I've finished 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I like to give credit where credit's due: although I stalled at a couple of points (started reading it in September), I readily acknowledge the guy is a clever, lucid and witty writer, so large parts were actually quite enjoyable, and I learned some fascinating science stuff, especially in the last few pp. But in RD's handling of religion, I utterly concur with Alister McGrath in 'The Dawkins Delusion' that:
'Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking... surprisingly little scientific analysis... a lot of pseudo-scientific speculation, linked with wider cultural criticisms of religion, mostly borrowed from older atheist writings', p10.
He goes on to note that Prospect magazine, whose reader survey as noted in the TGD fly leaf voted RD one of the world's three top intellectuals in Nov 2005, went on to carry a review of the book. Describing it as 'incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory', the review was called 'Dawkins the dogmatist', p11.
A look at some specifics will await another post - the argument about probability in Chapter 4 'Why there almost certainly is no God' - to which AM responds - is the part that intrigued me most and that I'd most want to go back to. A broad brush observation for now: RD is clearly and admirably passionate about science, and ponders the wonders of the world that are in its scope to reveal, with all the goggle-eyed delight of a child in a cathedral. But for some reason, he is unwilling seriously to explore even the possibility of another, dare I say it, yet more marvellous cathedral: the cathedral of the spirit, unlocked with the key of faith, where God in relationship might just be found. Not held at arm's length, ostracised, distorted and pilloried through misrepresentation (particularly of the OT) as a 'monster'; but, even modestly and hesitatingly, approached and explored as the majestic reality He might just be. God is by no means always obvious, I can as a lifelong searcher and explorer myself concur; but the mistreatment of the mystery by one who shows so little evidence of actually having seriously investigated it, in the final analysis feels oddly weightless.
I also recently began reading 'The Miracle of Theism' by late Oxford Fellow and Reader of Philosophy, and atheist, JL Mackie. As a careful, fair and deeply thought through examination of the topic - within confines admittedly more philosophical than scientific - I can regard it seriously and with respect. Unfortunately TGD, for all RD's wit and flair, has not earned the same. I don't suppose my atheist readers will like any of this, but it leaves me wondering what it was that pulled down the blinkers for Mr Dawkins. Or at least prevented him from having a proper look.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
51 comments:
But for some reason, he is unwilling seriously to explore even the possibility of another, dare I say it, yet more marvellous cathedral: the cathedral of the spirit, unlocked with the key of faith, where God in relationship might just be found
Huh? I don't understand, The God Delusion is his serious exploration into the belief in God.
He states quite clearly why he does not think the Cathedral you speak of is so marvellous, why there is no point to faith and why God is impossible to have a relationship with.
Philip
I should also point out that even if Dawkins were Dogmatic, it doe not make him wrong. I trust that is not the way you are thinking.
I hope to hear something of more substance in comming posts, and remember being unconvinced by arguments does not make someone dogmatic. It may genuinely be that the arguments are worthless. Are you a dogmatic aunicornist? Have you studied unicorn philosophy or mythology? If a unicorn appeared, would you deny their existence?
Bruce-
your claims that he hasn't investigated religion "properly" don't hold water, and seems a knee-jerk reaction (he doesn't think God exists? Clearly he hasn't explored it deeply enough!)
RD has written a book in which he takes care to list the "strongest" arguments for God's existence, then picks them apart. I notice you haven't commented on those specific refutations.
Let's have SPECIFIC examples of where you disagree with his arguments. We've all read the book now, so we'll be able to re-read any sections you disagree with.
Let's add some substance to your overview.
Billy
In Isaiah 45:22-24
God says this of himself
Turn to me and be saved
all the ends of the earth
for I am God and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
Before me every knee will bow
by me every tongue will swear.
They will say of me
"In the Lord alone
are righteousness and strength"
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.
God is every day offering you salvation
but this is all Dawkins has to offer you Billy, at the last to be kneeling before God in shame.
I dont like dawkins. I think he is post modern characateur of himself. Almost a media atheist in a bag - portable, iritating and immedietly comprehensible.
But aside from that Ive never seen anything in his arguments other than a latent and outmoded enlightenment philosophy.
Paralised by intellectual fixations - he objectifies over forms of truths and perception which are of no interest and value to any one other than the small and eviscerated number of people who reflect his "fresh with the blood of the global poor " social class.
In my turgid mind Intellectual athesim and theism are nothing more than mental tickboxes. Experientially they irrelevant outside of the debating chamber. Christians wrestle with doubt and non christians are haunted by the possibilty of faith.
Such a duality is a core feature of human life over the centuaries - learning how to navigate such a mirky set of waters - to me is a valuable skill.
Dawkins is nothing more than dissonace diguised as intellect - a timebound cultural phantasm.
The faith which jesus spoke about was the last resort of the broken frustarted and down trodden. If you dont want it you wont hear it. You can die in your own lies - and bury yourself in your own fragmented view of the world. Its all up to you. Same as it ever was.
What do you want to make of the world ? A diguised and shared redemptive experience - or a bag of shite ? That crisis of choice is still open to most of us. But not to Mr Dawkins - he is trying to sell a closed door - bores the pants off me.
God is every day offering you salvation
but this is all Dawkins has to offer you Billy, at the last to be kneeling before God in shame.
You can of course substantiate this claim? I have been told that Allah wants to send christians to hell, so how do I decide?
You will be well aware from Jonathans blog what we think about the idea of labelling ourselves sinners in the eyes of a god who kills babies and punishes people for the sins of their forefathers. Philip describes it beautifully as the Stockholm syndrome.
Maybe I wait and see if either actually provide some evidence of existence first. What do you think?
I dont like dawkins. I think he is post modern characateur of himself. Almost a media atheist in a bag - portable, iritating and immedietly comprehensible.
And I thought Jesus preached tolerance. Does the fact that you dont like someone in any way nullify their arguments? Lets face it, christians have been irritating us non believers for years in the media, do you want it all your own way?
But aside from that Ive never seen anything in his arguments other than a latent and outmoded enlightenment philosophy.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with specific examples then - Do all anti-Dawkinists just rattle sabres and never draw blood?
In my turgid mind Intellectual athesim and theism are nothing more than mental tickboxes. Experientially they irrelevant outside of the debating chamber. Christians wrestle with doubt and non christians are haunted by the possibilty of faith.
Strawman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Experientially, how do you know you are not deluded?
Such a duality is a core feature of human life over the centuaries - learning how to navigate such a mirky set of waters - to me is a valuable skill.
What duality, and what makes you think you have mastered this skill?
Dawkins is nothing more than dissonace diguised as intellect - a timebound cultural phantasm.
Well, that accusation should surely be verifiable - I'm waiting - tick tock tock tock....
The faith which jesus spoke about was the last resort of the broken frustarted and down trodden. If you dont want it you wont hear it.
So you are saying faith is a pshychological crutch?
How does that make it real?
I think it is dishonest to say if ypou dont want it yiou wont find it - I know from personal experience! Are you saying non believers dont want to believe in god? Can you convinvce all us atheists here that we dont want to believe in him?
I usually find this is something christians need to believe about atheists to protect their world viwe. Does that sum you up?
You can die in your own lies - and bury yourself in your own fragmented view of the world. Its all up to you. Same as it ever was.
Why is atheism a lie? Why does not not appear to Richard? Surely it is evil to condemn someone to hell because you hide yourself from them?
What do you want to make of the world ? A diguised and shared redemptive experience - or a bag of shite ?
Oh no, the christians are swearing, how intimidating! Lets face it, christianity has failed mankind. What is so great about it? Personally, I think when your god put a talking snake in the garden of Eden, he created a bag of shite. When he created a world full of eathquakes and disease that gets hit by meteors, he didn't do a very good job.
What makes you think the world should be good? Ever seen a leper? Ever seen a lion strangle a baby gazelle. The world is naturally violent and blood thirsty. Why do you think there is a loving god behind it? Why do you think that your god is loving? He created disease and man eating sharks. Remember that he so loved the world that he sent a flood to drown it in a rage.
That crisis of choice is still open to most of us. But not to Mr Dawkins - he is trying to sell a closed door - bores the pants off me.
Yet you seem to have a deep yet misinformed interest in him. Tell me how you know he is closed?
It seems you dont like this man, ant that is all your post is about - a long personal attack with no substance what so ever.
Have you read his book, or are you just repeating gossip and adding to the christian attempts to demonise him?
Surely, you can at least tell us why he is wrong about micah 5:2?
Personally, I think he could have exploited it much more by pointing out that it does not refer to Jesus, it may not even refer to the town of Bethlehem, but a clan.
Hi Bruce,
A look at some specifics will await another post - the argument about probability in Chapter 4 'Why there almost certainly is no God'
Could be interesting, but what about the defence use by McGrath stating, "That's not my God he is talking about" or how about the classic straw man defence against the "Father Christmas argument" – missing the point and attacking the wrong argument.
Yep - I've done the intro and chapter 1 now it sounds just like the lecture I listened to so far (but I didn’t get any further because I got distracted as I moved to the philosophy section to get away from the embarrassing religion and New Age section – you know a woman actually said to me today “You can never find a good numerology book can you?”… I had to bit my lip on that one and just move on. What is it about the religion section of bookshops?
Anyway – I’ve now bought a “teach yourself philosophy on the bog” (or something like that) to help me out over at Brian’s blog (but don’t say anything because I want to sound clever)...
