)”
Happy to oblige Shunda! My own observation is simply that it is so easy to be wrong about what one experiences. At any rate, while an experience can and is a great basis for a hypothesis for science to validate or invalidate, in can never constitute scientific evidence by itself.
Dawkins says much the same and goes into how the brain works and is such a good pattern and model builder that it even discovers patterns that are not there. He gives various examples of optical illusions where the brain cannot accurately recreate objective reality. And he also deals with some difficult examples like mass witnessed miracles. He quotes Hume: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish”. Occam rules, in other words. He says about the 1917 Fatima miracle in Portugal where seventy thousand saw the sun “tear itself from the heavens and some crashing down upon the multitude’:
“It may seem improbable that seventy thousand people could simultaneously be deluded, or could simultaneously collude in a mass lie. Or that history is mistaken in recording that seventy thousand people claimed to see the sun dance. Or that they all simultaneously saw a mirage (they had been persuaded to stare at the sun, which can’t have done much for their eyesight). But any of those apparent improbabilities is far more probable than the alternative: that the Earth was suddenly yanked sideways in its orbit, and the solar system destroyed, with nobody outside Fatima noticing. I mean, Portugal is just not that isolated”
pp 87-92 of the UK paperback version for your ref
October 8th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“Spot on, Valis. Great post.”
Thanks BP, high praise coming from you.
I must say I’ve had fun today on my sick day off. Who’d have thought a Green Party campaign launch video would lead to a discussion on metaphysics.
Cheers all and good night.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“pp 87-92 of the UK paperback version for your ref
”
That’s in The God Delusion.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Valis, I think what you have said is valid but there is much more to the argument from experience than those examples. I am talking about consistant common experience’s that many christians have, that are not easy to explain.
I have seen things from my experience that are very difficult to rationalise away or put down to mass delusion. However I realise I can not expect people to take my word for it either. One thing I am sure of though, is it is easy for people to say “oh you must be deluded” than actually explore a particular phenomenon.
I am actually quite a sceptical person and like to check things out for myself before making any conclusions, and I know alot of my friends are the same, so it is not fair to say all christians are prone to mass hysteria or delusions by default.
I accept it is difficult to use the scientific method to test “spiritual” experiences yet surely the subject deserves more than out right dismissal by scientists . From my understanding the scientific method does have limitations in its aplication, so shouldn’t that afford christians a little more leway with the scientific community due to the unknown nature of some of these experiences?
Anyway it is time for bed,my brain hurts, I have learnt a few things today and enjoyed being challenged by you guys, and just quietly its been alot more productive than some discussions I have had with young earth creationists.
cheers
October 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
-””Atheism is a belief” Er, actually it isn’t.”
Er, actually it is. So are you, so am I, so is the universe and everything in it.
Can you absolutely prove that you exist, that I exist, that the internet exists, that the pub exists and that any of these things are other than just a construct of your psyche?
Current scientific knowledge can’t absolutely disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, pixies or anything else that may exist in a fifth or greater dimension.
QED, disbelief in anything must, by it’s very nature, be “a belief”?
October 8th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
kevyn,
almost absolutly correct; you are incorrect on one minor account.
That is, in the words of descartes, “cogito ergo sum” or in poorly translated english “I think therefore I am”.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“QED, disbelief in anything must, by it’s very nature, be “a belief”?”
No worries, unless you insist that all beliefs are equally valid.
October 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I don’t “believe-disbelieve” in the sense of unquestioning acceptance of or denial of some unobservable and untestable conjecture. I use the scientific method. It is as best I can determine, the most survival-positive means of discriminating between truth and fiction. I accept theories or reject them and I allow myself uncertainty in almost everything. “Belief” in the sense most religious people use it, is anathema to me.
respectfully
BJ
October 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“I have seen things from my experience that are very difficult to rationalise away or put down to mass delusion. However I realise I can not expect people to take my word for it either. One thing I am sure of though, is it is easy for people to say “oh you must be deluded” than actually explore a particular phenomenon.”
But there have been plenty of scientific studies on all sorts of phenomena. They all seem to come up either negative or inconclusive. A scientist can’t be expected to come to any other conclusion really, but I don’t think they have as closed minds as you are saying.
“I am actually quite a sceptical person and like to check things out for myself before making any conclusions, and I know alot of my friends are the same, so it is not fair to say all christians are prone to mass hysteria or delusions by default.”
The problem is that this is an easier explanation than the alternative, even if it seems unfair.
“I accept it is difficult to use the scientific method to test “spiritual” experiences yet surely the subject deserves more than out right dismissal by scientists . From my understanding the scientific method does have limitations in its aplication, so shouldn’t that afford christians a little more leway with the scientific community due to the unknown nature of some of these experiences?”
I’m not sure what limitations you’re referring to, but consider this as well. A la Hume, the explanation for something shouldn’t need even more explanation that then original thing needing to be explained. If you’ve had some mysterious experiences and posit god as the answer, it just means we have to shift our focus from the experience to god and try to explain that. Suddenly the problem is a trillion times harder, so if you want this explanation taken seriously, you better have a heap of good reasons why. In the case of the mysterious experience, it is not difficult to come up with hypotheses based on our knowledge to explain it. With god, we’ve suddenly got nothing to work with in a scientific sense. I’m afraid you’ll always come up against this brick wall.
“Anyway it is time for bed,my brain hurts, I have learnt a few things today and enjoyed being challenged by you guys, and just quietly its been alot more productive than some discussions I have had with young earth creationists.”
Thanks, I imagine its tough going with creationists. Nothing like adding a bit of logic to the mix to really make progress.