Quote:Well I wouldn't say "never." But, in the context of The God Delusion, largely yes. Consider, however, the significant contributions Dawkins has made to the public consumption of biology, genetics and evolution. His work is noteworthy, and it is a momentous contribution to the atheist discussion. That is why I am so disappointed with The God Delusion. He fell out of his expertise to give a nod to philosophy, law, theology and sociology. Fields I don't think he has much experience in, and with which he doesn't seem to bother to acquaint himself.To be honest, and I don't want to overstate this because Dawkins has made significant contributions to, as you put it, "the public consumption of biology, genetics and evolution", but he really has had very few original ideas. He's more of a populariser of other people's ideas than an individual who comes up with any great new ideas, the one important exception being the meme. Wilson, Hamilton, Pinker, Tooby and Cosmides have all probably contributed more than him, but he gets the publicity.Quote:I'm not sure about that, or if that is even the intent of the book. (I do realize that is what I actually wrote, but it was a flippant statement used to make a different point.) I think, instead and more accurately, Dawkins wrote a book that makes atheists feel secure in their conclusion (which makes them feel good). He also wrote a book to make atheists feel justifiably indignant about the special consideration theists receive socially. (I haven't finished the book yet, but I'm guessing he also wrote a book that justifies the harsh criticism directed at religion.)The problem I'm finding with the book is that it should not make atheists feel secure in their conclusion and it should not make them all that indignant. The reason I say this is that Dawkins doesn't make great arguments a lot of the time, or at least, his treatment of the counter-arguments is less that what is required. Now maybe atheists should feel secure in their conclusions, and maybe they should be indignant about the special treatment given to certain religions, but The God Delusion does not support these assertions particularly well. It's all very shallow.Quote:I have absolutely no problem with this. As I said before, I don't want a book like The God Delusion to "represent" atheism, but he's entitled to market his book. I saw Dawkins when he came to speak here; he is an engaging and witty public speaker. My hope is that this opens the door to his other more distinguished works. (I hope that is Dawkins' intent too.)Of course he's entitled to market his book, but if people become atheists because of solely because of Dawkins work, well then they aren't really great critical thinkers. In fact, Dawkins is pursuiting a form of indoctrination. It's like he's said already he's abandoned the "even-handed, BBC approach" and he's depending on things other than the strength of his argument to persuade people that his conclusion is the only rational one.Quote:I get the image of a master martial artist who is constantly challenged to fights by people less equipped to do battle. I imagine Dawkins is constantly forced to engage these mental twits (please note, I am not claiming that all theists are mental twits, just that Dawkins must encounter his fair share of them). If his reaction to this culminating frustration is The God Delusion, then so be it. I don't think it reflects well on Dawkins or his other scholarship, but I don't think he really cares about my puny opinion anyway.Nice image, but I'm seriously starting to revise my opinion of Dawkins intelligence. In my eyes, he's less some sort of Master-Ninja and more like Enemy-Thug#3. He might not care much about your puny opinion, but given what I've seen Dawkin's debating skills, you'd most likely kick his scrawny ass! Full of Porn*http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Minor update on Dawkins and Northern Ireland: In last weeks Sunday Independent there was an interview with Dawkins. In it, he makes a comment where he says that in the Northern Ireland conflict, labels like Catholic and Protestants were just convenient labels and not the cause of the conflict.Now that confuses me a little. Maybe he's only just recently researched the conflict (I suspect he may have been forced to after reviews like that of Terry Eaglton) or maybe he was just exaggerating in The God Delusion. Either way, hopefully, he'll edit such blunders in future versions of The God Delusion.You know, there's the skeleton of a really good book in The God Delusion. It's a pity Dawkins hadn't let the dust settle on his first draft before publishing the book.

Niall:It does read like a rough draft. FiskeI especially laughed at the bit (chapter 3) where he claims to have stymied a group of theologians with an ontological proof that pigs can fly but had unfortunately forgotten the details of his proof. If the book's editor was paid at all, the publisher has grounds for a lawsuit in my opinion...

Garicker: However, I also think it's worth noting that the Court could have ruled on the constitutionality of the law, whether it was addressed in the government's brief or not. By failing to do so, the Court enabled the privileging of religion under RFRA.I know this is a bit late, and I don't want to harp on this point (I'm sometimes known as a harpy among my friends). After a bit of research (hence the delay in responding), I'm pretty confident that the Court would not rule on constitutionality in this particular case. It is true, the Court can rule on constitutionality issues even if they are not raised by counsel. However, they are highly unlikely to do so, primarily because counsel would be unprepared to argue on the issues if they had no intention to raise the issues in the first place. The most likely course of action for the Supreme Court to take in such cases is to make a dictum at the end of their Opinion stating what they feel the constitutionality issue is. This has two purposes. First, it declares that they are not making a ruling on constitutionality, merely on the facts presented; second, it notes the constitutionality issue in the event it was missed. In UDV, the appeal taken to the Supreme Court was predominantly a procedural issue. The Supreme Court would not rule on constitutionality, would not even issue a dictum, on a case that was brought to them on minor procedural issues. This is especially so when the constitutionality of RFRA was already being challenged in the courts. I still hold, this is not a case where the courts granted religious privileging. Until RFRA makes it before the Supreme Court in a solid case arguing the violation of an individual's constitutional rights, RFRA will stand. This is especially hard to do because RFRA does not directly violate anyone's rights. It indirectly violates the rights of those who don't benefit from RFRA. This goes back to garicker's point in a different thread, the Court's are not solely responsible in upholding the Constitution; it needs to be a focus in the legislature too.