OK – onto TDD, so far rubbish - nothing but attacks on arguments never made by RD so what is the point?
Very poor so far – but still early.
Lee
Comments noted guys, will be back, and on the previous thread.
BTW don't know when Rob will be back, his drop in was unexpected to me too, so on his behalf I'll just say he's an old school chum. And v bright (and evidently no fan of Dawkins). I don't share Rob's level of dislike - from what I've read seen and heard of RD I think as a person there's plenty to like and listen to. But I'm glad to get another opposing perspective: comparable to the bracing blast of cold air that RD likens 'truth' to; to balance my more diplomatic stance. A creative stream of consciousness. So cheers Rob. And Jimmy, and all.
Did just read Lee's and J's comments. I'll say straight off I am struck by the disparity of our views Lee on the relative merits of RD and AM's books. Quite staggering. There's plainly a big gulf of communication and understanding.
And please, can we keep misrepresentation to a minimum (a huge gripe I have with RD and many atheist comments I've read on the blogs). I'll be clear, misrepresentation is my biggest bug bear in this debate.
Remember, you are the ones attacking Cnity, in my view the 'burden of enquiry' is firmly on YOU to handle it as fairly as possible (note my praise of Mackie). I stress, if I was to attack atheism I feel I wd be FAR more careful to be probing and fair.
Just cos I gave an overview here J, doesn't mean as you put it, that I think:
'he doesn't think God exists? Clearly he hasn't explored it deeply enough!)'
A big assumption - and Billy you've expressed similar before. My reaction was not at all knee jerk. Recall, I've read the book fully, and was v complimentary about aspects of it. Striking contrast Lee, with your blanket dismissal of TDD as 'rubbish' so far.
A little heated, but those are some points I've felt need to be expressed.
Some specifics will follow, but patience please and no demands, I'll be responding in my own time and way. I'll keep you 'posted'. Cheers.
Remember, you are the ones attacking Cnity, in my view the 'burden of enquiry' is firmly on YOU to handle it as fairly as possible
Not really, the burden of proof lies with you. We cant just assume god exists and take it from there.
A big assumption - and Billy you've expressed similar before.
This is not an assumption. It is a real way of christian thinking that we come across, and I personally see no other way to interpret Rob when he says "If you dont want it you wont hear it."
Some comments do clearly smack of there is something wrong with you if you dont believe, but I dont think any of us use it as a generalisation about christian attitudes. We point it out when we see it though.
I think it may be useful to remember that christians are vey varied in ther beliefs and attitudes, and we have seen many types, so unlesss you specifically state your view, then it can be easy to feel you are being misrepresented.
For example, you would think it would be safe to talk in terms of christians percieving only their way as the path to the truth. This however does not appear to be absolute thoug - Jimmy thinks some muslims are closer to god than him, and sometimes I detect sniffs of pluralism from you, so, if you can be clear about your particular view, this might help - this is actually one of the things that frustrated us when you suggested readind rather than giving your views. Creationists no doubt feel McGrath misrepresents christianity and vice versa, this I why we specifically ask your response on things like biblical attrocities
I stress, if I was to attack atheism I feel I wd be FAR more careful to be probing and fair.
It is hard to attack a non belief system
I feel a bit calmer after a nice afternoon. I recognise we see things very differently; the atheists may think I sometimes misrepresent too. There's common ground too of course, otherwise, say if I was a green alien, we might not be able to communicate at all.
So for now, in the words of JC (both Jesus, and fellow blogger Samuelson): 'Peace'.
In response to billy,
Its funny how my comments are seen as unchristian and christian. I dont think my attack on dawkins was exclusively from inside the christian camp. Can I express clearly a cultural and philosophical dislike for the characateur of mr dawkins that is presented in popular culture.
Culturally I feel the medias presentation of mr dawkins is very much as a zeitgeist. If we are looking for an expansive view of truth which can accomodate all of human experience surely we have to some extent to step outside the boundarys of our cultural timeframe. I am wary of being drawn into a frame of argument which reflects the very traumas which our mental struggles are attempting to rise above.
On a philosophical level I dislike mr dawkins atheism because of its finality. I also have a wariness for triumphal theism. These concepts I think are water tight boxes which can never hold the fullness of human experience. Jesus himself is traditionally portrayed to have experienced a the absense of god : the crying on the cross of "my god my god why have you forsaken me". What was this about. If christians aim to imitate his death how do they imitating this ? Could unknowing be an integral part of christianity ?
This is what I suppose interests me : people and the way in which their view of the world can draw them into or out of a sense of wholeness. I think disbelief and belief are not neccesarily mutual opposites. They are core human experiences and I think when we talk about them , rightly as you point out we reflect very much of our own background and prejudices.
Perhaps we are culturally accustomed to viewing a lie as the opposite of a verifiable fact. To me - drawing on the thought structures of more primitive societies - a lie is a shrinking , a contraction of the possibilities of the world. History to me is only a series of such exclusions and mr dawkins is in my opinion a perfect reflection of our western cultural climate. Perhaps you would like to suggest a christian counterpoint who is equally offensive to you - I'm sure whoever he is - I will have had similar misgivings ?
I am not promoting theism - I am asking for room to breathe. People may be on opposite sides of the fence but at least their is a fence between them. Maybe we should look at that fence instead of shouting.
How do atheists replace the idea of god with something else ? How do theists limit or disown their understanding of god. How much of the christian experience depends of a weighty superstucture of belief ? If we discount the idea of god are we left with more dilemmas than we start with ?
My response to dawkins is flippant and paper-thin because I dont see him as a major figure in this argument as it is actually played out in peoples lifes. He might be a good marker for debate - but I am keen to drag it deeper.
The argument over atheism to me has always boiled down to the rather obvious observation is that if their is a god is not good by our standard. Something bigger than a teddy bear sentamentalism is going on around us. How do we describe the world in a way which can do justice to everything we feel, think or do. I'll admit I dont want to inhabit a pointless world - but given this clear admission is there anyway I can do without sacrificing such a huge part of myself that it would leave me with more problems than when I started ?
over to someone else ...
So for now, in the words of JC (both Jesus, and fellow blogger Samuelson): 'Peace'.
Tree hugging hippie :-)
Cheers guys. And thanks Rob for the FB message. I've forgotten my FB entry details - shows how much I use it just now - so I can't reply tonight. Will remedy soon.
Whatever they think of what you say, I reckon that all the atheists here will be glad to have another opposing voice to discuss with, whenever you're free to drop by.
I think Jonathan in the Musings blog, linked to mine top right, will also be delighted to get any comments/views from you.
Night all.
Hi Rob,
Are you implying that Dawkins is final in his conclusion that there is no God?
If so, that is not what he says. He is open to changing his mind if evidence comes along.
One reason he is an atheist is because of Darwinism. He has clearly stated what will change his mind on the truth of Darwinism - find 500 million year old Rabbit fossils. Do that and evolution is wrong (unlikely to happen, but it willmake him change his mind).
I disagree that he is part of a media zeitgeist as such - 9/11 had a lot to do with attitudes to theism - not the media. Also, if that were true, how would that mean he is wrong?
Personally Gordon Brown annoys the hell out of me when he talks about getting his moral compass from god - no he doesn't, unless he stones homosexuals in privacy - that is a changing zeitgeist - the morality of the bible. A morality that is supposedly absolute.
Ken Ham just disgusts me too
How does atheism cause more dilemas? It has actually made my life easier.
Why can atheism not account for all human experiences? Is this not just an argument from ignorance?
The argument over atheism to me has always boiled down to the rather obvious observation is that if their is a god is not good by our standard. Something bigger than a teddy bear
Not sure if you typed this in a hurry but could you clarify this, I cant work out what you are trying to say.
I'll admit I dont want to inhabit a pointless world - but given this clear admission is there anyway I can do without sacrificing such a huge part of myself that it would leave me with more problems than when I started ?
Could you clarify this too?
Your life certainy is not pointless without god - even if you are no more when you die. Do you feel life would be worthless if you knew there was no god?
Does a need for a greater worth make god real?
My response to dawkins is flippant and paper-thin because I dont see him as a major figure in this argument as it is actually played out in peoples lifes.
I agree, a farmer a famine plagued area has no interest in multiverse hypothesis or natural selection. He wants food and his faith may help him psychologically (it may also harm him). He will probably never hear of Dawkins - like many hindus and muslims will never hear of jesus. However, that means nothing when one considers what truth actually is. Dawkins certainly is a player here. Write him off at your peril. He wasn't author of the year and sold more copies of the god delusion than the bible for nothing.
I would be interested if you have anything specific to say about his arguments.
Have you read the god delusion? If not, where do you get your information on him from (christian sites love to misrepresent him)
Hi Bruce,
I'll say straight off I am struck by the disparity of our views Lee on the relative merits of RD and AM's books. Quite staggering. There's plainly a big gulf of communication and understanding.
Well – we can discuss this if you like, however it is not easy when I am just reading a book at lunch time and trying to remember what it is I read.
For the record, TDD is $30 over here, about 13.50 pounds, not that cheap. Also, I think I read TGD back in March last year so my memory may be vague on some specific phrases, but that isn’t really important is it? – A friend has the book at the moment and I’ve asked for it back so I can re-read it for this discussion if that helps.
On the McGrath front, I was trying to find the lecture I listened to by McGrath many months ago. It is on my PC somewhere, but no idea what the file is called.
Any way, I had a look on the old ‘ternet.
