30 Jan 14
Originally posted by rwingett"An Appetite for Wonder by Richard Dawkins" – review
Very little information available on Dawkins' father? Rubbish. I just happened to have finished 'An Appetite For Wonder' (Dawkins' biography) recently. His father, (Clinton) John Dawkins, lived to be 95 years old. They had a perfectly fine relationship their entire lives.
"Most geeks cannot write; this one can. Richard Fortey salutes a well-mannered memoir of 'the making of a scientist' The Guardian, Wednesday 11 September 2013 07.00 EDT
"Dawkins's account of his early years is surprisingly intimate and moving. His was the kind of childhood we might all dream of. His father was a botanist, and certainly also a naturalist, like many Dawkins relatives, and the early years were spent in the best bits of Africa, wandering through the bush with animals, in the company of caring friends and a sprinkle of servants. Dawkins's mother is delightfully described – and both mother and father introduced young Richard to the poetry that remains his pleasure. But he freely admits he didn't catalogue and collect a thousand species – in that regard, he was a disappointment to the Dawkins family naturalist tradition. I wonder if happy childhoods produce scientists, while fraught families turn out novelists? I am sure that the mature Dawkins could devise a statistical test to prove it (or otherwise).
Angst of a manageable kind did appear during Dawkins's prep school years and later at Oundle School. It might seem odd that he did not shine incandescently at school – but then shining was confined to sporty types in that milieu. Peer pressure and even bullying tended to make mediocrity respectable: childhood cruelty is something Dawkins evidently abhors, though it is so widespread it presumably has some explanation under the banner of evolutionary psychology. But there was one inspiring teacher at Oundle who put the young scientist on the road to zoology and to Oxford, where he has spent more or less his whole life. Before he was 17, he had disavowed an earlier and evidently strong Christian faith, which a devotion to scepticism replaced in spades."
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/11/appetite-wonder-richard-dawkins-review
You've helped enlighten us on the childhood of an influential atheist referenced in the review, rwingett. Thank you.
Originally posted by twhiteheadUtter nonsense?
I just wonder whether you realize just what utter nonsense this is.
Let me give an example:
Suppose I claim that black people are black because their fathers died young. I then give 10 examples of well known black people whose fathers died young.
Very impressive!
I then include analyses of well known white people whose fathers did not die young.
Have ...[text shortened]... stupid?
The real question is whether you, Bobby actually read what you posted before posting.
Did you read all the words, or just the ones that ire you?
I'd say at the very least, it's pretty compelling information to consider the one commonality a plethora of the Atheist's Hall of Fame share.
Obviously, no one is going to guarantee an outcome based upon parental situations, but when an overwhelming amount of the standard-bearers share the same familial experience, it's a pattern that bears further inspection.
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust the ones that ire me. Is it your claim that I took them out of context?
Utter nonsense?
Did you read all the words, or just the ones that ire you?
I'd say at the very least, it's pretty compelling information to consider the one commonality a plethora of the Atheist's Hall of Fame share.
It is not a compelling argument for the conclusion being made.
Obviously, no one is going to guarantee an outcome based upon parental situations, but when an overwhelming amount of the standard-bearers share the same familial experience, it's a pattern that bears further inspection.
So inspect it. But before you do that, are you actually sure that the so called 'standard-bearers' were not cherry picked to support the conclusion?
How many standard-bearers do you know? What percentage was in that list that you call 'an overwhelming amount'?
My point earlier was that a few examples do not demonstrate a correlation when the set is large. I even gave an analogy. Do you dispute my analogy too?
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCorrelation does not imply causation.
Utter nonsense?
Did you read all the words, or just the ones that ire you?
I'd say at the very least, it's pretty compelling information to consider the one commonality a plethora of the Atheist's Hall of Fame share.
Obviously, no one is going to guarantee an outcome based upon parental situations, but when an overwhelming amount of the standard-bearers share the same familial experience, it's a pattern that bears further inspection.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyClearly, you have already decided that atheism is a psychological disorder, and you are just trying to establish the causes (atheists are angry, had bad parents, are immoral, etc.). This is not the behavior of someone who is genuinely interested in understanding atheism, but instead is someone who is attempting to make an ad hominem argument against atheism, but is doing so under the false pretense of being interested in learning. You should be honest with the rest of the forum and drop the pretense.
As I've frequently mentioned to Great King Rat, googlefudge, Penguin, SwissGambit and others since last Thanksgiving I'm ignorant of atheism and am intensely motivated to shore up the deficiency. What better place than this forum? So please bear with my intellectual clumsiness and selected topics that may seem awkward to you. This one I care about immensely!
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovak"This one I care about immensely!": because of its possibility of parallel with a dear friend's experience; honesty matters.
