Dennett vs McGrath - Part 4 of 9

[huwrj]

McGrath makes liberal use of the ad-hominem, the argument from authority and the false dichotomy i.e. "if you can't prove that religion is a meme then the Bible must be true.". Very tedious debating tactics.

[SubconsciousGatherer]

The nerve of a theologian demanding evidence. That kills me.

[Gurn92]

brilliant point about anthropology and memes, so true

[matthewjhaywood]

Even mcgrath trying that "atheists have faith too" bullshit. As soon as a theist says that, you know you can stop listening- because they have no concept of what they're opposing.

[Theolence]

@matthewjhaywood Well... Really this is true. Agnosticism does not, however, the Atheist world view makes clear metaphysical statements that cannot be proved. Does this not mean that they require a type of faith to believe?

[judomuerte]

@Theolence This makes no sense. There's a reason words are defined in the dictionary.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte I'll reword it for you: The Atheist world view makes clear metaphysical statements that cannot be proved. Does this not mean that these statements require a type of faith to believe? Agnosticism does not make such statements.

Maybe you could have tried a little harder to read my comment as it does make sense.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence I don't know where to start. There is no "atheist world view". When I say I'm an atheist, it means I reject YOUR worldview. It does not mean i supplant it with another. Perhaps you could define agnosticism for me, as it makes no sense when not paired with another word. I don't need to try hard to understand your comment, as it is easy to understand, but that doesn't mean it's not jibberish.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte You've thrown me a little as I though everyone used these terms to describe distinct sets of beliefs:

theism - belief in a deity

atheism - belief in no deity

agnosticism - a refusal to decide one way or the other as neither can be sustained by evidence

I suppose you can define atheism as a rejection of the existence of a deity, but then to be fair to both parties we should probably define theism as a rejection of the non-existence of a deity. A bit long-winded maybe!

[judomuerte]

@Theolence Your definitions are incorrect. You either believe there is a god(s), or you do not. How can there be a middle? This is not a false dichotomy.

The correct terms are:

agnostic atheist - I don't know, but I don't believe there is a god - most atheists

gnostic atheist - I know there is no god - rarest form of atheism

agnostic theist - I don't know, but I believe there is a god - most "rational" believers fit here

gnostic theist - I know there is a god - fundies

[judomuerte]

...and please don't "suppose" that I can define atheist as a rejection of the existence of god. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god(s), you are not allowed to change a definition to support your odd views on how the debate should be staged. YOU have made the claim...god exists...we disagree, it is not our duty to prove he doesn't. This point needs to driven home before you can be taken seriously, which I can't do anymore without you conceding this simple point. Bertrand's Teapot ftw.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte Hmmm... I don't think everyone will agree with you on this one. I'm quite happy to add in the two agnostic beliefs from your definitions, but you have no place for people who do not wish to make any form of faith claim. To make any claim about a deity you have to make such a claim as it is purely metaphysical.

Furthermore, I have made no claim about my beliefs. I just disagree with the points you raised. You're still making an unprovable statement however you try to define it.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence I am aware you haven't made any "faith" claims, which to be honest I find suspicious based off of the Bertrand Russell teapot analogy failure you keep making. Saying that "I do not believe there is a god" is not a provable statement, but even more important it isn't meant to be. Please, if you haven't already, look up the Russell teapot analogy and how that applies to this argument. In reference to people who make no claims, that is impossible.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte I know the analogy. It's clever and a nice bit of rhetoric, but it doesn't address my point that both the statement of the teapot being there and the one that says it is not are both unprovable (this is true in the analogy or it wouldn't hold for its purpose). The teapot argument merely tries to point out that belief in religion is ridiculous; it does nothing more. A nice bit of propaganda if you will.

Atheists still hold an unprovable position.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence Don't you see that we wouldn't need to prove anything until the theist proposition is made? It is a nice bit of rhetoric, and very clever due to it being completely logical. There is nothing for us to prove! I'm afraid I'll have to retire from this conversation as promised.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte Shame. I don't think disagreeing on this point should end a conversation. I was quite happy to agree to disagree on this point. To me the point seems clear: you wish for a Theist to prove the unprovable before you will respond. It puts you in a nice position from your perspective, but I see it as you creating unfair ground rules. The existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven. Either claim is a faith claim.