Found a lot of free stuff on McGrath’s website here
ftp://oucsweb.ox.ac.uk/
public_html/lectures.html
Pick one to discuss if you like for a later thread – at least it will not cost us any money.
It seems we have a large choice, we have:-
“Atheist Interpreters of Darwin: Richard Dawkins on the God Delusion”
"Science and Religion: Developing a ‘Scientific Theology’"
Both PDF’s so we can quote from the same source (so I don’t make any misunderstandings trying to remember what was written in a book I read at lunchtime.)
Also, I’m better a listening to mp3’s on the train than reading,
So how about:-
"Deluded about God? Responding to Richard Dawkins' God Delusion."
“Has science eliminated God? Richard Dawkins and the Meaning of Life"
As I hope I have shown, I do not avoid such reading and listening – I just do not want to waste money on nonsense…. Time is another thing.
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Striking contrast Lee, with your blanket dismissal of TDD as 'rubbish' so far.
And it is - I did say "so far"… you can show me where I am wrong at any point.
Sorry, my memory of the introduction and chapter 1 is fading fast.
Did AM say that religion could be tested or not?
Did AM create the strawman argument using Father Christmas and the tooth fairy missing the point the religion is reinforced in adulthood by friends, TV, literature, oh and churches. (Never seen a church for the tooth fairy myself – so AM’s comparisons fails – it is a strawman - and I heard AM actually speak the words in a lecture and how smug he made it sound – a accusation AM’s makes against RD, but lets keep people out of this, just the argument)
Did AM state that RD was “not talking about my God and my faith”?
I stand by what I said, but am happy to change my mind. My views and opinions can be easily changed – I do not follow dogma.
A little heated, but those are some points I've felt need to be expressed.
That was not heated… not even close and so feel free to attack my words with as much venom as you like – it is a discussion and debate, so no problems from me on that. I do not take it personal. I always try and be polite to the person, and so do you.
Cheers
Lee
to billy...
have I read dwakins ? No. And here I find something that he and I both stand for - the ability to make critical decisions on a limited background - he speaks of the emperors clothes in his book doesnt he ? Congratulations to him. This is one reason why I see him as a figure of the times, as a pseudo modern figure. The crisis of postmodernism is that it couldnt even collect its thoughts no matter conclude anything from them. It could only gravitate to a hazy feel good emotionalism. The cluttered miasm of the post modern world like a bazaar in dehli leaves me a little concerned. It is a playground for theives and bandits - for the gog and magog of fundamentalism to play out there self destructive vendettas.
I do remember dawkins earlier books from high school. I thought it was interesting but he seemed like a dying breed of scholars that the complexity of the accelerating world was straining to forget - careful discussions inside a closed room. Maybe the god delusion is a relaunch. I could start an argument that their are 2 steven dawkins ! 9/11 seems to have taken his arguments out from the scientific/philosophical into a wider cultural arena. If he is standing up against fanatacism then I can stand beside him on that. If he is saying you dont have to read everything in the world to think clearing I'll be an echo.
One problem to me is he doesnt go deep enough - hes still taking sides - religion or science can be a carrier for human despair - eugenics and mystical neo-paganism in the 3rd reich - himmler in particular - would be a classic example. When he talks about a "catholic" child does he think church schools are preparing some sort pre vatican warrior for the crusades ?
If you want to discuss a specific point form his book. I'll take this one. What does it mean to raise a catholic child. Well it can mean a lot of things - do differnt people. If I said a catholic child was one who could accept all the elements of the world and himself and fuse these together in a way which was essentially life affirming and supportive of himself and others. Would you object to that ? That a well educated child could productuively draw on the resources of science and religion.
Surely that is not anathema to anyone apart from perhaps a fundamentalist.
I am intrested in dawkins ideas of a cultural virus. In saying a child is catholic are you not just letting him know where in the traditions of the world he is coming from. What he does with is up to him ? Is dawkins throwing the baby out with the bathwater ?
I think human nature has a deep tendency to imbalance. To create agendas instead of seeking to resolve potentials of difference. This to mean is the primary relevance of the early chapters of Genesis. No cultural agenda will ever cover the responsibilty of the individual to act in a whole and balanced fashion. Like dawkins I am a pseudo modern - lets get rid of junk and concentrate on whats in front of our face. I'm all for boiling things down. But where do you draw the lines ?
In terms of epistemology you have to know what is fundamental to human nature. One fundamental features are its love of a crusade - its almost easier to beat yourself with one end of the stick than learn to use both. Another is its human kinds innate religiousity. To me to abandon that religiousity is almost to abandon part of your humaness.
I am content to try to ensure that religiosity doesnt flow overboard and leave us worse off that when we started. I cant get away from the idea that atheism as a cultural force is chopping off a slightly tired limb rather than learning how to use it properly.
As for Gordon Brown I have no idea what he is on ! I think he had a very big thought a few years back and is still coming to terms with it. Hes a son of the manse isnt he ?
Ken Ham ! I dont know him. I'll get back on wikipedia - which where ive just read about dawkins book.
But if you want a specific point. This idea of a catholic child being an infrigement of the childs human rights - do you agree with that ?
Some good comments coming through, I can hear the brain cogs whirring. Just thought I should alert Rob in particular, as I'm sure everyone else is used to it, that it's worth COPYING and saving long comments for yourself until they appear here, just in case one gets lost, which has happened to one or two of us very occasionally. Wouldn't want anyone to have the frustration of losing one. Cheers.
Rob Penman-
"I could start an argument that their are 2 steven dawkins!"
Perhaps you mean RICHARD Dawkins.
"9/11 seems to have taken his arguments out from the scientific/philosophical into a wider cultural arena".
I agree that the aftermath of 9/11 has certainly provoked an upsurge in debate. But Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their ilk are saying things that have needed to be said for a long time. It is a shame that it takes something like 9/11 to get their voices heard.
"I am interested in dawkins ideas of a cultural virus. In saying a child is catholic are you not just letting him know where in the traditions of the world he is coming from. What he does with is up to him ?"
Raising a child as a Catholic is not the same as telling him he comes from a Catholic tradition. It can be argued that raising a child in a specific faith when they are too young to understand, let alone make a rational choice, is a form of indoctrination. If you are raised as a Catholic child that is how you will define yourself. Think about the problems that has caused in Northern Ireland. This is a big reason why that conflict lasted as long as it did, and why tensions still persist.
"What he does with it is up to him"
True, but how many will actually break away from it? It can be tremendously difficult for people to shake off their upbringing. There are many who are haunted by notions of Hellfire and damnation.
"To me to abandon that religiousity is almost to abandon part of your humaness".
Therby suggesting that agnostics and atheists are somehow less human than believers? This point of yours requires further clarification.
Hi Rob
have I read dwakins ? No. And here I find something that he and I both stand for - the ability to make critical decisions on a limited background - he speaks of the emperors clothes in his book doesnt he ? Congratulations to him. This is one reason why I see him as a figure of the times, as a pseudo modern figure. The crisis of postmodernism is that it couldnt even collect its thoughts no matter conclude anything from them. It could only gravitate to a hazy feel good emotionalism. The cluttered miasm of the post modern world like a bazaar in dehli leaves me a little concerned. It is a playground for theives and bandits - for the gog and magog of fundamentalism to play out there self destructive vendettas.
Given that you have not read him, how can you honestly comment on his intellectual abilities or philosophy? He has at least read the bible and engaged with various theologians and Christian philosophers.
You really are just throwing words about here. I notice that you are not engaging with his arguments, but just throwing about accusations based ion a subject you admit you are not familiar with. Do you think that is reasonable?
I do remember dawkins earlier books from high school. I thought it was interesting but he seemed like a dying breed of scholars that the complexity of the accelerating world was straining to forget - careful discussions inside a closed room.
Again more meaningless words - also very inaccurate. His early books are about evolution, and believe me the world in not speeding away. In fact the world is not speeding anywhere (except through space)
Maybe the god delusion is a relaunch.
Nope
I could start an argument that their are 2 steven dawkins !
It would help me take you more seriously if you actually knew the name of the man you object to without reading.
9/11 seems to have taken his arguments out from the scientific/philosophical into a wider cultural arena. If he is standing up against fanatacism then I can stand beside him on that. If he is saying you dont have to read everything in the world to think clearing I'll be an echo.
Read the book. He is interested in the truth. He is not against faith, although he is clearly an atheist. He is against fanaticism, so you have that in common. Does this mean you will reappraise your view of him?
One problem to me is he doesnt go deep enough - hes still taking sides
How do you know, you have not read the book!
- religion or science can be a carrier for human despair - eugenics and mystical neo-paganism in the 3rd reich - himmler in particular - would be a classic example. When he talks about a "catholic" child does he think church schools are preparing some sort pre vatican warrior for the crusades ?
The difference is people kill in the name of religion – Hilter was not an atheist by the way. Dogma of all sorts – are dangerous!. The alternative to religion is NOT science. It is reason!
His objection to “catholic children” is the labelling of them from birth. He doesn’t care what they become when they can think for themselves. He gets misrepresented on this point a lot!
If you want to discuss a specific point form his book. I'll take this one. What does it mean to raise a catholic child. Well it can mean a lot of things - do differnt people. If I said a catholic child was one who could accept all the elements of the world and himself and fuse these together in a way which was essentially life affirming and supportive of himself and others. Would you object to that ? That a well educated child could productuively draw on the resources of science and religion.