Clearly, you have already decided that atheism is a psychological disorder, and you are just trying to establish the causes (atheists are angry, had bad parents, are immoral, etc.). This is not the behavior of someone who is genuinely interested in understanding atheism, but instead is someone who is attempting to make an ad hominem argument against atheism ...[text shortened]... g interested in learning. You should be honest with the rest of the forum and drop the pretense.
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease.
[b]"The Causes of Atheism" Written by James Spiegel
“Book Review: Making of an Atheist Written by Richard Park on 18 February 2010. Dr. James Spiegel, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University, has recently published a book called The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief – and it is powerful. This book, un ...[text shortened]... com_content&view=article&id=474:book-review-making-of-an-atheist&catid=54:richard-park&Itemid=77[/b]
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseOriginally posted by sonhouse
How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease.
How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease.
"Jim earned a B.S. in Biology at Belhaven College in Jackson, Mississippi (1985). From there he turned his interests to Philosophy, earning two graduate degrees in the field, an M.A. at University of Southern Mississippi (1988) and a Ph.D. at Michigan State University (1993). After teaching for a year at Moorhead State University in Minnesota, he took a tenure-track position at Taylor University where he continues to teach a range of courses in philosophy, including ethics, history of philosophy, aesthetics, epistemology, philosophy of religion, and apologetics.
Over the years, Jim has authored numerous books and articles on issues in ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, and popular culture, including the award-winning How to Be Good in a World Gone Bad*. In addition to teaching and writing, Jim speaks at colleges, professional conferences, and churches and is frequently interviewed for radio programs.
Jim is an active member of several professional societies, including the American Philosophical Association, the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, the Society of Christian Philosophers, and the Evangelical Philosophical Association. He has refereed for numerous philosophical journals and served as editor of the Berkeley Briefs, the newsletter of the International Berkeley Society. To learn more about Jim’s academic achievements and publication history, you may view his full Curriculum Vitae.
In addition to his scholarly work, Jim is a music enthusiast. He runs a recording studio out of his basement and has produced and engineered album projects for dozens of artists. He also records his own original music. Jim lives in Fairmount, Indiana with his wife, Amy, and his four children, Bailey, Samuel, Magdalene, and Andrew.
*How to Be Good in a World Gone Bad (Subtitle: Living a Life of Christian Virtue) An engaging, down-to-earth manual that helps Christians figure out how to really live a “good” life. Organized around twenty-two virtuous character traits-including humility, discretion, diligence, generosity, creativity, wit, justice, patience, peace, gratitude, faith, and love – this is more than a book of suggestions. This is a manual for how to be “blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation . . .” (Phil.. 2:14)" http://jimspiegel.com/about/
"How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease." sonhouse, I'm not asking you or anyone else here to "believe" any "analysis" by Spiegel or any other author living or dead. It would be encouraging, however, if you could muster the patience to hold your fire until all four installments of the excerpts have been posted; and you've taken the time to assimilate the entire profile assessment [disregarding the review if necessary]. It's the same courtesy you would expect from me. Thanks. -Bob
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeCredit where credit is due - I gave GB the names of several prominent atheist writers/thinkers in another thread, and he went and looked them all up. He is at least willing to do some research and educate himself on the topic. The same cannot be said for many of the other posters here.
Actions speak louder than words.
You do not ACT like one who honestly wants to learn more about atheism.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell it looked to me more like he found and copy/pasted a load of quotes...
Credit where credit is due - I gave GB the names of several prominent atheist writers/thinkers in another thread, and he went and looked them all up. He is at least willing to do some research and educate himself on the topic. The same cannot be said for many of the other posters here.
Whether he read and understood them.....
Well it doesn't look like it to me.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIt would be encouraging, however, if you could muster the patience to hold your fire until all four installments of the excerpts have been posted; and you've taken the time to assimilate the entire profile assessment [disregarding the review if necessary]. It's the same courtesy you would expect from me. Thanks. -Bob
Originally posted by sonhouse
[b]How can we believe the analysis of a Christian who would be biased before he even begins to write? He is writing from the stance that atheism is some kind of disease.
[quote]"Jim earned a B.S. in Biology at Belhaven College in Jackson, Mississippi (1985). From there he turned his interests to Philosophy, e ...[text shortened]... egarding the review if necessary]. It's the same courtesy you would expect from me. Thanks. -Bob[/b]
Classic. Rather than post all of his excerpts at once, GB, for whatever reason, has been only posting them intermittently amongst other posts he has been making. Then he takes others to task for not "muster[ing] the patience to hold [their] fire until all four installments of the excerpts have been posted". That "it's the same courtesy [they] would expect from [him]".
Seriously, who else plays those type of games and then has the effrontery to pretend that it's the others that are somehow at fault?