Thanks for sharing your views; I found it interesting.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence The only part of this I agree on is the first part. You're rhetoric gives away an obviously otherwise rational individual, so I can understand your disappointment. The problem was if you refuse to agree that it is not my duty to prove a negative. To imply that the duty would exist is silly and the crux of my own disappointment. What would the point of agreeing to disagree be? You make it seem odd that somebody should prove a claim before proceeding in a rational debate.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte But there's no point in trying to prove God's existence because it is simply unprovable. All the arguments would have rebuttals and I'm just a little bored of that debate. I see why this would disappoint you because this would never be acceptable in a scientific debate. Fair. But philosophy/theology needs to be approached in a different way. I simply do not think that your stance is purely in the negative as, whether by reply or not, you do believe something: there is no God.

[Theolence]

... It is my feeling that this is obviously a view of the universe that is unprovable and that you should accept it as so. Then we can move onto other arguments like the evil inherent in religion etc.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence Incorrect, I don't believe YOUR claim that there is a god. (Hypothetical you, as you've made it clear you haven't claimed a stance).

I do not say feel or express, much less claim that I believe there is no god. This is an important distinction. I have no reason to believe anything, but I do have plenty of reasons to reject your claim. Belief is completely irrelevant. If we have a logical discussion, it simply MUST be based on logic, reason, and science.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence ...cont...and this is why it's so important to me, from my perspective, you refuse to agree on the very terms of a logical debate. Let's say for a minute you agree to accept it for argumentation, what would be your next point?

[Theolence]

@judomuerte Ok... Interesting. That's fair enough. From this line of argument I would fit you into my agnostic category and thus you're right you would not be making any faith claim (for you seem to be sitting on the fence with regards to God's existence). However, this isn't the basis on which we started the discussion and your four categories do not allow for any fence-sitting so you may wish to revise them. A entirely logical discussion cannot include the question of God's existence.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence I am in no regard sitting on the fence. I am an atheist, I do not believe in god(s). I do not "know" there isn't a god, making me agnostic in that regard, but I do not believe, nor have I been convinced in any possibility thereof. I am an agnostic atheist, but I am an atheist. By definition I would say this is the least of my characteristics, and as meaningful as being defined by my A-bigfootism.

"I have no need of that hypothesis."

Pierre-Simon Laplace

[Theolence]

@judomuerte Hello again. Just commented on a reply from matthewjhaywood below where I have revised some of my opinions that I shared with you. You may wish to comment.

[matthewjhaywood]

@Theolence

Well no, because you really need to know who you're debating otherwise you'll just look a fool. There are 2 types of atheist (strong and weak), only one type actually claims there is no God. Very few people are in this catergory. Most 'atheists' simply say- "I see no evidence for a God and I won't believe in one until I do". This requires no faith at all, it's simply the default rational position.

[Theolence]

@matthewjhaywood I have never encountered the terms agnostic atheist and agnostic theist before, but have now read up on the original definition that Huxley gave of agnosticism and I have concluded that I was wrong to posit the need for a middle ground of just "agnostic". The term agnostic overlaps with theist and atheist positions when one doesn't "pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

[Theolence]

... Looking at things this way though (taking your stance as the default), I'm not convinced that there is such a position as an agnostic theist because to move from your position you would have to have some kind of evidence (be it personal or physical). Thus I would say that your position is probably exactly what Huxley had in mind and is not a group of people that McGrath is aiming his comment at.

[matthewjhaywood]

@Theolence

Exactly, it's an extremely unuseful set of definitions to be honest. It seems to be defined in terms of belief rather than evidence. I mean, if you want to be pedantic, I guess we're all agnostics about the existence of Odin. The problem is, the word agnostic sounds too neutral. It doesn't seem to include the implicit ("but it's clearly ridiculous") that so many of us sceptics hope to convey. Atheist is better in this respect but annoying in others.

[judomuerte]

I love his refutation of memes based on the fact that we can't "see" them.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte Sorry, but he doesn't say this. He says that Genes couldn't be seen, but they needed to be "created" anyway to explain certain phenomena. Memes are not needed to explain what they attempt to; this can be done much more effectively on other grounds. His book 'Dawkins' God' lays this out in more detail.

[judomuerte]

@Theolence "created memes" ....I dunno where to start.

[Theolence]

@judomuerte Again, you haven't read my comment very well. The reason this it is in "" is because I think McGrath uses this word. Replace "created" with "hypothesised" and then re-read being sure to note that I am talking about genes at this point NOT memes (I was trying to point out that you made this same error when listening to the video)

[hymnofashes]

The origins of belief are presupposed to be something other than truth because almost all religions must be false, and the true religion for most of its history was also false.