See above. What he wants is the child to have the Choice. Do you think being pro-choice is a fundamentalist position? Also, Catholicism ruins many life too through the use of guilt, and don’t get me started on the pope, condoms and AIDS.
I am intrested in dawkins ideas of a cultural virus. In saying a child is catholic are you not just letting him know where in the traditions of the world he is coming from. What he does with is up to him ? Is dawkins throwing the baby out with the bathwater ?
What website did you get this from? I recognise it almost word for word. The question is anti choice.
I think human nature has a deep tendency to imbalance. To create agendas instead of seeking to resolve potentials of difference.
I agree, and religion exploits this. Look at the controversy over whether islam is violent or not, or whether gay bishops are allowed or not.
This to mean is the primary relevance of the early chapters of Genesis. No cultural agenda will ever cover the responsibilty of the individual to act in a whole and balanced fashion. Like dawkins I am a pseudo modern - lets get rid of junk and concentrate on whats in front of our face. I'm all for boiling things down. But where do you draw the lines ?
There is a problem when people believe they are committing vile acts in the name of their god. I would say that removes individual accountability.
In terms of epistemology you have to know what is fundamental to human nature. One fundamental features are its love of a crusade - its almost easier to beat yourself with one end of the stick than learn to use both. Another is its human kinds innate religiousity. To me to abandon that religiousity is almost to abandon part of your humaness.
I certainly agree that evolution evolved to serve a function in primitive cultures, and that it gave them survival advantages. However, I don’t feel less human for losing faith. If anything, life is better.
You do bring up a good point that we are perhaps predisposed to belief, and that is a problem for religion – you tend to adopt the religion of your culture. Religion is forced on you. It is not a choice that you make because it is based in any truth.
Because we may be predisposed to religion does not make it real.
I am content to try to ensure that religiosity doesnt flow overboard and leave us worse off that when we started. I cant get away from the idea that atheism as a cultural force is chopping off a slightly tired limb rather than learning how to use it properly.
Perhaps you should read humanist philosophy. Were you even aware that it existed?
As for Gordon Brown I have no idea what he is on ! I think he had a very big thought a few years back and is still coming to terms with it. Hes a son of the manse isnt he ?
Yes and he never shuts up about it!
Ken Ham ! I dont know him. I'll get back on wikipedia - which where ive just read about dawkins book.
Was the neutrality disputed on the page at all. I wouldn’t treat wikipedia as “gospel”.
Ham is promoting an intolerant, fundamentalist, literal reading of the bible agenda. He is incredibly dishonest and works on indoctrinating children.
But if you want a specific point. This idea of a catholic child being an infrigement of the childs human rights - do you agree with that ?
Being told you are a catholic or you will go to hell most certainly is an infringement of human rights!
Do you disagree?
Jonathan and Billy,
Stephen Dawkins and Richard Hawkins - I watched a tv programs the other night which proposed they were twins - at the end the live audience poll disagreed with the presenter....
Ive learned a fair bit about mr dawkins in the last couple of days. Of course I think differently about him now. There would be little point in me continuing to write if I wasnt listening to what you wrote. I've enjoyed this - researching as I write seems so much more enjoyable than serious reading.
I can see I share some common ground with him - especially in the current political climate. Fantacism and irrationality are a plague on our contemporary world.
One thing I have said that makes him stand out positively for me - is that that we have the right to make decisive choices without having to appease the suffocating gods of academia.
I wish he could go a little further and positively embrace something of the irrationality and weirdness of human life - but hey somebody has to be a scientist. Life is a balance of many types. A thousand so years ago Dawkins would just have been a noisy franscian or lutherian.
My problem is with his over estimation and response to the problem of religion. He seems to want to abandon the deus ex machina which is a theme in so many of the worlds religions. This is what he thinks will cripple the demons of fundamentalism.
Its an idea. But its not one which I would put my own personal weight behind. To some degree I applaude his ambition but degree he seeks and the means he takes are not my own. I am in favour in the simplifying and personalising religion - drawing it away from semantic dogmas and allowing it to be the force for cohesion and wholeness which its founders hoped it would be.
I dont think that is unreasonable. Would then Billy Mr Dawkins have a sizeable problem with my stance - other than thinking my belief in god is somehow unreasonable and not worthy of his support. I am asking this because I dont know. Maybe the dawkins readers can help me ?
If you want an exact precise of Dawkins work you will have to look elsewhere. I can only offer you the way in which I percieve this modern day Pentheus.
That is the end of the story. Because I am not here to convince you or change your mind. I can only express how I see things. Thankfully I am only in charge of myself. That poses me enough practical difficulties.
However these things can be said softly or carefully - or with a flourish. To me is is quicker to say that there is a forest fire and dawkins is cutting down too many trees to save himself.
Or to say that just because I've been naughty I have too chuck out all my toys. I like my big blue god tonka truck - my mum gave me it when I was very small . I know I once hit my sister over the head with it. But Im still going to keep it and just try to be a little more sensible.
Over to the 2 of you.
Rob.
I wish people would read Richard Dawkins book the God Delusion before they criticise it. It is almost as if one guy has written a review then everyone else has used review to criticse Dawkins and write their own review without actually reading the book. I have even seen people like Germaine Grier do this. I'd expect better from her.
As for Alistair McGrath, he is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have seen in these debates and he has mental mind compartmentalising going on. In every debate he acts like a deist then switches to say he is a Christian which makes him seem ridiculous. Also at every opportunity he spouts "I used to be an atheist, I used to be an atheist" as if he thinks this gets him credit with atheist. It doesn't. It actually makes me have less respect for him. What arguments did he find stupid when he was an atheist that now he is convinced by? No McGrath you aren't an atheist like me. I have read all the arguments on both sides and see no evidence for belief in a god. I see emotional appeals and ancient scripture which back a foundation of mythology.
McGrath can feel a little better because he has been beaten to number 1 spot in the dishonesty table by Dinesh D'Souza. That guy has so many straw men he could provide the planet with scarecrows.
Rob,
Dawkins has a dislike of post modernism
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,824,
Postmodernism-Disrobed,Richard-Dawkins-Nature
Bruce wrote:
Some good comments coming through, I can hear the brain cogs whirring.
In my case, the wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
I’ll be happy to move onto attacking arguments made if you could provide some good ones from AM. All this person nonsense is just that.
Lee
Hi Rob,
With moderation “turned on” I am in danger of repeating what has already been said by others. For this reason, I will leave much of the debate you are having with Billy and Jonathan to them so you do not here it three times. (I'll jump in only if I see the need)
However, I will pick up on some minor points.
Rob Wrote:
I wish he could go a little further and positively embrace something of the irrationality and weirdness of human life - but hey somebody has to be a scientist.
If only I knew what you meant by “somebody has to be a scientist”?
Also, I thought RD had done a documentary about ‘Crazy thinking” such as astrology and the whatnot for channel 4 (which means I may see it in 2 or 3 years time living in Aus)
Life is a balance of many types. A thousand so years ago Dawkins would just have been a noisy franscian or lutherian
Or burnt on the stake or many stoned to death… you know, the good old religious fashion on “How to win an argument or debate”.
Thank Goodness those days have gone right?
I dont think that is unreasonable. Would then Billy Mr Dawkins have a sizeable problem with my stance - other than thinking my belief in god is somehow unreasonable and not worthy of his support. I am asking this because I dont know. Maybe the dawkins readers can help me ?
Can you give a rational reason why you believe in God? Which God and why? Why have you rejected all other religions and selected your own. (This is a common question we have over at Jonathan's blog)
Back to this thread though, I have to admit when reading Dawkins book that it seems that he wanted rid of ALL RELIGION, and I was thinking myself, “OK – if you do get rid of religion, what will you replace it with?) However listening to RD talk in lectures and debates I get a different impression.
I think RD merely wants rid of “wishy washing thinking” – throwing in another author into the discussion - I’m with Dan Dennett on this one where Dan states that we should NOT get rid of religion without first understanding it. Here is where I think RD and Dan agree (and I with them)- religion (ALL religion) should be taught to children – the facts – children should not be exposure to just one dogmatic religious teaching. It is the labelling of a child a “Roman Catholic child” that RD is against. A child is too young to know better.
On a similar silly note - a friend of ours signed her son up to a particular football when he was only 20 mins old. Now, I don't know about you - but I doubt very much this child of 20 mins has truly considered the opinions of other football times available and other sports. This is the point RD is making on religion and child abuse I think.
++++++++++++++
Steven wrote:
As for Alistair McGrath, he is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I have seen in these debates and he has mental mind compartmentalising going on.
Not just me then?
In every debate he acts like a deist then switches to say he is a Christian which makes him seem ridiculous.
This seems a common argument technique – make an argument for the deist position (which is “reasonable”) then assume the theist God is true based on that argument. Rubbish.
As you said, “intellectually dishonest”.
I see Paul Davis in the same light – all his arguments are for a deist God, yet the Christian love him?
Also at every opportunity he spouts "I used to be an atheist, I used to be an atheist" as if he thinks this gets him credit with atheist. It doesn't. It actually makes me have less respect for him.
I give no respect unless AM could give some rational reason for his change from “atheist to theist” – this is a pretty large jump without justification. As you say, I’ve not seen any such reasoning from AM.
Though, if you think about it – a baby is an atheist when they are born, so I suppose he is right on one level. Just add enough brainwashing and wishful thinking and BINGO – a theist is born.
Lee
Post modern generator site is very funny !
Hi Rob,
I think Lee answered everything I would have said.
