PZ Myers. 2006 Jan 10. In which I envy the British. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/in_which_i_envy_the_british/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, January 10, 2006
In which I envy the British
In my house, we have one 19" television, which is relegated to the basement. We have basic cable (it's part of our deal to get high speed DSL to the house), and we get 40 or 50 channels. We get TBN and PAX, I can watch Benny Hinn and John Hagee just about any hour of the day (not that I bother), and even our local public access channel is clogged with broadcasts of church services. I can safely predict, though, that I will never see this show on my cable.
The Root of All Evil
Professor Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist, whose atheism has earned him the nickname of 'Darwin's Rottweiler', takes a personal journey through the world's three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Dawkins thinks it is time for science to stop sitting on the fence. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence that, he believes, shows a supreme being cannot exist, and in a world in which religious conflict and bigotry are increasingly centre stage, Dawkins argues that for the good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and disproved. Never one to shy away from a debate, Dawkins meets leaders from the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions to find out how their beliefs fit with modern science's extraordinary knowledge of our world and the wider universe.
In The Root of All Evil Dawkins accuses the religious establishment of preying on people's desire to believe in a greater being; abusing reason and humanity in the process. Ultimately he asks how they can defend what religion has done, and is doing to us?
Can you imagine the shrieks if PBS put that on?
There's a bit of a review in the Sunday Herald.
If this piece of work gets those kinds of results [shaking the middle ground into thinking about the issue], it will be as much because of its tone as its content. Television, like the society from which it broadcasts, has found it expedient to display ever greater tolerance, indulgence and relativism in regard to lifestyle choices, particularly matters of faith. For this reason, Dawkins's eminently reasonable argument may come across as almost radical in its forcefulness.
That's just the thing: the arguments against the nonsense of religion are reasonable and rational, plain common sense, yet people get the trembly vapors in reaction to any criticism of religion. Even those who don't believe get all anxious, worrying that we might alienate that herd of sheep who happen to have the vote over there.
Ophelia Benson is all over it, of course, with quotes from the program. A new blog gets off to a bang with an excellent review of the program (someone who actually watched it last night! I am so jealous.) Dawkins boldly strolled into the lion's den, interviewing an evangelical pastor, Ted Haggard, and showing him up to be an ignorant fool.
One depressing aspect of this programme was watching Dawkins try to talk to the religiously devout. In the US, he meets up with an evangelical pastor, a staunch Republican who claims to have weekly telephone meetings with Bush, himself devout, and who has also hob-knobbed with Blair and other dignitaries. The pastor raises the issue of evolution, and ridicules the notion that the eye happened by "accident". Poor Dawkins must have feared his head would bust, as I did, when he heard this! He replied, incredulously, "Accident?! I've never heard any evolutionary biologist describe evolution as an accident!". The pastor carried on, unfazed, saying that if only Dawkins had read the books that he'd read, spoken with the scientists that he has spoken to, then he might see things differently. To his credit, Dawkins was forthright and said, essentially, that it was clear that the pastor knew nothing about biology, at which point the pastor adopted a slow, deliberate, patronising tone, and told Dawkins not to be arrogant – having just claimed that the bible is correct and unchanging and has the all the answers. He later chased Dawkins off the premises of his religious megaplex, threatening to call the police and accusing Dawkins of calling his children animals (presumably because Dawkins believes in evolution). Words fail me.
Nobody should ever call Dawkins arrogant. On the scale established by American televangelists, by Christians in general, he is a timid model of bashful humility. Pit a man who works for his knowledge, who willingly tests and reviews it continually, against a mob who trusts in revealed knowledge dogmatically, and I'll tell you who the arrogant ones are.
So, anyone know where I can get my hands on a DVD of this program, in NTSC and playable in Region 1? Also, who can I contact about getting the rights to show it—you know that local access channel that shows the Morris church services? I'd love to walk into the city hall and fill out the forms to get this show on the cable.
That Sunday Herald review makes a big deal about the polarizing effect of this kind of thing, and wonders if it is mere preaching to the converted. I don't think so. The thing is that most people are never, ever exposed to this sort of thing in this country—there's a kind of voluntary self-censorship going on—and confronting the issue head-on is exactly what we need. We don't need to convert people to atheism, but we do need to wake them up and let them know that there are legitimate arguments with their unquestioning acceptance of Christian dogma.
If nothing else, it would be good to make more people aware that sneaking into hearing rooms to annoint chairs is embarrassingly insane behavior for the religious to condone.
I just saw the program myself, thanks to BitTorrent. It's very good—especially since I've rarely seen anything that spells out the problems of religion so clearly shown here.
I must also say…Ted Haggard is extraordinarily creepy.
- I agree. The non-thinking middle needs a jolt. That may turn them into (temporarily) a thinking middle. Many would, I bet, agree with Dawkins if they could only see this. They are afraid to voice their doubt because of the atmosphere here, soooo silk-glovey with religion.
- Had to promise to do two minutes of Buddhist chanting in order for me to get all my flatmates watching this but it was worth it. Even better than the US pastor, Dawkins managed to dig up a Jew who had moved to Gaza as a settler and became a Muslim. The guy was convinced that Dawkins had no moral values because 'he allowed women to dress in bikinis'. I can't wait for the virus of faith next week!
-
Channel 4 is usually guilty of showing nothing but endless reality TV, but this show really made me glad that it is broadcast in Ireland, a country that is still overwhelmingly Catholic. I don't mean to pimp, but my most recent blog entry is a response to a letter in the Irish Times last week about religion.
If only religious people would listen with open minds to Dawkins - he was so damned reasonable and as utterly persuasive as he was to me when I first read The Blind Watchmaker. I honestly have never heard a reasonable response to the arguments he advanced on TV yesterday.#: Posted by Stephen Brophy on 01/10 at 09:44 AM - I wish I'd seen this when I was back in the UK over the holidays. Bear in mind also that the UK is a country with an established state religion, yet in a glorious quirk of Britishness the people generally are fine with this kind of thing being aired.
-
Actually I have a friend recording the show for me in the UK. Will send it to you when I'm done...