[Smidge204]

It seems McGrath makes more than a few categorical errors here, as well as taking a slightly strawman-esque angle on the whole "meme" concept (which Dennett did sort of invite given his own application of the concept)

For example, even non-theist religions have concepts, structure, ritual, etc. These are all memes. "Religion" can't exist without memes - otherwise it's simply spirituality.

"Meme" is another word for "idea." The social equivalent of a gene. Perfectly compatible with anthro, too!

[ananiasacts]

I think DD's claim that religion makes it easier to resolve the otherwise undecidable has evidence. The fact that the history of religion is filled with the stories of horrifying cruelty implies that something must have given those religious people an unusual confidence to feel good about doing things like torturing people or burning them alive. The sort of stuff Christians did up until the mid 1800s. I think a normal person would find torturing someone else too unpleasant.

[SweetRandal]

Doesn't all of human history entail horrifying acts of violence. Perhaps religion is one of the many manifestations of the impulse toward cruelty, As Dennett acknowledged, people fought and did awful things in the name of communism, nationalism, and all sorts of isms not necessarily tied to an organized religion.

[oneki]

McGraths argument seem to me to be based on the assumption that science has discovered everything, however science is ever learning, ever evolving, unlike the ideas religion float which seem to me absolute.

[kingpin311]

Interesting... Alister criticizes DD's claim of the possibility of an evolutionary gene for belief in a religion because of the lack of evidence.... Anyone else find that a bit....straaaaaange?

[awesomewelles90]

It may be very possible, but the more important observation is that EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, it does not negate belief in a God at all. If you think it does than you are committing the GENETIC FALLACY!

[kingpin311]

You're an idiot. The observation was intended to highlight the fact that there's no evidence for such a gene, likewise, there is no evidence for GOD. Funny how he can criticize DD on the lack of evidence when the entirety of his religious faith is that requiring absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So you can commit to pissing off.

[awesomewelles90]

hahahaha what a dick

[kingpin311]

I'm a dick, and you're an idiot. Works for me.

[awesomewelles90]

nah I'm no idiot, but you certainly are a cocksucking faggot motherfucker pussyhole bitch-nigger footlocker buttmunch dillhole arse-weasel

[kingpin311]

Cute. Verification that when there's nothing intelligent to say, imbeciles resort to denying their ignorance and name calling. Sounds very christian. Make your next attempt at being offensive and make it a good one. I'll waste no more time on you.

[Wrath0fKhan]

Not at all... Genetic fallacy is a very general fallacy of irrelevance. However in "our" case the origin of evidence is totally relevant to its evaluation.

Dont think if you copy Dr. Craig you will be on the safe side. Many of his approaches were exposed for what they really are, simple rhetorical tricks...

[jacobromu]

"The fool says in their heart there is a god" - youtube comment, Jacob Romu,

See? I can quote shit too.

I'm so sure that that atheist who had faith in richard dawkins never existed. If he did, "we" don't really want him. "We" want sceptics who would be just as critical of Dawkins as they would be of Bible, Hovind, or What the BLEEP do we know.

[jamesharrel]

Good on you. When people are lying they tend to say a few very specific things, some of which are:

"I know a guy who..."

"I heard somewhere that..."

"I read one rare story in the paper/magazine about..."

"I've studied/researched this subject, and..."

"I used to be like you, and..."

But, let's say it's true. He converted ONE PERSON? ONE imbecile who DD himself would have said is foolish for "believing" in Atheism in such a way? He should visit DD's Converts' Corner to compare numbers...

[SubconsciousGatherer]

@jacobromu "The fool hath said in his heart: 'There is no shame in believing in that which I have zero evidence for.' " -Logic:101

[confusedmatthew]

The problem with Alister's arguments is that they are entirely negative. That is - he only had things to say against Dennett's book and no positive arguments for the existence of God.

I understand he had a lot to respond to, but I would have liked even one positive argument from him.

[Chiangmai007]

McGrath understands Dennett better than Dennett does. When Dennett's arguments are disrobed of all reasoning power a nude form of absurdity stands there as it has since the first fool said in his heart, There is no God.

Memes cannot be observed! What a great line!

[anwyll]

"...whoever says 'You fool!' will be subject to hell fire." - Matthew 5:22

Memes cannot be observed? To claim such a thing is to belie a misunderstanding of the concept or a deliberate resistance to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, science does not need to observe the very object of it's research - consider all the progress made in chemistry and physics without actually being able to observe an atom.

The problem with memes is the broad application of the concept pushes it towards absurdity.

[Chiangmai007]

The fool says in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1).

Dennett's use of memes adds nothing to the debate that could not be said without them, no matter how they are packaged upfront. McGrath had tomake that very clear because Dennett attributed to memes a power to bolster his case that could just as easily be used against it.