Niall, I meant to post this weeks ago and just forgot. Have you gotten to page 259 yet? Dawkins readdresses Ireland's troubles: "Yes yes, of course the troubles in Northern Ireland are political." Just wondering what you felt about his additional points.

I think Dawkins and Harris' main point is that religion gives a shroud of legitimacy to the violence and makes it more bitter. I for one do not think that if religion goes away, all violence ends. Please.But I am for getting rid of anything that makes violence less likely. Religion makes violence more likely and more acceptable when the violence is done in the name of a supposedly infallaile creator, of which every religion seems to have a different version.Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!Mr. P's Bookshelf.I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - AsanaThe one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Twice! Twice I wrote a fucking post and the board ate them both Damn Damn Damn DamnI'll try again later

Crap. Lost my post.Irish:Quote:Niall, I meant to post this weeks ago and just forgot. Have you gotten to page 259 yet? Dawkins readdresses Ireland's troubles: "Yes yes, of course the troubles in Northern Ireland are political." Just wondering what you felt about his additional points. No actually I hadn't. But when you mentioned it, I ran through and looked up all the references to NI.The section you quoted from, if my memory serves me, goes something along the lines of:Yes, the NI conflict is political, but the conflict would not be possible without the presence of religion, as religion lends itself as a label.Dawkins' arguments seems based on the notion, that apart from religion, there are no differences between the Nationalist and Unionist communities. Which is just plain wrong.The single most important difference between the communities is their national identity, something just as heritable as religion. Ask a nationalist kid what nationality they are, and they will answer Irish. Ask a unionist, and they'll tell you British. Dawkins' also seems rather ignorant of the fact, that generally, Nationalists and Unionists can tell the difference between each other at sight. The same geographical differences have existed betweem Nationalists and Unionists since the Ulster Plantation. Both have different cultural histories and past-times. The language differences only died out during the late nineteenth century (though of course, there are parts of Ulster where Irish is still spoken as the native tounge) but Irish speaking Gaeltachts are turning up in areas of Belfast that Irish has not be spoken in for centuries.And of course, you can generally tell whether one is a Nationalist or Unionist by looking at their name. And indeed, apart from the National question, the two groups have other political differences. Nationalists tend to lean more toward socialism than Unionists, and while the Unionists tend to have a more traditional Protestant work ethic, Nationalists tend to value education more highly.That's not to say that religion doesn't help to reinforce the conception that the other tribe is different, it's just to say that in the absence of religion, the groups have plenty of other ways to define themselves. Now other problems Dawkins' has in relation to the NI conflict, is that I see he makes his silly blunder regarding ignorance of Loyalism again. Loyalism differs in important ways from Unionism. There are approx. 800000 Protestants in NI. Only a small portion of these would be considered loyalists. Loyalist is a label generally used for militant unionists and their supporters. In the same way, he confuses Republicanism and Nationalism.And trust a Brit to manage to talk about the NI conflict without once recognising the fact that Republican violence was (at least in principle if not always in practice) aimed at the British Army and not Protestants.Ho Hum, I wonder if those natives are a little pissed off because we colonised part of their country? No, no, it's got to be because they have a different religion to those folks we gave their land to. Not our fault at all!NickQuote:I think Dawkins and Harris' main point is that religion gives a shroud of legitimacy to the violence and makes it more bitter. I for one do not think that if religion goes away, all violence ends. Please.But I am for getting rid of anything that makes violence less likely. Religion makes violence more likely and more acceptable when the violence is done in the name of a supposedly infallaile creator, of which every religion seems to have a different version.I'm not certain if you were addressing this in response to the above threads but in the context of the NI conflict, God had sweet fuck all involvement, not even in the minds of those who were fighting.Either way, I think you neglect the fact that religion swings both ways. In the absence of the religion, the Northern conflict would have occurred anyway. But what if all members had one single religion? It could have provided a context within which dialogue could have happened. Indeed, that is what happened in Northen Ireland within the context of Unionism (which is made up of many different Protestant sects).

I've gotten into the habit of saving my posts to my clipboard before hitting the Add Reply button each and every time. I recommend this practice to all of you.

Niall: Yes, the NI conflict is political, but the conflict would not be possible without the presence of religion, as religion lends itself as a label.I'm not sure that he says that exactly. In fact Dawkins does state: "There really are genuine grievances and injustices, and these seem to have little to do with religion..." (259). But he goes on to theorize that the conflict could not have been so easily propelled, through the generations, without the religious label. This involves his repulsion at children being labeled Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, etc. Would it have been as easy to label a child, too young to make ideological choices, a Unionist or Nationalist, as it is to label them Catholic and Protestant? Or would such labels have given pause, without the religious bend? Would those tykes more likely have been referred to as children of Unionist parents/children of Nationalist parents? And if such religious labels did not exist, would it have been, perhaps, easier for younger generations to work their way toward a middle ground, a compromise, peace? Or is it just as easy to refer to Ireland's kids as Unionist and Nationalist as it is to call them Protestant or Catholic? If you don't mind giving your first-hand account.BTW, sorry you lost your post, that is so annoying trying to recreate your thoughts. I usually type in a word program now and copy and paste it to the board. This has the bonus of spellcheck highlighting all spelling errors.