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 09:45 AM
-
I think I have a new hero. Darwin's Rottweiler - I love it. From the time I was old enough to be chastised for asking too many questions in catechism class, I've been constantly astonished that people believe all this religious drivel and can’t see how they are being used and manipulated. Guess these people don’t know or care a great deal about the history of the human race, either. I have concluded that most people need religion to believe that they are significant. If God cares about me, I must be important. God has a purpose for me, so whatever happens to me is God’s will. What a load of malarkey. I honestly feel sorry for these people. I just wish they’d stop pushing all of their hypocritical ideals on everyone else.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 09:46 AM
-
I watched it and, while not exactly terrible, it really wasn't as good as it could have been. Also, as someone who gets far fewer than one phone call a day on average and only even attempts to watch seriously about one programme a day on average, it was depressingly predictable that someone would ring me during that one programme. It's like they do it deliberately or something. Anyhow, I cut them off quickly and they went to watch it themselves - with them afterwards being disappointed that they had missed most of it.
So not all UK people take proper advantage of being in the UK. Plus any non-UK people who can't get hold of a copy can take some comfort in it not being the best ever TV that they missed.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 10:01 AM -
If you have Bit Torrent (and the bandwidth) you can download part 1 of the series here. Although if you are going to air it on the local cable access channel you'll want the DVD and the broadcast rights and all that. But if you are really anxious to check it out then try getting it through Bit Torrent.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 10:04 AM
-
It was sweeeet! I love the smell of secularism in the morning (now if we can just disestablish the damn church of england). My favorite bit was when the american jewish muslim defended 9/11 by saying that atheists fornicate in the street! I must have been elsewhere at the time.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 10:23 AM
-
Ah Pz... Ever the interesting read. No doubt about it, there are some sick religious folks around the world. But I must say that in my humble opinion, you are too harsh and gleeful of anything opposed to religion. Just like not all scientists fake their work on stem cell research, not all Christians (or people of from other religious traditions) sneak in to annoint chairs.
As a Christian, I respect people like yourself you just don't want to believe and find no reason to. I just think you strike too harsh a tone in condeming anyone that has religious faith, and I wish you would take a kinder stance of agreeing to disagree, particularly with reasonable religious people. There are a lot of us. But somehow being reasonable just hasn't struck the fancy of the media like chair annointers, etc. -
I watched the programme last night and it was so refreshing to see religion approached from an atheist viewpoint. Even though the UK is less religiose than the US such shows are few and far between.
The weakest part of the programme, I thought, was Dawkins's use of the "Mount Improbable" metaphor to illustrate the process of evolution through natural selection. While it's familiar to those interested in the subject, I wonder if it would make any impact on a lay audience.
He also touched the appeal of religion but only in passing and I wondered whether he really understands it. He might go into more detail in the next show though.
One story that I found interesting, because it was new to me, was how the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is not mentioned in the Bible and doesn't appear in Christian writings until several hundred years later so it was probably made up. Dawkins argued that it gained authority purely through repetition until it finally became official Catholic dogma. The obvious implication is that the same might be true of other religious beliefs.
The strongest parts of the programme were the interviews with the Jew-turned-Muslim fanatic in Jerusalem and evangelist Ted Haggard in which the bigotry and dogmatic ignorance of both were exposed. Although the Muslim fanatic's virulent hatred of anything - in his view - un-Islamic was scary, he was at least completely open. It was Haggard who, if anything, was more alarming.
He welcomed Dawkins initially with the smooth affability of a car salesman. Dawkins, to his credit, was unimpressed and commented almost immediately that the slick showmanship of the services reminded him of the Nuremberg rallies and Goebbels. As you've heard, things went downhill after that. The mask slipped completely in the way he ordered Dawkins and the crew off his property.
Dawkins then went to one of the meetings held quietly by a local group of atheists and free-thinkers. They told of the pressure from the religious right, of how openly declaring atheism could cost someone their job and make it very difficult even to find an apartment. The similarity to McCarthyism could not be ignored.
Far from being arrogant, Dawkins came across as a calm, rational and humane man who is, nonetheless, vehement in his opposition to the unreason of religious belief. What was noticeable, though, as another reviewer has pointed out, was how Dawkins appeared shaken by coming face-to-face with the fanatic's hatred and the blatant bigotry of Haggard, the rationalist baffled by such impregnable irrationality.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 10:44 AM -
I saw part 1 last night, and I strongly recommend everyone to see it if they can. Dawkins is a brilliant mind, and he shows the interviwees for what they really are, over and over again.
We are left slightly unsatisfied, I agree, because when he is criticised with astonishing ignorance and untruths by his interviewees, Dawkins doesn't make any attempt to tear their illusions down with cold, hard reason and fact.
Instead he limits himself to asking pointed questions and letting the subjects rant and rave, and in so doing gives them enough rope to hang themselves.
This is a must-see program. Part two is next Monday here in the UK.#: Posted by Nurse Riches on 01/10 at 10:45 AM -
I missed it, but all the strident atheist friends I've asked about it said it was disappointing: Dawkins doesn't come across well on television and there was too much haranguing obvious nutters rather than addressing the equally ludicrous claims of "moderate" religionists.
Here's a better reason to envy the British: Chimp Week.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 10:50 AM - Thanks for the Bit Torrent link, Jason. I doubt that Dawkins would mind if my computer's purpose, for a time, is to exist as a means for the replication and dispersal of his latest (not quite viral, but ought to be) meme.
-
Yeah, PZ, why don't you be kinder and gentler to the people who live their lives by unexamined irrational "beliefs"?
You meanie.
If we'd only let those poor people exist, after all these thousands of years of them being the downtrodden minority, we could all live together so much more happily.
If you were the teeniest bit nicer, I'm sure they'd agree to allow, say, stem cell research to proceed unimpeded. Heck, they might even give up control of the White House and both houses of Congress, and maybe even allow a crack or two to appear in the fawning regard with which the media views them.
PZ, this is all your fault.
If you were only nicer, the full-page-of-free-publicity Church Page which appears in every large U.S. newspaper every Saturday would probably be the Church and Science Together page.
... Or maybe not.
Ocellated, I hope you're writing equally nice letters to express your opinions about, oh, say, Brother Pat Robertson recommending the assassination of a South American leader, or Pastor Fred Phelps saying that those miners were killed because West Virginians are all faggot-lovers. -
Is there any way to order this show on DVD?