I agree with your 3rd sentence, which only underscores the Christian worldview that there is more to be known than what comes through direct observation.

[anwyll]

I disagree with your suggestion that the use of Meme theory is unnecessary - it is attempting to describe why ideas and concepts survive and propagate when others don't, there is no judgement in meme theory on what is good or bad just what survives. This is why it is analogous to evolution.

You misunderstood my third sentence. Despite not being able to directly observe atoms science has very thoroughly documented their properties. What indirect observations can we draw from the world about God?

[Chiangmai007]

anwyII~Thanks for clarifying how I misunderstood you. And, with respect to meme theory, I certainly have reading to do. But McGrath was responding to Dennett's application of meme theory and I think he made his case.

[Chiangmai007]

anwyII~As for the 3rd sentence: I think we can draw the conclusion that the directions were lost in the Big Bang. Just kidding! I don't subscribe to creationism or ID (with capital letters), but I do believe that the mere fact that the universe is intelligible (rationally transparent) and that the language of mathematics unlocks its mysteries, that it is inviting us enough to be theists. Its my understanding of Jesus that leads me to a more intimate experience with God.

[Chiangmai007]

Lastly I just wanted to add that the teachings of Christianity make great sense from an evolutionary perspective. If they were well applied by the earth's inhabitants I believe the world would be in a healing shift of cosmic import.

[anwyll]

Thanks for the responses Chiangmai007. I wouldn't totally disagree with your last two comments although I would question which came first - kind of a chicken or the egg conundrum. Only a consistent and relatively stable universe could produce life that might evolve to a level that would unlock some of its mysteries as well.

Same could be said about teachings of Christianity - mostly because the ideals you identify as being advantageous would probably appear in other religions (eg golden rule).

[Chiangmai007]

anwyII~Harvard astrophysicist Owen Gingerich wrote that "the balance between the energy of expansion and the braking power of gravitation in the Big Bang had to be extraordinarily exact" to allow for the emergence of human beings. "The initial balance had to be accurate to a ratio of 1 to 1-followed-by-fifty-nine-zeros ."

[Chiangmai007]

anwyII~I wonder if the common thread you observe in the different faiths is related to a common longing placed within each of us by the creator of us all; a longing that despite cultures and mutations persists across time and space.

[MATZAMAN76]

@Chiangmai007

Really?...How so with the implementation of old testament law? Even Jesus advocated old testament law (matt 5-17-20). How is having a death penalty for working on Saturdays, being gay, eating shrimp, pre-martial sex, etc going to shift the world toward healing?

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 That's a non contextual intepretation I'm afraid. Jesus used the term 'fulfill' for a purpose, the old law is accomplished, it has completed its task. Christ goes on to correct and replace old legislations in the Hebrew scriptures, making it plain that what was written down was imperfect. Christ makes it plain that he is the 'living law' that should be followed. Thus ancient civil laws ie Leviticus are interesting, but not prescriptive now.

[MATZAMAN76]

@MrWildbill20056

LOL, The old "out of context" tap dance. If you are honest enough, you will find a myriad of scripture that clearly states mosaic law should be practiced. The bible is all things to all people, thousands of sects and denominations. This is why religion/holy books fail. They claim absolute truth and consistency, yet demonstrate any but under the lightest scrutiny. "What was written down was imperfect", lol, what happened to the "perfect" creator? I guess he needed some help.

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 Nope, sorry buddy you are simply guilty of a truly shallow interpretation of what limited material you have read. Christ makes it clear he is the pattern to follow, and the fulfillment of the law. He then corrects things things that were wrong in the old law, and by his actions (ie eating unclean food) does away with the old ceremonial law. He then explicitly makes a new covenant between God and man, which supercedes the old which was based upon Mosaic law.

[MATZAMAN76]

@MrWildbill20056

C'mon, Wildbill. There are just as many versus that Messianic Jews can use to justify their stance on the eternal validity and practice of Mosaic Law. The Gospels, Paul's epistles and other books in the cannon are filled with these scriptures. Your religion started as a Jewish sect, grounded in the law, subsequently it evolved to a more "shallow" or easy approach for the goy. You should put your religion under the same scrutiny you have used to eliminate others..Be fair!

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 No, actually there aren't. That you believe that Paul in any sense endorses Mosaic law suggests to me you are not familiar at all with his writings. The point at which he comes out against circumcision should be quite sufficient. Of course it started from Judaism? :P The fact is though that we are Christians, not Jews. Christianity is an evolution. Easy? Would that be the part about giving everything you own away to the poor?

