“new recruits would not initially be expected to recognise the infallibility of Richard Dawkins”
If we can note a hostile take-over bid between groups of supernaturalists [and we can - Ed], we can certainly note “a gesture which dramatically parallels [it]“ by a group of atheists [Is that a sceptic of atheists? - Ed] Possibly.. or a cynic.. As spotted by Will Crawley. From the New Humanist blog
New recruits to the [Rationalist Association] were given some reassurances. “We are,” said the spokesperson, “not at all averse to agnostics maintaining some traditional forms of speech, such as ‘You can’t help feeling that there is something up there’, but obviously they’ll be expected to gradually forsake their uncertainty about who made the world.” In a further gesture of conciliation, the spokesperson confirmed that new recruits would not initially be expected to recognise the infallibility of Richard Dawkins.
Heh.
Firstly I dont believe in such a God there is no evidence and plenty of more compelling alternative explanations. However it is conceptually meaninful and coherent which cannot (in my view) be said for the kinds of God that the big three monotheistic religions and especially Christianity and Islam, go for.
Second, the hundreds of thousands of deaths were not caused by aerial bombing of populated areas but by a sustained and vicious civil war/terrorist insurgency.
My support for the Iraq war is totally immaterial to the arguments about the existence or otherwise of God(s) or the nature and impact of relgion.
gerrymander
‘Arthur Koestler shows what a dick head the ignoramus the tin god Galileo was’
How ? Galileo chose to survive and live to continue his study of the cosmos rather than be staked and burnt alive like his predecessor Bruno . The Popes of that time were not known for tolerating alternative views of man’s place in the cosmos. Think Ayatollah’s of the present day .
Arthur Koestler wrote one very good semi autobiography titled ‘Darkness at Noon’ and several on trying to mesh political behaviours with an evolutionary biological underpinning .
As a former communist who believed at least in tin ‘rationalism ‘ he then went on to investigate and try to explain the roots of the non rational in man by a pseudo scientific methodology which though interesting and popular among the intelligentsia of the time -has not stood the test of time .
To account for what he saw as the ‘split’ in the human mind between rational thinking and the insanity of some human behaviours towards each , Koestler could only hope that the ‘split’ could be overcome by means of ‘drug ‘ therapy. He did not live long enough to see the advances that would be made in biology and genetic research such that nowadays researchers are honing on the genes or combination of genes or lack of said genes than seem to account for some types of behaviours . So in a way he was predictive of the future .
Towards the end of his life he became disenchanted to such an extent that he was found dead in his chair having taken an overdose of barbiturates . His much younger wife was also found dead with him .
Not one of nature’s gentlemen was Arthur Koestler
brilliant though he was as any who are interested enough will discover if they care to read Arthur Koestler ‘The Homeless Mind’by David Cesarani .
Galileo added more to man’s knowledge of the universe and his place in it than Arthur Koestler . I would’nt call either of them ‘dickheads’ but I’d give Galileo more credit for originality and Koestler more credit for assimilating knowledge from so many fields and trying to hang it all from one ‘unified ‘ tree of everything . Not surprisingly it did’nt work . Einstein later was to have the same ‘experience ‘.
Richard Dawkins has brought the unified tree closer at least from an evolutionary biology perspective . In the world of physics ?
Well having discarded or discredited string theory for the origin of the universe the new fad is the origin of not a universe but of universes plural . Membrane theory which conjures up the rubbing together at a critical point of two universes one against another at a specific point which then sparks off a ‘big bang ‘ and hey presto another universe is on it’s way.
No mention is made of any God being involved . Of course the above postulate does nothing to explain how the very first ‘universe ‘ came into being for by definition of the above ‘creation’ there would have had to have been two of them
.
‘Dawkins belongs in an intellectual freak flimsy flyweight show ‘
Woeful comment . Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin are probably the two best bets to the claim that God must have been an Englishman
. You could throw Isaac Newton in as well for good measure and Mendel but then he was Bohemian
and thus would not qualify for Godship on the basis of ‘nationality ‘
Brit ,
‘Such a God would have lit the touchpaper ‘
So now we are reduced to a God who lights touchpaper ? Surely worshipping a Jewish Carpenter seems less surreal in comparison ?
‘but would not be all good or all knowing and certainly without power to intervene in events in the Universe.’
Not according to legendary Cockney comic Marty Feldman in the skit I posted above where he makes it clear that Insurance Companies have no doubts whatsoever about God’s power to directly intervene in wars , earthquakes , floods etc etc .
Such is the belief in God that people will rejoice at God’s personal intervention to save the life of one teenager brought out alive from under a collapsed building, ‘It’s a miracle ‘ etc. At the same time the same miracle worshippers will not accuse God of double standards or even hypocrisy or of being an accomplice to the wilful murder of the other 199 crushed to death in the same building by the same ‘heavenly ‘ intervenor ?
“Second, the hundreds of thousands of deaths were not caused by aerial bombing of populated areas but by a sustained and vicious civil war/terrorist insurgency.”
Leaving aside that that which you so colourfully call “a sustained and vicious civil war/terrorist insurgency” is a direct consequence of the illegal invasion and continuing occupation, that is simply not true and I don’t for a moment accept that you can believe that it is and for you to continue to insist that it is true in order to defend your support for the moral degeneracy of Blair really is quite appalling. The civilian casualty figures caused by indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian centres prior to the invasion and the quite callous destruction of civilian life by the invading forces during the occupation offensive and throughout the occupation are horrendous, disgraceful and quite indefensible which, I presume is why you prefer to deny them. They do not suit your reliance upon the lies of “Iraqui Freedom” propaganda that you oh so uncritically parrot in thread after thread.
“Why does he do it?”, I ask myself. “Is it in the hope that some little tinpot New Labour God like Ed Millibands might somehow spot what a good and faithful little chap he is and reward him with a pass to New Labour heaven in the form of being allowed to help arrange the seating at a conference where St Peter is to be the main speaker”. God help us all!
GF dont get me wrong on this God “the mad alien scientist experiment” thing. I dont think its true or even plausible. It is a bizarre concept which I view in the same way as I view a belief in ghosts or lights in the sky being alien spacecraft or people having telepathic powers. But is one that is not self-evidently false and contradictory in the way that the all good/powerful/knowing God concept is.
Rory I supported the Iraq War as a just war. That view was based on what was known and reasonably believed at the time and judged on that basis I dont change my views. I note your claim that the war was “illegal” as if its legal status has a relevance to the death toll.
In my view it was a Just war with laudible aims, some of which were acheived (though there is a huge amount to criticise in the planning and follow through). The initial war of invasion against the Iraqi army and the Baathist regime was fairly short, and easy and not characterised by indiscriminate bombing or a particularly high death toll. I’ve set out my views on the causes of, and moral responsibility, for the deaths caused in the subsequent civil war and the actions of Ba’athists, sectarians, outisder Islamists, and those funded and inspired by Iran.
Whilst I accept that my position is arguable and there is a difficult debate to be had I dont accept your refusal to even countenance that anyone supported the Iraq war in good faith for good progressive reasons. Norm Geras, David Arronavitch, Oliver Kamm and others set out that case clearly – although it is a debate which is over now.