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 11:20 AM
-
Does the show address the one response that theists always bring up whenever the sad history of religious warfare and persecution is brought up? Namely "Yeah, Yeah, religions killed a lot of people. But the godless Commies killed more. Take that you heathen!"
#: Posted by Jonathan Badger on 01/10 at 11:31 AM
-
A reviewer at the Guardian has a less-flattering view of this show. I think she makes some really ridiculous points, to wit:
Let's leave the political scientists to point out the absurd simplification of these political struggles over land, rights and resources, but take a wider point. Human beings develop collective identities - ethnic, nationalist, religious or political - and find in them a sense of belonging, of personal identity and solidarity; the problem is how, at points of competition and threat, those identities flare up into horrible violence. Pinning all the blame on religion blindly ignores the evidence; the Rwandan tragedy was about ethnicity, the Holocaust about a racist political ideology. Crucially it fails to grasp the modern phenomenon of fundamentalism and how religious identity is being mobilised in an attempt to carve out positions of power within a rapidly globalising world; this kind of violent religion is a political product of rapid social and economic change.
I think that's basically just wrong.
Anyway, more here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html
I'll leave it to the clearer thinkers here to tear this article to shreds.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 11:37 AM -
I haven't seen the show, but I have to ask about the coverage quoted above . . .
<blockquote>Dawkins thinks it is time for science to stop sitting on the fence. In the light of overwhelming scientific evidence that, he believes, shows a supreme being cannot exist, and in a world in which religious conflict and bigotry are increasingly centre stage, Dawkins argues that for the good of humanity, religion needs to be challenged and disproved.</blockquote.
Is Dawkins really claiming that there is "scientific evidence<em> that a supreme being <em>cannot exist"? There may be logical, or philosophical, arguments one can make, but scientific evidence? That would seem to me to either be poor journalism or a dubious claim by Dawkins. There are plenty of reasons to doubt the veracity of any specific religion, especially the biggies he so rightfully goes after, but I'm skeptical of the above quotation.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 11:44 AM -
note to self<-use "preview". Sorry.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 11:49 AM
-
MikeM:
The overall review was not well thought out, and not well written. However, the snippet which you quote is painfully true. Many conflicts which appear to have religion as a proximal root have deeper ultimate roots. The reviewer mentions 2 well known conflicts: Northern Ireland and Palastine. A large part of both these conflicts are about land, history, and cultural identity. In both cases, invaders came in, engaged in terrorist tactics to subdue the native populace, made portions of the native culture illegal, removed job opportunities for the natives, etc. There are other examples, eg, Muslim/Hindu clashes in northern India. Can you tell me why you would disagree that suppression of a collective identity is a lesser root of conflict than religion?#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:02 PM -
I think there are going to be a lot of complaints about this program in the UK, although im sure Channel 4 were hoping for that as the more complaints it gets this week the more people will watch it next week. Section 4.2 of the broadcasting code states
The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment
And im sure creationists would argue that it also breaks section 4.5
Religious programmes on television services must not seek recruits. This does not apply to specialist religious television services. Religious programmes on radio services may seek recruits.
And a possible reason there aren't many televangelism programs on British TV
4.7 Religious programmes that contain claims that a living person (or group) has special powers or abilities must treat such claims with due objectivity and must not broadcast such claims when significant numbers of children may be expected to be watching (in the case of television), or when children are particularly likely to be listening (in the case of radio).
I thought it was interesting to see Dawkins act with genuine surprise and concern rather than hostility to the people he was interviewing. I especially liked the former jew turned muslim who seemed to blame atheism for the problems in the middle east.
there was too much haranguing obvious nutters rather than addressing the equally ludicrous claims of "moderate" religionists
There was another program on the BBC a few weeks ago about religion presented by Professor Robert Winston (who is jewish)where he interviewed Dawkins, who said that he thought most scientists who were religious were really just following in the traditions of their families. Ill put it online if its ever repeated again, there was also a short debate with Ken Ham.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:10 PM -
I commented on this yesterday and early this morning. I think we must be careful not to play into the "wedge strategy" of the DI and make people feel there is a dichotomy between science and their beliefs. Let them come to their own conclusions, as we have, and hopefully they will adopt a rational worldview, regardless of whether or not it includes a deity. Mine does not, and I disdain dogma and fundamentalism as much as Dawkins, but to achieve what we all hope for (nonexistence thereof) will require an honest approach. We will not be able to use science to convince people god doesn't exist. We can use science to help them learn to think based on evidence, reason logically, use ockham's razor, etc, and from there they ought to be able to make their own conclusions.
#: Posted by Daniel Morgan on 01/10 at 12:13 PM
-
MikeM: I haven't yet read the full article, but I don't see why at least the first part of what she said is ridiculous or wrong. (but see below)
Many conflicts in this world are land disputes or ethnic clashes, "us" vs. "them" stuff. Some of those are wrapped up with religion, some are not. So to this extent I wouldn't pin it all on religion either. But religion can and is a cause of violence in the world, one of several different main drivers.
Also, often a few factors are intertwined and it is often hard to get a clean example of "just religion" or "just land dispute" as a driver. Perhaps the Basque separatist movement may be a good one to remove religion as a variable since the Basques are Catholics in one of the most Catholic countries in the world and still some of them want to separate and are willing to blow people up over it. That's a group identity (language, culture, land) dispute.
I would fault religion but try to equally fault other groupthink phenomena. It's as if there is a common mechanism of obeisance and shutting off one's mind that both relgion and some states and some movements tap into, a condition necessary for the sort of ugly violence and debasement of human dignity that history is rife with.
Her second point doesn't strike me as quite right, though, and maybe this is the beef you had with her? I think violent religious actions crop up for any number of reasons, not as a product of economic change necessarily. My sense is that once you believe things you have no good reason to believe, all bets are off in terms of behavior. You know, Voltaire's, "if they can make you believe absurdities, they can get you to commit atrocities." (though Voltaire may have never said quite that).#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:19 PM -
Is Dawkins really claiming that there is "scientific evidence that a supreme being cannot exist"?