[MATZAMAN76]

@MrWildbill20056

"No, actually there aren't"..Wow!..You are sand bagged in. I cant help you bud. When you decide to be a little more objective about where others find their justifications for interpreting the scripture different, this is moot. Look up Tim Hegg from torah resource. He will hand you your ass on a silver platter. He destroys christian doctrine. Considering the level of your denial, you might be ok. Give it a listen. Either way, you have a ways to go. Good luck.

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 No offence, but none of the above is actually an argument. Tis simply a smug assertion of your own beliefs. That's cool, but don't confuse it with somehow establishing the superiority of your position. Hegg's views, which I know well, are always slim pickings based more in the Hebrew Bible than the Gospels and with a remarkable lack of reference to John particularly. Jesus criticizes circumcision for example downgrading it from divine law to a law of man, Hegg can't see it :)

[MATZAMAN76]

@MrWildbill20056 I am an atheist. No longer hold any of the above mentioned beliefs. My point is that there are so many denominations for one main reason. The elasticity of the bible. You are well grounded in your belief because you have found that what you have been taught(one specific angle) is demonstrated by the scripture. The same can be said for the next guy. And the next guy. You make baseless absolutist statements, like a true christian. This is why I say start looking at it differently.

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 Again none of the above is actually an argument. You make an assertion and then back it up with more assertions. Given your lack of actual justification by either evidence or logical argument, a sufficient response is: I disagree. Your analysis does, however, seem fatally flawed by your implied assumption that there is no correct interpretation. Further, your assumption of any interpretation being 'baseless' is demonstrably in error.

[MATZAMAN76]

@MrWildbill20056

Oh, my mistake. I apologize. YOU HAVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION. Just like Rabbi Schlickenstein. Mohamed Haggi, Nimish Patel, Lambphong Nyguen, etc etc I hope you get the point.

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 You still aren't successfully making refuting my point. If a correct interpretation exists ie the truth, then it stands to reason it may be found. That there are opinions which vary to greater or lesser degree is irrelevant to that point. Further outside of the fundamental disagreement on the nature of the Eucharist between Catholic and Prodestant churches, the other areas of 'quibble' are largely irrelevant, our relation to mosaic law being one of them.

[MATZAMAN76]

@MrWildbill20056 But a "correct interpretation" ie "gods absolute truth" doesn't exist. There are way too many errors both large and small, to objectively say that any one denomination or sect based on the bible is the absolute truth. You cant claim to have absolute truth when there are huge disparities in what people believe when pulling from the same source. It shows the natural, NOT the supernatural. All the evidence points to xianity being nothing more than another religious trend. Sorry.

[MATZAMAN76]

A perfect god, with a perfect plan, would not have left ZERO supporting objective evidence, counter evidence, a multitude of opposing religions since the dawn of time, a holy book with so many "HOLES" in it. It just makes no sense. Anyone one person that touts "This is the only way", or "I have the correct interpretation" is deluded and needs to take a ticket and stand in a long long line of religotards from eons ago.

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 Now you are presupposing based on your own opinions. Further contending that there is ZERO supporting evidence is just a silly statement. Evidence exists on both sides of most criminal cases for example, and yet one side will be either correct or closer to the truth than the other. This does not mean there is no evidence on the opposing side. The rest of what you say is not an argument.

[MATZAMAN76]

@MrWildbill20056

What Evidence are you talking about?

[MATZAMAN76]

Where is your argument?...lol

[MrWildbill20056]

@MATZAMAN76 How does making such a ridiculous response make you feel? :)

[MATZAMAN76]

If you learn how the bible was put together, from individual books to the cannon, you will see a different story begin to arise. This is why the bible requires the denial/hope mechanism called faith. It needs this because it cannot stand on its own. It needs the help to fill gaps the size of the grand canyon. Truth needs no help from wishful thinking. The bible does. The point about Matt 5:17-20 is one of many discontinuities within the bible, and almost always the excuse is "out of context"..

[klalkity]

So McGrath around 3:30 is saying that what Dennet says doesn't work for religions that don't have gods? This is a pretty facetious point for him to spend any time on when he believes in God, don't you think? Likewise, attacking the distinction between worldview and religion seems rhetorical, when Dennet would just as well concede that his inquiry would apply to worldviews in general (in fact, he does, i.e. when he refers to Communism).

[fuckoffreligion]

it's funny listening to a religious nutcracker demanding evidence for scientific theories...... LISTEN TO YOURSELF you mentally ill homo sapiens....

[ashamedz]

Go Alister!