I'm not sure we need to replace religion with anything as such - maybe just teach people how to be good members of society.
If religion disappears (and I doubt it will) It will be a slow change.
My interest in religion is more concerned about whether it has any truth than changing the world.
Rob-
"Stephen Dawkins and Richard Hawkins - I watched a tv programs the other night which proposed they were twins - at the end the live audience poll disagreed with the presenter...."
What an odd TV show. At least that clears up the name confusion, though.
"I am in favour in the simplifying and personalising religion - drawing it away from semantic dogmas and allowing it to be the force for cohesion and wholeness which its founders hoped it would be".
I would question whether the early believers wanted it to be any such thing. And in any case I don't see that happening. The simplification and personalisation of religion would inevitably lead to a loss of control by religious elders: I can't see the Pope, the mullahs etc going for that. What sort of semantic dogmas are you referring to?
Billy wrote:
I'm not sure we need to replace religion with anything as such - maybe just teach people how to be good members of society.
I’m not so sure – could everyone really become an atheist? Could this happen “overnight” (maybe some people need stepping stones?)
This interesting stat (and question) I’ve heard in the past is that when you look at belief in god and the sciences – you “higher up” you go, the less belief in god there is – the problem though is it is not zero, even at the top.
Though doubt these people believe in the same type of God as Jimmy and Bruce, there is something still there. Maybe talking monkeys are naturally wishful thinker’s?
This is why Dan Dennett wants religion study. One, to understand how any why it goes “bad” and two, why some people need to believe in something.
I really think TGD fails to address this question – but RD was probably not trying to answer it, more into the “shock treatment” and just “get over it”.
If religion disappears (and I doubt it will) It will be a slow change.
Oh yes… I just hope it can move it into similar position as say astrology. It exists, it is everywhere, people believe it (in a way) but it has no political power and people do not kill others over it.
My interest in religion is more concerned about whether it has any truth than changing the world.
That’s the scientific mind at work and I agree. Truth wins out and all that.
Lee
Hi Bruce
RE:Striking contrast Lee, with your blanket dismissal of TDD as 'rubbish' so far.
Well Bruce my attacks against the introduction and Chapter 1 for TDD have be outlined here on this thread and remain uncontested – this has not stopped me moving onto onto Chapter 2.
I think is it still fair to say “still rubbish so far” – of course, I will not just leave an opinion like this to remain without further comment, I need to supply reasons and examples why I think this to allow anyone here the opportunity to correct me and explain why I am wrong to have such an opinion.
(This is the purpose of a discussion such as the one you have opened)
So why do I think Chapter 2 is rubbish?
Well, of course the book is still in the shop so I will have to quote from memory but once again AM creates a straw man by stating that according to Richard Dawkins “Science has no limits” (When has RD ever been quoted directly as saying such a thing? Who said AM was “intellectually dishonest”?)
The rest of AM’s dribble is attacking this straw man – well if you cannot debate your way out of a paper bag it is best to create a target that you can “win” right?
Bruce, could you agree this was the main point being made by AM in this chapter? This and (this bit makes me laugh) religion and science DO overlap.
Now, on the first point “Science has no limits”, I doubt very much this is a view held by any scientist? Billy and I have stated many times a different view – so this is just a great big fluffy straw man for AM. Little more needs to be said.
(That’s 75% of the chapter I think- so AM pulling out scientist’s quotes who may be atheist, deist or Christian is a waste of time when your premise is flawed.)
However on the “Partially Non-Overlapping Magisteria” – this was an interesting statement from McGrath.
AM stated that he could agreed with Dawkins on this point – that some part of his religion could be tested by science - but he doesn’t however state “how” the theistic interactions from his Christian God might be tested – leaving this important topic unanswered in this chapter.
This is why I state this chapter as rubbish.
Another straw man and a statement not backed up (at the very least AM should say at what point in his book will this topic be expanded on – well, I missed it - so Bruce can you tell me the chapter or page AM talks about how the interactions from God are testable and thus showing why McGrath has the view of “Partially Non-Overlapping Magisteria”? Doubt it, but you never know)
Maybe I just misunderstood McGrath – I was reading rather fast this lunch time, so I’m sure I could have made a mistake.
Feel free Bruce to but me straight
Cheers
Lee
I’m not so sure – could everyone really become an atheist? Could this happen “overnight” (maybe some people need stepping stones?)
Certainly not overnight. I was thinking more a population trend over a long period of time. Losing faith can be traumatic for the individal, but I have not hear of someone who lost faith who ultimately did not think they were better off for it (there may of course be some, but the overall impression it that peple are better off).
As long as there is suffering though, people will always have the need for a comfort blanket. So tackling suffering in the world may be the best way of freeing people from this need.
As an interesting aside, I was reading stephen laws article on an evil god, where he shows a little "good" to maximise evil - note any paralells?
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/
intellectual-black-hole.html
Billy wrote:
Losing faith can be traumatic for the individal
Never had it and that I think this is important when it comes to “taming religion”.
It is also important that you say “traumatic” – why force that on any child? This is the point where it can be called child abuse.
Anyway, I was thinking about my education at school and how some people "got faith" and some, like me, did not.
At primary school we had prayers, readings and the what-not from the "Good News Bible" and we got to draw pictures of Jesus on the cross. Christianity was certainly all around me, I was a child so Father Christmas and Jesus all made sense to me as stories, but I just never thought about it at 7 years old.
My folks were not religious so this was the only exposure I got to any religion - it was "light" to say the least. No church or bible readings for me outside school.
Now onto secondary school - well, 40% of my school were Muslims - not easy for the school to teach purely the Christian faith in that environment, so I got a “religious education” – all of them.
(The school would be damned if they taught Christian ideas by the Muslims, and dammed if they taught Islam by the Christian)
So unintentional I feel, I got the education that Dan Dennett spoke of (I suppose this is why I like the idea of it). It does not stop belief in one religion, but it makes it a lot harder – it would require a lot of input from the parents and church to indoctrinate.
Just to complete my “life history” about my education – I then choose to go to a Roman Catholic college to see what I was missing… nothing really it turns out apart from wishful thinking.
Anyway, it seems we have a new thread from Bruce, so has the debate on TGD Vs TDD ended?
Lee
PS
Thanks for the link - I'll take a look soon, time for brekky
Hi Bruce,
Is there any point in me reading more of this TDD?
I’ve posted a few comments on the book here and you have not told me where or why I am wrong with my comments. (Though you have been clear you do not like my responses)
You did start this thread for a discussion didn’t you?
I started the 3rd chapter this lunch time – but it is all getting to be a bit of the same – “Somebody told me this” or “I heard from such and such that” or “I have a leaked e-mail to such and such that says this” – “some person has written here that they don’t like Dawkins” – “some critics didn’t like his book/TV series” – no sources, no references that can be checked, no argument. It is name calling at worst or an argument from authority at best. McGrath has not been able to attack any of Dawkins arguments directly, merely “call names” or suggest “somebody does not like Dawkins”. Is it pretty poor...
The cry “where is the science?” from McGrath in the 3rd chapter is almost laughable as an attack or a defence. TGD is not a science book per se (Dawkins has done enough of those) so this cry sounds like a cry from a boy about to take his ball home. The “attack” was used by AM about Dawkins when in TGD he suggesting a natural cause for the belief in God – if “where is the science?” is the best attack McGrath has, I am glad I have not wasted any money on the book and I see no reason from you why you feel I should continue reading it.
Though again, maybe in my rush reading the book I missed the “killer argument” – tell me what it is please, give me something challenging to think about from this pamphlet.
There must be a good chapter somewhere – can you point me too it? I’m nearly a third of the way through and I am not impressed. Why am I wrong?
Lee
Shall we start basic to enter into a debate here.
The heading of the thread is:-
"The charm and the flaw of Richard Dawkins"
What has Dawkins charm got to do with the argument made, and what is the flaw?
For anyone interested.
I just went over to atheismsucks (I know - I should stop, but I’ve got some good mp3 lectures from the site in the past)
Anyway, one of the bloggers there has their own blog where they claim they will be attacking each (and every?) point made in the God Delusion.
Could be interesting if the chap is up for a debate – I doubt it though. (I was “censored” on one debate at atheism sucks before now, and have been ignored in the past there – so we will see.)
Anyway, their blog is below:
http://christianfreethought.blogspot.com
/2008/02/god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins.html
“Christian Freethought” is that possible? Are they free to think Jesus was “just this guy you know”?
Lee
Hi Lee,
Those are my impressions of AM and everyone else who tries to attack Dawkins - no substance, name calling or a priori devotion to the bible. I hope Bruce now accepts people have looked into these things.
We are still waiting for some substance.
Concerning religion at scholl, I remember being forced to recite the lord's prayer in primary school. I also remember being punished for not closing my eyes.
Some of my cathlic friends were also physically abused by nuns in the name of dogma at school too. Roll on secularism!
Lee-
I've left a comment on the Christian Freethought blog, but since this guy is one of the contributors on Atheism Sucks, I can't see it going well!
Of interest:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
system/topicRoot/Richard_Dawkins/
I wont give my living room impression of mcgrath - seeing as my personal view of dawkins provoked such an excited response - I will only ask one question - is he or is he not "hairy". I get confused between him and dave lee travis - can anyone enlighten me ?
As Ive said I can't comment on Dawkins specifically. I only popped in to say a noisy hello because Bruce is an old schoolfriend. But regarding scientific atheism in general - i can reflect on - i apologise if im somewhat behind your debate...