Not in this program, all he said was:There is no well demostrated reason to beleive in god
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:22 PM -
Daniel, I'm afraid I have to side with PZ- I'm sick of the double standard. Believers in every kind of nonsense are positively encouraged to shove it in my face, but utter a peep against irrational beliefs and you are immediately warned to shush lest you frighten the sheep. What minority has ever found that staying in the closet was the royal road to toleration?
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:28 PM
-
"As a Christian, I respect people like yourself you just don't want to believe and find no reason to. I just think you strike too harsh a tone in condeming anyone that has religious faith, and I wish you would take a kinder stance of agreeing to disagree, particularly with reasonable religious people. There are a lot of us. But somehow being reasonable just hasn't struck the fancy of the media like chair annointers, etc."
There are a lot of reasionable religionists? Where at? I've lived among Christians all my life and I've never met one I'd class as within millions of miles of reasonable. Why, just consider the kneejerk defends of faith, the very essence of unreasonableness.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:34 PM -
I disagree with the Guardian review because I really do believe the Holocaust was the result of religious bigotry. That "We" are better than "Them" (Jews). The "We" in this case may or may not have been the member of a particular religion, but the "Them" definitely were.
But really, read the rest of her review. I think she's nuts.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:35 PM -
I would love to see this program. Can anyone say whether, aside from the usual suspects, fundamentalists etc, Dawkins interviews or will interview some theists of a little more, shall we say, intellectual heft? Head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, for example? Head of the Vatican observatory.
I realize there's alot of entertainment value to interviewing the low end of the spectrum, but it might be more enlightening to have him challenge some theists with degrees in science and philosophy.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 12:35 PM -
To the person who asked, I've criticized Robertson on my blgo for his statements every time he makes them. I know that many people are using religion to further their own power and agenda. I don't deny this.
But just because some religious people are doing this, doesn't in any way mean that all religious people are doing this.
To the person who's never met a reasonable religous person, you really should get outside a little more. I certainly consider myself reasonable. (I know a lot of people would argue the point, thinking that having faith is unreasonable.) But even if that's the way you feel, that doesn't mean that I can't (and am not) reasonable when it comes to discussing science.
Ken Miller is another reasonable person. He very much supports sound teaching of science and it's methods. He's alos a Christian. Francis Collins also isn't some ignorant hick turning to the bible for his work with the human genome project. But he turns to the bible for his metaphysics, same as I.
You may think we're nuts for being religious. That I don't deny. But it saddens me that some so blindly act as though all Christians share Robertson's views and are incapable of using reason and contributing towards science. -
We don't deny that. We're glad you're capable of stably maintaining cognitive dissonance. Just don't ask us to find that admirable.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 01:27 PM
-
We don't need to convert people to atheism, but we do need to wake them up and let them know that there are legitimate arguments with their unquestioning acceptance of Christian dogma.
That's right! Teach the controversy! Isn't that what they've all been asking for?
Bwahahaha.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 02:31 PM -
I was of the opinion that Dawkins made a very poor advocate against religion. He throws the baby out with the bathwater and makes claims about the inherent evils of religion that could easily be pointed back at science (Nazi and Japanese experimentation on humans, for example).
Far better was Dr. Jonathan Miller's recent BBC series on the history of atheism. Far better reasoning, far more persuasive, less of the grandstanding.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 02:36 PM -
Has anyone downloaded the supposed bit-torrent file with "The root of all evil?"? Is it real or fake. If it's real and you have it, please seed it. Thanks!
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 02:54 PM
-
I watched the last 40 minutes of the Dawkins programme, and have to side with the people who were a tad disappointed - certainly, on the evidence of what I saw it was markedly less compelling than Jonathan Miller's superb A Brief History of Disbelief, one of the most outstanding series British television has come up with in recent years.
That said, many of the problems were to do with presentation rather than content: Miller is into his fifth decade on television (on both sides of the camera: he's one of the medium's most innovative directors) and can do this stuff in his sleep, while Dawkins' relative inexperience was a little too obvious at times - Miller was cooly analytical while Dawkins was much more emotive.
That said, Dawkins delivered head-on confrontations that Miller tended to shy away from, so in the final analysis I'm just glad that British television is prepared to broadcast both! And if you want a rock-solid argument in favour of a strongly public-service oriented broadcast system...#: Posted by on 01/10 at 02:54 PM -
Ok, anyone who is an agnostic is a secret Christian unworthy of admiration or respect, whether or not they claim Christian beliefs. Anyone who is truly and sincerely religious is an open Christian unworthy of admiration and respect. All people who profess religious beliefs or the possibility of religious beliefs are frothing-at-the-mouth crazies, who on occasion can maintain enough cognitive dissonance to engage in science, the only holy thing in the world. ;)
If, somehow, the atheist minority were able to magically, overnight, convert everyone in the world to the proper rational mode of thinking, how would the world be a better place? Let's assume that the magical transformation allows everyone to have a good working knowledge of the current scientific knowledge base, and allows them to dump all the culture and social mores that are based on religion alone. Further, this transformation does not change their personalities in any other way. How would utopia happen?
I don't think the world would be much different. The names and reasons given for behaviors would change, the behaviors themselves would not change.
An example: I know many people who decry antibiotic resistance and have contempt for the ignorant sobs who don't understand or accept the part evolution plays in that resistance. But, when it comes to their health (or that of their family or pets or even livestock), they are right there with the unwashed herds, demanding antibiotics for any illness or injury they sustain, whether or not it makes sense in that particular illness or injury. When it's pointed out that they are contributing to a worldwide problem, they stoutly maintain that they *need* the antibiotic.
