Interesting article on losing your faith

Originally posted by scottishinnz

...I find the only people who don't accept evolution are those who don't understand it, and frequently don't WANT to understand it.
....

Well said.
And, I find that that this is true according to my own experience because some demonstrate there complete misunderstanding of evolution (or maybe their deliberate misinterpretation? -I give them the benefit of the doubt) by asking such questions as:

“if we evolved from apes then why are we not seeing any apes currently evolving into us?”

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Well said.
And, I find that that this is true according to my own experience because some demonstrate there complete misunderstanding of evolution (or maybe their deliberate misinterpretation? -I give them the benefit of the doubt) by asking such questions as:

“if we evolved from apes then why are we not seeing any apes currently evolving into us?”

But too frequently they don't actually want to know the answer, and aren't actually listening to you when you explain.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd

True. How is it that someone as intelligent as he, would give ANY credence to a hack like Hitchens?

Please explain, in your own words, why Christopher Hitchens is a "hack".

Originally posted by David C
Please explain, in your own words, why Christopher Hitchens is a "hack".

Well, he's a journalist ... On this particular topic, he says nothing that hasn't been said better before -- by Voltaire, Hume, and countless others, all the way back to Celsus in the second century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus).

Wikipedia cites Linklater on Hitchens' intellectual outlook thus:

One of … [Hitchens’] old strongholds…[is] the 17th-century contest between king and parliament of the English civil war. For Hitchens, the Cromwellian revolt represents not just the foundational struggle for parliamentary rule, but the great rejection of divine right…. But he is no optimistic Enlightenment rationalist. He identifies himself with Thomas Paine's disillusion at the French terror, and Rosa Luxemburg's famous warning to Lenin about the inexorability of one-man rule. He retains, however, from his Marxist youth an intellectual absolutism and a disdain for liberal dilemmas and trade-offs—hence a brutal assault on Isaiah Berlin's genteel liberalism in a 1998 essay. And there is an undertow of violence in his arguments, an inability to empathise. He is, for example, incurious about what religious belief feels like, or what meaning it has for millions of people—even though, unlike his co-anti-religionist Richard Dawkins, Hitchens concedes that religious feeling is ineradicable.

Of course, on this topic, Dawkins is also a hack. Empty vessels make the most noise ... I'm sure you could do a better job than them, David.

Just for laughs, here's an article on Hitchens entitled ''The Purest Neocon":
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, he's a journalist ... On this particular topic, he says nothing that hasn't been said better before -- by Voltaire, Hume, and countless others, all the way back to Celsus in the second century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus).

Wikipedia cites Linklater on Hitchens' intellectual outlook thus:

One of … [Hitchens’] old strongholds…[is] t ...[text shortened]... ssels make the most noise ... I'm sure you could do a better job than them, David.

Whether they say something new or not, it doesn't mean they're not right.

I don't agree with Hitchens or Dawkins on all points, but I wouldn't classify them necessarily as hacks.

I do think that especially since Dawkins' expertise is in evolutionary biology and science then he should really concentrate on working on increasing the understanding of those topics.

I think having people come out and speak loudly like they do with their message is a good thing even if it's not necessarily all new arguments.

It is amazing how many mis-representations I've seen of Dawkins' own views around. Many people have turned him into a real bogey man that he really isn't.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn

I do think that especially since Dawkins' expertise is in evolutionary biology and science then he should really concentrate on working on increasing the understanding of those topics.

I think having people come out and speak loudly like they do with their message is a good thing even if it's not necessarily all new arguments.

It is amazing how ' own views around. Many people have turned him into a real bogey man that he really isn't.

There's nothing wrong with being a hack, it's an honest living ...

Your comment about Dawkins' expertise put a smile on my face -- twhitehead has used it twice before in the reverse sense, saying that Newton and Mendel's efforts would have profited had they spent less time on religious pursuits.

Being misrepresented is a professional hazard of taking a public stance. In Dawkins' case, the strawman he built (I refer to his projection of the image he has made of religion onto all religion) may have come back to bite him.