Scientific athesim appears to me to be a set of ideas which clusters around empiricism and materialism. In its hardest form : the universe is soley material and can soley be explained in mechanistic terms. As a belief it appears throughout history - the first time I recall is with democritus and the other guy whose name I cant remember. It is a reductionist philosophy because one of its primary purposes is to make ockams razor as sharp as it can be.
I completely agree that the universe can be explained without intelligent design. Intellectually I dont think this is really a problem. It merely appears to be designed. A human like creator - a big daddy - is simply an anthropromorphism. Democritus's friend Heraclitus made the rather obvious observation: if the horses drew gods they would draw them as horses and not men.
Indeed we can argue that the religious nature of man is merely the reflection of a winning gene.
It can be explained away - it is a clear thought. Cetainly better than a celestail teapot. However my question is in doing so are we being savaged by our intellect and propelled by a cultural mileu which is rejecting the worst of our religious past. The anthropromorphic argument cuts both ways.
We are only capable of thinking in ways which reflect our enviroment - the mind is not an island - our sense of logic and reason is a reflection of the very laws we are studying. The most generalised observation will percieve that nature is a balance of opposites - and in developing our thinking I suggest we must ensure that such a natural sense of justice is preserved. The core text of taoism the doa de jing shows how observing the natural world can indeed be developed into such a moral and mental methodology
Thus my very experience of the natural world - of supporting dualities - leads me to embrace thought patterns which themselves are dual - rather than unitary.
The core religious nature of man - the experiences of numinous - the scary part of religion - and sehnsucht - the happy part - become a delusion for an atheist. To me these experiences are a key feature of the debate. They are like the daimon of socrates - the inner knowing which feels its way between two possible and rational arguments.
I dont think it is unreasonable to posit the possibility of a transcendental god - but I think the possiblity of thinking that can be crushed by a culture which swings the other way - we forget how hard it is to think outside of our cultural and position in time. The ideas of an soley immanent god - of the laws of nature and the principles of evolution have been virtually unthinkable. I would be dissapointed to see the intellectual and cultural potential of transcendental theism lost in a cultural counterswell.
The very word religion comes from the root to bind - people get together and they bind things up - thoughts and concepts. A brights convention has the same function to me as a muslim call to prayer. People become more something by being around something.
Religion to me - when seen in its widest sense is neutral - it can be good or bad for those inside it. The argument over religion is greater than the argument over thesim or atheism. Zen Buddhists are atheist.
I would however be happy to say any religious practice which was founded on a bias premise should be treated with caution. At present the transcendental warriors are a double demon. Where the god is only outside - when the person is relegated by dogma : walk away.
Ive been trying to think of a part of the gospels which might shed some light on this debate.
When jesus talks about the resureection from the dead - that comes to mind. The religious leaders were split some denied some agreed. Jesus didnt dismiss resurection but rather he focused on its goal : perfection of the individual. That is what religion should in my mind focus on. Jesus also counterbalanced his statements on the transcendental nature of god with a permanent and repeating insistence that god was to be found within the world - and individual.
It was not without the intelligence of jesus to dismiss the idea of a big god - buddha and democritus had practically done that 400 or 500 years before.
However a key theme of jesus' mission is revelation - revealing the nature of the hidden transcendental god - taking tea from the teapot. The new testament in my mind is a perfectly consistent and coherent reflection of jesus's revelation of this transcedental god. That the new testament is grossly misused and worshiped as an idol is another issue.
Indeed New testament critcism is another subject . But the vaguries which led darwin to neglect his own faith were in my opinons the reflection of his own time. Conservative New testament scholarship has never been in a stronger position. It is funny however in popular culture it has never been viewed in greater ridicule. Jesus was an greek god - an tibetan - a hard line jew - a revolutionary. It is testament to something of the guys width of character that he can be cut up in so many ways.
Indeed the core of my own personal argument for christian theism remains an attempt to adopt a way of thinking and more importantly a way of living which allows me to engage with the world in a wide, humane and consistent manner. If I were to disown it I would feel I was doing injustice to the taoist like intimations of nature and at least what I percieve to be the clear and uncomplicated revelation of the new testament.
I realise others might not agree. I also realise there are countless factors which influence peoples views including my own. Believing that the universe is not real and we are mental projections from a teapot behind an illusionary mars is a rather filamental approach. Concieving of it as a closed system without any possibility of a window to another world is to me equally constricting - and too much of a panic reaction to the excesses of exoteric religion. But that atheism can be an aid to clarity - as in the case zen buddhism - I am happy to agree.
But as I say these are personal reflections - everyone has to make up their own view of the world. That is part of the fun. I would always hope that anyones view can express their own individuals growth and potential for wholeness.
I can be accused of sophistry if I refuse to be drawn into particular arguments - but the minutae of philosophy pass away with the time period in which they are expressed. I am all for a broad brush. There are so many other things to do.
Rob.
Scientific athesim appears to me to be a set of ideas which clusters around empiricism and materialism. In its hardest form : the universe is soley material and can soley be explained in mechanistic terms. As a belief it appears throughout history - the first time I recall is with democritus and the other guy whose name I cant remember. It is a reductionist philosophy because one of its primary purposes is to make ockams razor as sharp as it can be.
Careful, you dont make a strawman here. I doubt many atheists are committed to the idea that the universe is solely physical. We just see no evidence of anything else - that is a significant point!
It can be explained away - it is a clear thought. Cetainly better than a celestail teapot. However my question is in doing so are we being savaged by our intellect and propelled by a cultural mileu which is rejecting the worst of our religious past. The anthropromorphic argument cuts both ways.
To be brief, no!
All the anthropomorphic principle states is that parts of the universe are fit for habitation by organisms like us.
The core text of taoism the doa de jing shows how observing the natural world can indeed be developed into such a moral and mental methodology
By cherry picking. Very few will think the mating behaviour of the praying mantis would make for a good ethical system.
And if our minds are constrained by the laws that govern them, then that still means there is no evidence for theism. One may even argue then that a supernatural god is unknowable.
we forget how hard it is to think outside of our cultural and position in time.
I dont think so. I dont think time or culture could blinker someone to seeing a limb regrow for example.
I would be dissapointed to see the intellectual and cultural potential of transcendental theism lost in a cultural counterswell.
I think the best way I can describe the transcendental argument is presuppositionalist and circular.
People become more something by being around something.
I became more atheist by being around christians!"
Religion to me - when seen in its widest sense is neutral - it can be good or bad for those inside it.
Then it is not neutral.
Jesus didnt dismiss resurection but rather he focused on its goal : perfection of the individual. That is what religion should in my mind focus on. Jesus also counterbalanced his statements on the transcendental nature of god with a permanent and repeating insistence that god was to be found within the world - and individual.
And others disagree - how do you decide who (if any) are right?
It was not without the intelligence of jesus to dismiss the idea of a big god
Explain
However a key theme of jesus' mission is revelation - revealing the nature of the hidden transcendental god - taking tea from the teapot. The new testament in my mind is a perfectly consistent and coherent reflection of jesus's revelation of this transcedental god. That the new testament is grossly misused and worshiped as an idol is another issue.
Consistency does not mean there is a god. Many philosophical beliefs can be consistent - man are not. I find nasty OT god inconsistent with somewhat nicer NT god.
I dont have time to deal with the rest at the moment, but you seem to be arguing for an unknowable god that you recognise there are problems with in terms of bias. Why do you believe in him? and what exactly do you believe about him? Why do you think you are not being swayed by bias?
Scientific athesim appears to me to be a set of ideas which clusters around empiricism and materialism. In its hardest form : the universe is soley material and can soley be explained in mechanistic terms. As a belief it appears throughout history - the first time I recall is with democritus and the other guy whose name I cant remember. It is a reductionist philosophy because one of its primary purposes is to make ockams razor as sharp as it can be.
Careful, you dont make a strawman here. I doubt many atheists are committed to the idea that the universe is solely physical. We just see no evidence of anything else - that is a significant point!
- thats why i said "hardest form" -
It can be explained away - it is a clear thought. Cetainly better than a celestail teapot. However my question is in doing so are we being savaged by our intellect and propelled by a cultural mileu which is rejecting the worst of our religious past. The anthropromorphic argument cuts both ways.
To be brief, no!
All the anthropomorphic principle states is that parts of the universe are fit for habitation by organisms like us.
I assume your quoting someone elses definition of an anthropromorphic argument - I'm loosely reflecting on heraclitus' statement about horses.
We view the universe through human eyes but we in turn view ourselves through our own view of the universe.
The core text of taoism the doa de jing shows how observing the natural world can indeed be developed into such a moral and mental methodology
By cherry picking. Very few will think the mating behaviour of the praying mantis would make for a good ethical system.
- If the doa de jing was just drawing random analogys it could be classed at cherry picking but it is looking for - how can i describe it - the observable principles which underlie natural phenomenon and change - its not unreasonable to assosciate it with the logos of heraclitus and subsequently the logos of Johns gospel.
And if our minds are constrained by the laws that govern them, then that still means there is no evidence for theism. One may even argue then that a supernatural god is unknowable.
No but the patterns which our minds concieve have an objectivity in their reflection of the patterns and balance of the natural world. Natural Revelation becomes a ground on which Special Revelation has to sit. The starting point of johns gospel is that jesus is be called the logos -the authour of theprologue maintains their is a seamless connection which hallmarks his revelation.
we forget how hard it is to think outside of our cultural and position in time.