I suspect that similar attitudes would prevail on most of the issues that face the world, political, social, environmental, etc. It is pleasant for both atheists and hard core religious to sit in a position of smug superiority, believing that the world would be a better place if all those ignorant masses would just convert to the one best way to think, but I suspect that if either side was able to overcome, the reality wouldn't be very pleasant for anyone.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 03:10 PM -
Note that The Guardian also published this: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,11109,1682655,00.html
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 04:05 PM
-
MikeM:
I did read the entire article. As I said, it wasn't well thought out or well written. Nevertheless, the roots of the Holocaust lay in theosophy and German nationalism, and in Hitler's slick campaign. There are anti-semites all over the world, but it took the special combination of post WWI Germany and Adolf Hitler's charisma to bring about the Holocaust. It wasn't just Jews who were targeted. It was all non-Aryans, with Aryans defined according the tenets of theosophy. Hitler recognized non-whte Aryans as being members of the master race. Poles didn't count, but inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent did. That's evidence against the Holocaust being perpetrated by a group of people holding one set of religious beliefs against a second group of people holding a different set of religious beliefs. It was more a case of massive racism rooted in mystical thinking. It's similar to massive racism based on religion, but is not actually religiously based.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 04:47 PM -
The torrent up on mininova appears to be dead. Would anyone that downloaded it mind seeding it over night? I'd like to grab it when I get home from work.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 05:26 PM
-
The torrent to this show looks dead. Would anyone who download it be willing to seed it tonite? I'd like to check this out. Thanks.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 05:56 PM
-
Don't let the "dead torrent" status fool you. I've been on that torrent since it was first uploaded. Right now it has 50+ seeds and 200+ leechers. I'm watching it right now.
#: Posted by Heathen Dan on 01/10 at 06:03 PM
-
I think the programme was let down by it's choice of interviewees, which seemed more geared to provoking confrontation than providing insight. All we really learnt was:
1. Dawkins doesn't think much of religion.
2. Evangelical Christians have problems with science in general and evolution in particular.
3. The Middle East is really screwed up.
None of which is particularly news. Hopefully part two will be more illuminating. - I've written a fairly long point-by-point reply to Bunting's article; it's at: http://psom.blogspot.com/2006/01/reply-to-buntings-review-of-root-of.html
-
"Yeah, Yeah, religions killed a lot of people. But the godless Commies killed more."
Interesting argument. I would say that both communism (the idelistic policy) and Communism (the perverted practice) were faithbased, or rather religions since they organised huge groups.
Communism failed miserably when it was tested which is _another_ argument _against_ religious practices. Duh!#: Posted by on 01/10 at 07:23 PM -
"(I know a lot of people would argue the point, thinking that having faith is unreasonable.)"
Faith is in itself unreasonable and should be avoided.
"But even if that's the way you feel, that doesn't mean that I can't (and am not) reasonable when it comes to discussing science."
Shall we see? A man's been dead for three days. Killed by professionals. Does he come back to life? If it matters, let's say this happens in the environs of Jerusalem. Such a thesis is clearly within the realm of science. The revivification of dead tissue is certainly a legitimate area of inquiry, where science would have persuasive sway. Is it your opinion that such an event has been known to happen?
"Ken Miller is another reasonable person."
He might be. How does he feel about dead tissue spontaneously coming back to life?
"He very much supports sound teaching of science and it's methods."
I shall grant that, from what little I know of the man he's clearly not an evolution denier. But this does not in itself make him reasonable. It would be entirely possible for one to be persuaded that evolution happens by what one imagines are the voices of invisible space goats that live in one's anus, where they practice ballroom dancing and phrenology in addition to acting as pundits on science. Such a person might reach a conclusion I agree with, but this does not mean that this same person is reasonable.
"He's alos a Christian. Francis Collins also isn't some ignorant hick turning to the bible for his work with the human genome project. But he turns to the bible for his metaphysics, same as I."
That's terribly unfortunate. I suppose that means you do think that the dead spontaneously return to life after a few days as the formerly living. How could that possibly be considered reasonable in light of all human experience to date is truly beyond me. I reckon rather that you would believe in the tooth fairy and the anus goats had you been raised to the belief from childhood.
My thesis here is not "Christian=unreasonable bigot". On the contrary, my thesis is that faith is anti-rational and thus people adhereing to it clearly cannot be considered reasonable. That this is going to include virtually every Christian (including people I consider friends, family members, and even people who agree with me on almost every other issue like John Shelby Spong) because of the specifics of Christian belief is really not my fault. I didn't invent Christianity. Nor did I invent Wicca, Voodoo, Islam, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Judaism, Santeria, or any of the other faith systems one might adopt excepting that I created with the anus goats for purposes of this post.
I wish I could tell you that could someone create a version of Christianity that met with my approval on the reasonableness standard, I would be pleased. But honestly, I don't really care. I'd rather the whole mess die a quiet death and never have to hear any god-bothering again, be it about Jesus, his father, Vishnu, Allah, or any of the rest. But I have a rather firm and keen respect for human rights, so I am content to let that death be a natural one and even to peacefully coexist until that time. But peaceful coexistance does not imply such an open-mindedness that my brain falls out. I have no problem simultaneously defending the right to believe whatever half-assed nonsense one wishes and criticizing such insanities on their merits.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 08:04 PM -
"If, somehow, the atheist minority were able to magically, overnight, convert everyone in the world to the proper rational mode of thinking, how would the world be a better place?"
As a gay man, my life would be improved almost beyond measure.
"Let's assume that the magical transformation allows everyone to have a good working knowledge of the current scientific knowledge base, and allows them to dump all the culture and social mores that are based on religion alone. Further, this transformation does not change their personalities in any other way. How would utopia happen?"
The jettisoning of religious social mores ALONE would be the single most wonderful event in all of human history. It would be such a profound moment that I think it would almost demand a new system of dating and counting years that derived from it. I don't think I'm capable of articulating how much better of a place the world would be.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 08:15 PM -
Samnell: Shall we see? A man's been dead for three days. Killed by professionals. Does he come back to life? If it matters, let's say this happens in the environs of Jerusalem. Such a thesis is clearly within the realm of science. The revivification of dead tissue is certainly a legitimate area of inquiry, where science would have persuasive sway. Is it your opinion that such an event has been known to happen?
This looks like a rehash of the "miracles don't happen because miracles don't happen" argument, and it's exactly the sort of thing that encourages the stereotype of the arrogant atheist. You could have made intelligent objections, such as pointing out that religious enthusiasm tends to diminish the reliability of human testimony, that miracle report tend to be hearsay, and that when miracle reports have been investigated, they tend to be less than meets the eye. But, no, you begged the question instead.