I've been reading Human, All Too Human -- Nietzsche's psychological insight remains extraordinarily pertinent -- he fingers all the personages figuring in this 'debate', myself included. Alas, poor Nietszche.

But why is coming out and speaking loudly 'a good thing'? What makes it 'good'?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In Dawkins' case, the strawman he built (I refer to his projection of the image he has made of religion onto all religion) may have come back to bite him.

I am not sure that 'strawman' can be correctly applied there. I think he was quite clear in "The God delusion" that he was not going to address every single religion, nor even all aspects of even the major ones. He does point out that it is not necessary to do so anyway. A lack of belief in invisible pink unicorns comes naturally to most of us and does not need to be argued. (I think the example he uses is a space toaster)
Plain old flying toasters on the other hand seem to have quite a large following (over 37,000 hits on Google!, a band named after them, a popular screen saver dedicated to them etc)
And toasters are apparently deadlier than sharks - there is a nice video a the aquarium here in cape town showing surfers running away from a school of seagoing toasters.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure that 'strawman' can be correctly applied there. I think he was quite clear in "The God delusion" that he was not going to address every single religion, nor even all aspects of even the major ones. He does point out that it is not necessary to do so anyway. A lack of belief in invisible pink unicorns comes naturally to most of us and does not need to be argued. (I think the example he uses is a space toaster)

I have seen a space toaster with my own eyes.

The pink unicorn analogy in itself is a kind of strawman. But I'd rather not discuss Dawkins any further; my comment was addressed to David C.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Here, a Norwegian Professor of Astrophysics, who used to be a defender of Christianity, realised his previous Christian beliefs were lacking in any logical basis.

Here's the 'founding father of existentialism' on the paradox of faith. Have a go at chapter three. I can't wait to hear your response.

http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2068

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
There's nothing wrong with being a hack, it's an honest living ...

Your comment about Dawkins' expertise put a smile on my face -- twhitehead has used it twice before in the reverse sense, saying that Newton and Mendel's efforts would have profited had they spent less time on religious pursuits.

Being misrepresented is a professional hazard of t ...[text shortened]...

But why is coming out and speaking loudly 'a good thing'? What makes it 'good'?

But why is coming out and speaking loudly 'a good thing'? What makes it 'good'?

It makes it good because it sparks the debate. I hadn't even read (and actually still haven't) the god delusion and frankly didn't feel much of a desire to until all the hubub about Dawkins and seeing some of the stuff that people were saying about him.

I do believe there are a lot of people in this country who don't really believe in god or at least see some of the folly that goes on in the name of religion in this country but don't think they can do anything or that their views are shared. I think the debate forces some of these people (assuming they even pay attention) to solidify what they in fact do believe and maybe even act on it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Well said.
And, I find that that this is true according to my own experience because some demonstrate there complete misunderstanding of evolution (or maybe their deliberate misinterpretation? -I give them the benefit of the doubt) by asking such questions as:

“if we evolved from apes then why are we not seeing any apes currently evolving into us?”

What about those few people who understand the Theory of Evolution perfectly, and make an informed, intelligent choice not to buy it? Surely, there are SOME (albeit few) that would fall into this category?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
It makes it good because it sparks the debate. I hadn't even read (and actually still haven't) the god delusion and frankly didn't feel much of a desire to until all the hubub about Dawkins and seeing some of the stuff that people were saying about him.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
There's no such thing as bad publicity.

I don't think that's true in all cases, but it sometimes is good for something contraversial to happen or be said because it gets people to actually address that gorilla in the room.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I don't think that's true in all cases, but it sometimes is good for something contraversial to happen or be said because it gets people to actually address that gorilla in the room.

I've found it tends to entrench people in opposing camps, with perhaps a handful crossing over here and there.

There is always a gorilla in the room.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I've found it tends to entrench people in opposing camps, with perhaps a handful crossing over here and there.

There is always a gorilla in the room.

Yeah, the gorilla might always be there, but that doesn't mean that you give up the fight to make sure it doesn't sit on you.