I dont think so. I dont think time or culture could blinker someone to seeing a limb regrow for example.
Then why did something as obvious as evolution lie dormant in western culture for around 2,000 years - its quite a simple thought ?
I would be dissapointed to see the intellectual and cultural potential of transcendental theism lost in a cultural counterswell.
I think the best way I can describe the transcendental argument is presuppositionalist and circular.
A transcendent argument can't be boiled down to empirical observation because as far as I use the term it covers what cannot be boiled down to mechanical observation. Atheism halts its methodology at empirical observation. In terms of epistemology this is - how can I describe it - just one layer of certainty. Look at the work of Zeno - idealism is safer still than empiricism. How do you know the world exists to get all empirical about ? Empirical Atheists just chose to stop at one layer in the shell of knowledge. Given your method I would be worried if you didnt see trancendentalism as anything other than presuppositionalist and circular - it would be illogical.
People become more something by being around something.
I became more atheist by being around christians!"
funny - christians and socialists they always say are the worst adverts for their beliefs......
Jesus didnt dismiss resurection but rather he focused on its goal : perfection of the individual. That is what religion should in my mind focus on. Jesus also counterbalanced his statements on the transcendental nature of god with a permanent and repeating insistence that god was to be found within the world - and individual.
And others disagree - how do you decide who (if any) are right?
I dont. I form my own opinion. But that jesus' approach was anti authoritarian and effectively cut out the middle man in religious terms - to my knowledge most new testament scholars would agree on that.
It was not without the intelligence of jesus to dismiss the idea of a big god
The range of philosophical ideas circulating in the near east in jesus' time included approaches which marginalised the approach to a transcendental diety or dieties. It would be unfair to him to hijack him into a jesus for atheists camp as hawkins seems to want to. I jesus wanted to play this line I think its safe to say he had the intelligence and the oppertunity.
However a key theme of jesus' mission is revelation - revealing the nature of the hidden transcendental god - taking tea from the teapot. The new testament in my mind is a perfectly consistent and coherent reflection of jesus's revelation of this transcedental god. That the new testament is grossly misused and worshiped as an idol is another issue.
Consistency does not mean there is a god.
I am saying the development of the new testament writings show a consistent pattern of thought and in turn make them a reasonable account of jesus' revelation.
Many philosophical beliefs can be consistent - man are not. I find nasty OT god inconsistent with somewhat nicer NT god.
I would maintain revelation in the bible is gradual. Just because the scots and the americans have treated the OT with a reverence which would shame an ancient isrealite doesnt mean we all have to sit around worrying about whether or not to stone each other.
One key thing to me about the NT is the way jesus managed to begin the transformation of a rather obviously imperfect understanding of god.
I dont have time to deal with the rest at the moment, but you seem to be arguing for an unknowable god that you recognise there are problems with in terms of bias. Why do you believe in him? and what exactly do you believe about him? Why do you think you are not being swayed by bias?
There is always bias in any approach to knowledge - Personally I am willing to accomodating that. I like the big picture. My mind can accomodate it and I find it in turn accomodates me.
But that I think my mind should reflect a vaired and apparently mutually opposing set of overlapping methodologies as empiricism and revelation - this is because such a holistic view reflects the natural world - of which we are part. My aim is to use every method to acquire every possible form of knowledge. Empiricism is a valuable branch of the tree of knowledge - but it is not the only one.
That god is knowable I take from natural revelation ( see heraclitus or the dao de jing or just work as a farmer for 40 years ) and special revelation ( see NT ). That god is unknowable I take as a final part in the jigsaw of knowledge. We know enough to know we know very little. One of the principle goals of christian discpleship is emptying oneself of knowledge and noise. Clarity is not the preserve of atheism.
Pieces of a jigsaw look worthless in their own right. Splitting hairs seems pointless to me. The final look of the whole theory thing lets you decide if you want to hang it on your wall or not. An analogy I know. But in terms of natural revelation - "the whole is more than the sum of its parts".
Saying you cant prove god empirically is like an idealist saying you can't prove empiricism. Your not letting anyone else sit at the table. Dawkins takes one methodology empricism and applies it to the whole field of human knowledge - and suprise suprise your only left with empirical theories. Not exactly complicated is it ?
Why do you think midgley said engaging with dawkins would be like trying to "break a butterfly on a wheel". Empirical atheism all looks pretty and neat and very safe but to be frank I think its childs play. I wont insult you with psychological explanations as to why people choose less rather than more. Maybe its a needs-must and sensible place to hide - especially in todays over stimulated world - but it doesnt do justice to the wealth of the human mind or the potential of our experience.
Clear thinking can be a benefit to an irrational world. Christain theism is not safe from charlatans crooks and dogmatists. It requires brain cells - it needs methods of knowlege - it just needs more than one.
Rob
That might be me for a bit folks.
Thanks for your grilling - especially Billy. By nature Im a flash in the pan. I havent thought about any of these really since I left school. This has been intersting - but its half one in the morning ! This issue is settling for me at least. I'll try and pop in every now and then - Billy Ive written to you more than some members of my family !
Billy wrote:
Those are my impressions of AM and everyone else who tries to attack Dawkins - no substance, name calling or a priori devotion to the bible.
There is nothing in TDD to make you think anything else (so far)
I hope Bruce now accepts people have looked into these things.
Doubt it after reading what was written on Jonathan’s blog.
Anyway, I’ve now completed reading chapter 3 of TDD – another load of rubbish.
As I mentioned before AM’s attack is on a very minor point in the book TGD – a suggestion from RD for a natural cause for religion and the belief in God. RD actually said it was merely an idea (an idea that is expanded on far better in Dan Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell” – AM tries to attack Dan on this book as well and there is a mp3 debate between the two on the links I provided.)
It is funny reading the chapter 3 how AM tries to move himself into a “neutral” position and saying things like “most people believe in religion” missing the point that most people do not agree with Christianity either (Dan’s belief in belief rings true here.)
The only real “attack” AM makes is to question the idea of the meme in the role of RD’s natural explanation (basically ignoring the other valid point with regards to the evolutional points made).
Well – memes are just an idea, and although is probably not the final answer, the meme is a useful tool in explaining the observed. (However, this could just be like Ptolemy and the planets – it works OK but for all the wrong reasons)
So McGrath’s actually attacked on the meme was thus “the meme has not been measured – that no one has seen a meme jump into someone’s head or seen sticking out of someone’s ear” (Paraphrasing of course – the book is still in the shop but the “ear” was mentioned)
Yet what is AM’s solution? God of course… erm, let me think about this for a second.
God has not been measured, no one has seen God etc etc…
The pot calling the kettle black? Which solution then has the least unknowns?
It right back at one of my earlier assessment of AM – he will argue a point against someone else’s idea, but not apply it to his own. AM does not follow through the logic to their natural conclusion.
This is why McGrath is a joke in my book and a dishonest one at that.
So chapter 3 is an attack on a possible natural solution – it does NOT make AM’s Christian God true – it is not a major point being made by RD either.
Disproving A does not prove B – this is a key point Richard Dawkins makes, forgotten of course by McGrath.
McGrath does not invalidate ANY of the arguments Dawkins raises against God. (Another empty chapter then it would appear)
Well – 75 pages down, 25 to go? I’m ¾ of the way through the book – what is next?
“Religion is the root of all evil” I think – does Dawkins ever actually say it is?
Bruce, do I still need to read this dribble – what is it proving?
Oh, and feel free to tell me why any of my assessments of AM are wrong and I will be happy to debate them with you.
Lee
Hi Rob
Two quick replies to a couple of comments. (I leave the rest to Billy)
Then why did something as obvious as evolution lie dormant in western culture for around 2,000 years - its quite a simple thought ?
It is sometimes hard to see the wood for the trees?
Why did people think for 2,000 years that the Earth was the centre of the universe with the sun going around it? Was it because is made sense and, for some, it was reinforced by their religion?
Empirical atheism all looks pretty and neat and very safe but to be frank I think its childs play
Have you tried understanding quantum mechanics and general relativity sober?
It is not child’s play.
Of course, if you want to make it difficult you could start inventing stories to believe in that have no evidence to back them up and so require faith.
Lee
Hi Rob,
- thats why i said "hardest form" -
That’s why I said be careful.
I assume your quoting someone elses definition of an anthropromorphic argument - I'm loosely reflecting on heraclitus' statement about horses.
I would distinguish from the principle and the argument made from the principle. All the principle basically says is as I have described. The argument that a god fine tuned it is really just an opinion and is not evidence for one. There are many other possibilities on the matter. To choose for god is to reject the others based on ignorance.
- If the doa de jing was just drawing random analogys it could be classed at cherry picking but it is looking for - how can i describe it - the observable principles which underlie natural phenomenon and change - its not unreasonable to assosciate it with the logos of heraclitus and subsequently the logos of Johns gospel.
Many will argue that John is a hijacking of Heraclitus to convert the greeks. You have still not demonstrated how the “evil” and “ugly” side of nature argues for a loving god.
No but the patterns which our minds concieve have an objectivity in their reflection of the patterns and balance of the natural world. Natural Revelation becomes a ground on which Special Revelation has to sit.
No, our minds have a largely subjective aspect. What do you consider objective?
The idea that special revelation follow natural revelation is not demonstrated. Special revelation may be rooted in the natural, but is subjective and rooted in neurochemistry.