With Dawkins as a role model, your level of rigor is understandable, though. Unless Dawkins' rhetoric has improved on that Channel 4 show, he keeps repeating sloppy arguments such as "religion is a mind virus," where he substitutes an unflattering metaphor for actual argument, noting the conflicts involving religion without regard as to whether the underlying tensions in the conflict were really religious rather than ethnic and nationalistic. His "who designed the designer" argument would have potential if he actually defended why God would have to be complex to do the things ascribed to him, instead of handwaving that it was "obvious." He is bold in his rhetoric, but doesn't back it up with any decent rigor, and it's that combination of brashness and sloppiness that leads me to say that he is as arrogant as a creationist.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 09:13 PM -
Mr. Ramsey, I presume, is an expert on arrogance.
#: Posted by on 01/10 at 09:51 PM
-
"This looks like a rehash of the "miracles don't happen because miracles don't happen" argument, and it's exactly the sort of thing that encourages the stereotype of the arrogant atheist."
I'm offering an opinion. If I wanted to get into a discussion with any intellectual standards, I wouldn't have been addressing a theist at all. That's like trying to get around Paris with only screamed English. Specifically, the poster I replied to was trying to invoke some form of reasonable Christian. I laid out a major criterion for reasonability which every Christian I've ever met failed. End of story.#: Posted by on 01/10 at 09:53 PM -
About the response of a double standad--this double standard is advocated by irrational people. They are the ones pushing evangelism. Do you want to become an irrational, evangelistic atheist? (although I do love his blog) If we don't keep the moral high ground, we're just as "religious" as they are.
#: Posted by Daniel Morgan on 01/10 at 09:54 PM
-
Make sure that you seed the documentary via bittorrent when you are finished downloading so that the rest of us can get it. It appears the original seeder on mininova dissapeared.
#: Posted by on 01/11 at 12:02 AM
-
I have to take issue with both Ramsey and Samnell, though for different reasons. Ramsey seems to have a basic misunderstanding of what religion and faith involve. If you believe by faith that a person rose from the dead and was assumed into heaven, then clearly science has nothing to say on the matter because we are talking about the supernatural. Now, science can prove that something isn't supernatural (at least to the rational observer), but it can't prove that something is supernatural. Hopefully you can accept that without further argument, it's simply a question of the definitions of the scientific method and faith. So I can understand why a Christian would not want to argue the resurrection of JC on scientific terms, because it's not a scientific issue. As to whether it's rational, well, I dare say there is no such thing as perfectly rational. For example, I love pets because they give me a sense of purpose (being single and unattached), much like theists like god because it makes them feel important and gives them a sense of purpose. So I have my dogs, and they have their god. So am I irrational for liking dogs?
Now, on to Samnell and your vastly arrogant "If I wanted to get into a discussion with any intellectual standards, I wouldn't have been addressing a theist at all". Arrogance is equally distasteful from the mouth of a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic because in all three cases its purpose is the same: to claim a lock on the absolute truth and to disdain any opposing opinions. Now, I will grant you that it is a waste of time to argue with IDiots or young earth creationists because they refuse to believe what science has proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. But to imply that all theists are a bunch of babbling fools who cower in fear any time a comet appears in the heavens is insulting. I think Einstein could have given you more than your money's worth of intellectual discussions, and he was a pretty darn good scientist, or so I'm told. And no, I am not a theist.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 12:53 AM -
Sergio, I'm thinking that you MUST see a difference between loving your dogs, which are right there with you, and loving ... well, an alleged superbeing for which no objective evidence exists, and which you will never in your life see or hear or touch.
I'd have to say the first qualifies easily as a rational act, and the second qualifies easily as irrational. -
Even so, the shit has hit the fan over here (London England) because the arts-untrained cognoscenti (huh!) are up in arms about Dawkins "rudeness" - taking no notice of the arraogance of say, the mulsim council of Britain, or Ian Paisley or ....
You get the idea.
The concept that someone,or a group of someones can be completely, deliberately totally wrong, doesn't seem to have got through to their apologies-for-brains - yet.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 03:04 AM -
Sirs,
Why on earth has hardly anyone noticed that Dawkins made no identifiable arguments to back up his repeated assertions that faith and science are inimicals sorts of things? Why, indeed, has Dawkins not noticed that it's rather odd to set science and faith in opposition to each other, since they are quite different sorts of things? Some explanation of the kind of knowledge acquired by empirical investigation, or some actual engagement with some serious theology, would have been interesting (how would the man deal with Thomism), but no, we just got assertion after assertion. Sad. And it doesn't reflect well on Oxford, alas. -
Hank,
I do see a difference, but I also recognize that there are MANY people who believe in God who would not see a difference, in fact, they would claim to love their god infinitely more than I love my dog, and I can also recognize that there are people who love neither dogs nor gods and who would call us both irrational. My point is that no one has a lock on rational thought, not atheists, theists, or undecided, and to call someone irrational just because they happen to have some irrational beliefs is arrogant, and more than likely hypocritical as well.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 07:07 AM -
The best aspect of the show for me was the magazine ad for it (I think it was in the Sunday Times): It was a picture of the New York skyline, including the World Trade Center towers, with the caption "A World Without Religion".
#: Posted by Rory Parle on 01/11 at 07:43 AM
-
Even so, the shit has hit the fan over here (London England)...
Where's that? My paper (The Independent) has a couple of mildly disapproving letters but I've not seen any seriously OTT rants.#: Posted by Bob Dowling on 01/11 at 08:02 AM -
audio for Root of Evil:
http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove2/movies/root_of_evil_010906.mov#: Posted by on 01/11 at 09:18 AM -
To be fair, Bob, the Independent's letters page is hardly representative of British public opinion. I haven't heard any uproar either, but then I'm surrounded by evil atheist journalists.
#: Posted by on 01/11 at 09:29 AM
-
SergioPOE: Ramsey seems to have a basic misunderstanding of what religion and faith involve.
I'm fairly familiar with religion and faith, including the pitfalls. My point was that there are intelligent objections to be made against doctrines like the resurrection and to various religions, but that Samnell and Dawkins overlook them in favor of cheap and superficial arguments that are far too common in atheist/skeptical circles. Dawkins, if anything, is a bad example for atheists because of his sloppiness.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 09:38 AM - I'm curious to know what the cheap and superficial objections are, and would also like to see them contrasted with the powerful and deep objections.
-
Regarding Mr. Haggard, let me get this straight: An animal chased another animal off his property because he felt his children were being called animals.
Sounds perfectly rational to me!
...there are intelligent objections to be made against doctrines like the resurrection...
Indeed. My favorite is "Oh, really?", followed by a good hard laugh.
What is cheap and superficial is the eggshell treatment people feel compelled to give such absurd proposals.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 10:14 AM -
Re: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html
I'm with MikeM that I think the argument made here is old, beside the point, and not well thought through. The issue is the application of irrational beliefs to daily life and thought. It is odd to distinquish between secular humanism and atheistic humanism, and proclaim that the 20th century was the great proving ground for atheistic governments' shortcomings as if there is consonance between humanism and despotism (communist or otherwise). Not having the particulars of the Rwandan conflict, the issue with the Third Reich was essentially replacing religion mythology with national mythology.
Essentially the columnist makes a conservative point with typical elitist and romantic arrogance ("The world is with us quick and soon....")that the unwashed masses cannot appreciate the wonder of this life without superstition; and it is the superstition that keeps them to the moral and ethical up and up. What she fails to consider is that humanism is a world view on the personal level, it does not ramp up into higher abstract categories of social organization. Its vision rest on personal perfectability, and on as simple a dictum as "do no harm."
I find it quite odd that one should be expected to empathize with the cramped world view of a peasant with a known world of five miles radius, as if this were cause for why religion should be tolerated--the natural predictable change in the seasons is basis enough for awe, and does not strike me as irrational. Parochialism is not a great justification for ignorance, but a limited manifestation; and it is in attending a church that one could glimpse the larger outside world--so its perfectly appropriate to favor latin over the vulgate, to maintain this circumscribed world view? One may tolerate that was how things were 1,000 years ago, it is no justification to tolerate such now.
I think to treat religion as being irrational, and not consider that ethnic identification as being equally irrational, is to introduce an artifice to how one divvies up the epistemological space, with out consideration that both are hoisted on the same petard.
Mike#: Posted by on 01/11 at 10:27 AM -
PZ Myers: I'm curious to know what the cheap and superficial objections are, and would also like to see them contrasted with the powerful and deep objections.
I briefly mentioned it already. Look at the second paragraph for mentions of the superficial objections, and look at the first paragraph for some of the better objections.
Also, I'd say that if you are attacking Judaism and Christianity, it helps to take a look at some critical scholarship on the matter. The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible is a book by Robin Lane Fox that is written at a popular level, but is a readable overview of various issues. For discussion of the resurrection accounts, see The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives by Reginald H. Fuller, The Resurrection of Christ by Gerd Ludemann (who, IMHO, gets too dogmatic about his conclusions but nonetheless is good at pointing out details of problems in the Resurrection narratives), and Resurrecting Jesus by Dale Allison, especially the chapter which has the same title as the book.
I have found two books very worthwhile in the discussion of dealing with miracle accounts: Hume's Abject Failure by John Earman, and A Defense of Hume on Miracles by Robert J. Fogelin. The latter book includes a critique of the former, but while Earman may not have attacked Hume's actual argument on miracles (which is actually kind of hard to follow), he does succeed in attacking bad arguments against miracles which have been attributed to Hume, such as Samnell's "miracles don't happen because miracles don't happen" question begging.
These aren't necessarily objections to religion in themselves, but they do provide the background to make such objections.
I guess a tongue-in-cheek way of putting it would be to say that if you are going to object to the story of Jesus' virgin birth, it is more intelligent to point out how Luke took leave of his census than to beat your breast and howl about the immutability of the laws of nature. Somewhat similarly, it makes more sense to deal with the problems of the unreliability of human testimony about extraordinary things than to beg the question about miracles the way Samnell did.
BTW, James Crossley, a Biblical scholar who is himself non-religious, had his own comments about the Channel 4 program.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 10:31 AM -
J.J, what exactly can science say against the resurrection? That ever since the scientific method has been in place that one has never been documented? That there is no medical basis for it? It is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative. Those who believe in the resurrection do so because of faith and they don't need science to back them up. We need to concentrate our efforts in areas where science can give a nearly definitive answer such as in debunking ID and YEC (and I use the qualifier "nearly" for those philosophers who would argue that nothing is definitive). Science has absolutely nothing to say about god, for or against, and we need to keep it that way or people are going to be forced into making a choice between the two. And as it stands now in the U.S., I fear science would lose.
#: Posted by on 01/11 at 10:38 AM
-
RE: Are science and religion incompatible? Many of my scientist colleagues try to maintain that there is no conflict between science and religion. To these friends, I would ask: If the Big Bang explains the origin of the universe, if you agree that the Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago by natural processes, and that all life forms including humans evolved over time, what is there left of any importance for a "creator" to have created? If the creator created nothing of importance why should he/she/it be worshipped? Certainly a person who believed these well established scientific theories would not believe that God steps in to help some recover from cancer or find parking spaces while leaving others to die or be forced to park miles from their destination. That leaves the last reason to believe in God- that there is some kind of afterlife. My question would then be, where exactly is heaven and what do people do there for all of eternity that makes it so great? No one seems to have an answer for this one.
I don't think a lot of people of religious faith ask themselves these simple questions or answer them in an honest way. Thanks to Pz and Dawkins for forcing the issue.
If people spent more time trying to make the Earth a better place instead of concentrating on the next life, we might really get somewhere.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 10:39 AM -
' If you believe by faith that a person rose from the dead and was assumed into heaven'
Why does science not have anything to say on this? If a body can come back to life i think a remarkable process has occurred, if it really happened in a real world sense science has something to say. If a man lifts of Earth and ascends to the sky sans equipment, science certainly has something to say.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 10:46 AM -
'We need to concentrate our efforts in areas where science can give a nearly definitive answer'
I think it has in the area of death. Your dead when your dead. I think most religious questions are best answered in a simple manner.
Just ask for proof, if none is produced move on.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 10:51 AM -
SergioPOE: J.J, what exactly can science say against the resurrection?
Think psychology and sociology, not physiology. Also add critical historical scholarship to the mix. The question is not whether it is naturally possible for a dead body to rise. If it were, then the Resurrection would not be a purported miracle. The real question is whether the accounts of the resurrection that we have are reliable enough to constitute extraordinary proof for an extraordinary event. To deal with that, we may be able to make some use of, say, studies of Elizabeth Loftus on the malleability of memory, studies of Leon Festinger on cognitive dissonance, studies about grief-induced hallucinations. We can look at some parallels with the miracle stories about Sabbatai Sevi to get an idea of how fast miracle reports spread. We can look at some of the contradictions and other issues in the Gospels to judge how reliable the authors were.