Then why did something as obvious as evolution lie dormant in western culture for around 2,000 years - its quite a simple thought ?
I think you are addressing something different to my point. There are situations where evidence can be considered objective – growing new limbs is one. Cant remember off the top of my head, but didn’t one of the greek philosophers hypothesise something akin to evolution. I believe Aristotle also proposes the inheritance of characteristics through “pangenesis”.
Given your method I would be worried if you didnt see trancendentalism as anything other than presuppositionalist and circular - it would be illogical.
Given the presuppositionalist nature of it, I would be surprised too.
funny - christians and socialists they always say are the worst adverts for their beliefs......
Yeah, but socialists don’t boast about what a bad example they are – how often do you hear a Christian say “no one is a worse sinner than me”?
But that jesus' approach was anti authoritarian and effectively cut out the middle man in religious terms - to my knowledge most new testament scholars would agree on that.
I think he was actually both. I’m reminded of the bit in life of Brian at the sermon on the mound where someone says” well, basically it is blessed is anyone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo”?
Got to go, more later
Hi Rob,
Cant remember where I left off now - the joys of moderation.
The range of philosophical ideas circulating in the near east in jesus' time included approaches which marginalised the approach to a transcendental diety or dieties. It would be unfair to him to hijack him into a jesus for atheists camp as hawkins seems to want to. I jesus wanted to play this line I think its safe to say he had the intelligence and the oppertunity.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Personally I am not a supporter of Jesus for atheists. I dont think that he had any original teachings concerning ethics.
I am saying the development of the new testament writings show a consistent pattern of thought and in turn make them a reasonable account of jesus' revelation.
Not sure what you mean here too. I wouldn't call the teachings consstent - there are many different views on what he meant. We have predeterminists, unitarians, trinitarians, those weho emphasiswe grace, those who emphasise deeds and those who disagree on which deeds are permissible. The issue of salvation is very confused for example.
?I would maintain revelation in the bible is gradual. Just because the scots and the americans have treated the OT with a reverence which would shame an ancient isrealite doesnt mean we all have to sit around worrying about whether or not to stone each other
Well, the ancient isrealites thought their law was perfect and the stories were literal.
One key thing to me about the NT is the way jesus managed to begin the transformation of a rather obviously imperfect understanding of god.
I dont think it was a misunderstanding. NT god is different to the NT one. The christians changed him. I would be interested to know why you think their image was wrong. OT god is very clear that favour comes from deeds (unless you are Job). Jesus is a contradiction.
The jews disagree with you, so how do you decide without resorting to a preconcieved notion of what god should be?
this is because such a holistic view reflects the natural world - of which we are part.
How does it?
How do you validate the subjective? If two of you pray for guidance on a matter, there is a good probability you will come up with different answers. A good example at the moment being gay bishops. Why dont christians agree?
My aim is to use every method to acquire every possible form of knowledge. Empiricism is a valuable branch of the tree of knowledge - but it is not the only one.
How do you know there are others?
That god is knowable I take from natural revelation ( see heraclitus or the dao de jing or just work as a farmer for 40 years ) and special revelation ( see NT ).
How does that make him knowable? All I then "know" is that god allows suffering - he creates disease and stirs up war. He is an avid fan of blood sports and makes crops fail.
One of the principle goals of christian discpleship is emptying oneself of knowledge and noise. Clarity is not the preserve of atheism.
so far, you have not demonstrated the validity of your approach. You seem to be under the misaprehension that atheism is a belief system - it is a nonbelief or philosophical system. Atheism should not extend beyond I do not believe in gods. The fact that we dont need god to explain nature is not atheism per se.
"the whole is more than the sum of its parts".
This seems to presuppose there is something else. Where is the evidence?
Dawkins takes one methodology empricism and applies it to the whole field of human knowledge - and suprise suprise your only left with empirical theories. Not exactly complicated is it ?
And it is the only way to know things - is it possible to have a non empirical theory? (check the definition of theory before answering).
It seems you are using something you can not validate.
Why is god so shy about appearing? He supposedly died to allow us to hang out with him - just letting us hang with him would be so much more sensible. I guess that means that god can not have free will if he is constrained by his own nature. Would that not make him imperfect?
Why do you think midgley said engaging with dawkins would be like trying to "break a butterfly on a wheel".
Midgley gets a roasting here
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1664,Against
-the-grain-There-are-questions-that-science-
cannot-answer,Mary-Midgley-The-Independent
I wont insult you with psychological explanations as to why people choose less rather than more. Maybe its a needs-must and sensible place to hide - especially in todays over stimulated world - but it doesnt do justice to the wealth of the human mind or the potential of our experience.
Try losing your faith and see if you think it is a need to hide.
It requires brain cells - it needs methods of knowlege - it just needs more than one.
I would say that it required some input from a god to clean up all the schisms and sectarian feuds - just a thought
Hi Bruce,
I’ve been thinking about TDD and TGD – many people have been reading these books and getting very different opinions. It could be said the results are based on the original opinions that person had BEFORE reading. This is not good.
When I was over at atheismsucks blog – all the theists there commented on how rubbish RD’s arguments were in his book, they sounded precisely like my comments about TDD. (No examples were given which is a shame)
I suppose it is possible both sides are right (i.e. both books are rubbish) but it does seem rather strange.
What do you think? How could we test this?
I’m worried that I am talking rubbish about TDD and McGrath based purely on my original assumptions – I do not like this and want to try and eliminate (or test) this bias the best I can, I might only be remembering the bad bits from TDD - so can you please help me?
This is my proposal…
Can you provide a strong (important) argument that McGrath uses in TDD to attack Richard Dawkins main points (not about RD the person, or what other people think of him) – an argument that challenges one of RD’s assumptions that God does not exist maybe – quote it from the book so you are not paraphrasing or anything. That we can all discuss this argument and see if it is truly rubbish.
To make it a fair test, we would then need a similar argument from TGD. My copy of the book is at a friends, so could someone here (Billy/Jonathan) get a hold of the book and post a strong argument from that? (If you have also lent out your copy, I’m sure we got get a quote from somewhere… I could listen to a lecture on a podcast or something)
What do you think? It would seem the right thing to do – to actually challenge the arguments made rather than the person.
Lee
PS
How did the interview go?
Billy wrote:
Concerning religion at scholl, I remember being forced to recite the lord's prayer in primary school. I also remember being punished for not closing my eyes.
How did the teacher know you did not have your eyes close?
Shouldn't they have been praying as well (with eyes closed)?
Also, where in the bible does it say you have to have your eyes closed?
Why would God care?
I doubt I would have lasted long at that school… though of course, this is me an adult thinking – it is not so easy as a 7 year old.
This is why dogmatic teaching is awful and parents SHOULD protect their children from it. The problem is, most were brainwashed by the system that this is correct and right.
In a few years time it will be interesting when my son starts goes to school – not sure how they push religion over here yet, but I will be more than happy to have a word with the headmaster if the religious teaching is “one-sided”. (If they do not teach about Quetzalcoatl there will be trouble!)
My sister recommends sending my son to an RC school (like her kids) because the education is better – somehow I do not see my son (me actually) lasting long there, I’m not very good at keeping quiet.
Some of my cathlic friends were also physically abused by nuns in the name of dogma at school too.
Grr… justice would be that these nuns are now in old people’s homes in dirty nappies not knowing if they are Queen Elizabeth or Florence Nightingale.
Sorry – that’s not nice is it?
Roll on secularism!
I never would have thought (until now) my education was actually improved because of the high Muslim intake – funny when you think about it. It certainly “saved me” from the pain of “losing god”. Thank Goodness
Lee
Hi Bruce,
For the record – I finished TDD is top quick time for me.
I can now say it is rubbish (and don’t need to include “so far”) – I feel dirty for reading it as well; the only thing that makes me feel better is I now have “stolen“ $30 from McGrath by not buying it.
The last chapter had very little content really since it is not an argument RD makes – bad people do bad things, we know that – “get over it” - what was that about making good people do bad things?
I do feel embarrassed for McGrath though in the last chapter as he felt the need to drag his argument into the cutter with the “Stalin was an atheist killing in the name of atheism” – it does highlight the argumentative style of the man.
State something, but don’t back it up. I mean, his book is only 100 pages long and is selling at the same price as TGD (I think this is more like 400 pages) – I’m sure McGrath could have spent a little time backing up his claims. Alias no
Lee, thanks for your ideas about taking forward the discussion re TGD and TDD. I will follow them up in due course, and as far as I can, earlier comments in general.
It could be interesting if you want a discussion.
For anyone thinking about reading TDD – don’t waste your time.
The 45 min lecture of McGrath says ALL the “arguments” made in this book (listen to the Q&A if you can – I particular like AM’s reasoning why his interview was cut from the Root of All Evil? series.)
Again, the details can be found at
http://users.ox.ac.uk/
~mcgrath/lectures.html
(I think I give the wrong link before, sorry – don’t know how.)
The lecture I listened to this morning is known as
"Deluded about God? Responding to Richard Dawkins' God Delusion."
You get re-directed to the following where the mp3 can be found:-
http://www.citychurchsf.org/
openforum.htm
Bruce, if you think I am wrong on this assessment, listen to the lecture and tell me why.
(It will take you less time it did me reading this TDD book you recommended)
Lee
Hi Bruce,
Are posts missing or just slow in coming... I wrote a few yesterday but only see one?
I've got a copy of them of course, but they are at work so I hope they come through.
Lee
Post a Comment