SergioPOE: Those who believe in the resurrection do so because of faith and they don't need science to back them up.
If that were completely true, there would be no such thing as apologetics.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 11:00 AM -
If people spent more time trying to make the Earth a better place instead of concentrating on the next life, we might really get somewhere.
Whoo. Exactly!
In "The End of Faith," Sam Harris said at one point that religion is the greatest tragedy ever to happen to the human race. What Raindog just said is probably THE main reason.
It's probably better explained in "Sucking Up to the Virgin Mary" if any of you want to read it. http://www.hankfox.com/VirginMary.htm
(Sorry about the blogpimp thing.) -
J.J. I agree with you in part but you still have natural laws that you just can't ignore. It does lead to a faith claim BUT all faith claims also make real world claims.
The main thing with ideas like these is people look at them in the past and think differently than the operating system they use in the present. If you go to a funeral you know that body is not sitting up and talking without scaring the bejesus out of everyone. But tell them it happened 2000 years ago and it becomes possible.
It's a cognitive dissonance.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 11:18 AM -
Mr Ramsey, the problem with your complaint is that it presupposes too much and gives religion far too much credit. I assure you that my good Lutheran grandmother did not trouble herself with convoluted apologetics, nor did she do theological research: she'd been brought up in the religion, she'd been told by religious authorities and her parents what to believe, and she accepted the dogma without question.
You're going to say that this is the "arrogant atheist's" position, but religion is simply absurd. Demanding that criticisms of dogma require references to Hume, knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew, and careful citations of the philosophical and theological literature is overkill, and doesn't address in any way the actual foundations of religious belief. I guarantee you that Ted Haggard is no scholar who founded a megachurch as a consequence of a deep philosophical insight.
Splitting hairs over translations and the date of a census are proper historical efforts, but ignore the major thrust of the story -- this strange and improbable business of a god being born to a virgin. It's as if there's an elephant in the room, and your reaction is to belittle the people who point out the obvious, and instead encourage us all to discuss whether Pliny's account of the behavior of elephants was accurate or not.
It's good to have people who point and laugh and mock and say the simple, obvious things, just because they are simple and obvious and so many ignore them. Too often, this business of nagging people to pursue the esoteric and the detailed and the abstract is a ploy to get everyone to ignore the elephant. -
If that were completely true, there would be no such thing as apologetics.
Apologetics has nothing to do with any kind of science. It's word-wrangling, efforts to make post hoc rationalizations for the ridiculous, all with the intent to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. It is the antithesis of scientific thinking. -
JJ, the vast majority of believers have no need for apologetics, they couldn't even tell you what the word means. To them, the Bible is a credible (if not infallible) document that is far enough removed in the past that no amount of modern research is going to completely debunk the entire Bible (for fundies, you'd be hard pressed to have them admit that there is one single contradiction in it, because if there's just one, then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.) I maintain that science, almost by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural aspects of religion, unless it can positively rule out such an event (which would be of little use since they have an unending supply).
Can you prove that the resurrection didn't take place? No, and since science is about proving, then let's stick to what science does best and let the theists worry about their myths.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 12:02 PM -
"Can you prove that the resurrection didn't take place? No, and since science is about proving, then let's stick to what science does best and let the theists worry about their myths."
Science is not about proving. You're thinking of mathematics. Different thing.
No one can prove the resurrection didn't take place, but is that a reason to believe it did? There's an infinite number of things no one can prove didn't take place; is that a reason for believing all of them? Or any of them? It's possible to believe anything and everything; but is that a good reason for doing so?
No one can prove the resurrection didn't take place, but there's an abundance of evidence that it is exceedingly unlikely that the resurrection took place. That is relevant. Hence science does have something to say about the resurrection.#: Posted by Ophelia Benson on 01/11 at 12:31 PM -
"Arrogance is equally distasteful from the mouth of a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic because in all three cases its purpose is the same: to claim a lock on the absolute truth and to disdain any opposing opinions."
I proudly avow disdain for all forms of religion, just as I avow such disdain for racism.
"But to imply that all theists are a bunch of babbling fools who cower in fear any time a comet appears in the heavens is insulting. I think Einstein could have given you more than your money's worth of intellectual discussions, and he was a pretty darn good scientist, or so I'm told. And no, I am not a theist."
When it comes to his religious opinions, Einstein was as much a soft-headed fool as Bill Dembski. He merely did not expect us to take him so seriously as Dembski does. What all religionists do, and this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion with them, is compartmentalize. All their critical faculties, however vast or meager, flee at the slightest hint of god-bothering. Insofar as they are committed to faith, they cannot be reasoned with.#: Posted by on 01/11 at 12:57 PM -
"The latter book includes a critique of the former, but while Earman may not have attacked Hume's actual argument on miracles (which is actually kind of hard to follow), he does succeed in attacking bad arguments against miracles which have been attributed to Hume, such as Samnell's "miracles don't happen because miracles don't happen" question begging."
You know, I do wonder who possessed my brain and posted this argument you keep attributing to me. I offered the opinion that belief in the resurrection (which most Christian sects will tell you is mandatory to get the name) is unreasonable. Without saying anything to the effect of miracles not happening because miracles don't happen, I've somehow had this argument tagged on me. My own prior effort to clarify my meaning is completely in vain.
Let's try this one more time: my position is that belief in the resurrection is unreasonable. I did not offer reasons. I was not actually asked for them. If anything, I was explicating my understanding of what makes a person reasonable and why I have yet to meet a reasonable Christian (or any other religionist).
My reasons for holding this opinion actually have a great deal to do with the issues you yourself mentioned about the unreliability of the accounts as well as the vast scientific improbabilities. Imagine that.
I also don't recall calling Dawkins a hero of mine (I do think he's dead wrong on a few issues, so he'd at least have to be more of an anti-hero, which is at least a bit trendy.) either but such has been imputed to me. He is, however, an excellent and entertaining writer.#: Posted by