Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[mijopaalmc]

You know, articulett, it's too bad that you only consider discussants who agrree with you to worthy of your respect and attention. You might actually learn something if you weren't so burdened with confirmation bias.

 

[articulett]

You know, articulett, it's too bad that you only consider discussants who agrree with you to worthy of your respect and attention. You might actually learn something if you weren't so burdened with confirmation bias.

Now THAT, is irony.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Now THAT, is irony.

And that demonstrates that you don;t know what irony is.

I have acknowledged the validity of the sources you have provided on "religious abuse" of homosexuals, but mentioned that you are overgeneralizing the results in order to say that religion in general is harmful to children in general. You have ignored or minimized the research that I have provided and not explained how the results fit into you worldview on religion.

I have also explained that Creighton study shows correlations between religion and social ills, but that removing religion might not actually solve those ills because religion may not be causing them. Yo have flat out ignored me on this point except to say that my evidence only showed correlations as well (which is true but begs the question of why you find your correlations so much more compelling) and to call me a "religious apologist" (which, given the context in which you use it, is and insult and a lie).

 

[articulett]

And that demonstrates that you don;t know what irony is.

I have acknowledged the validity of the sources you have provided on "religious abuse" of homosexuals, but mentioned that you are overgeneralizing the results in order to say that religion in general is harmful to children in general. You have ignored or minimized the research that I have provided and not explained how the results fit into you worldview on religion.

I have also explained that Creighton study shows correlations between religion and social ills, but that removing religion might not actually solve those ills because religion may not be causing them. Yo have flat out ignored me on this point except to say that my evidence only showed correlations as well (which is true but begs the question of why you find your correlations so much more compelling) and to call me a "religious apologist" (which, given the context in which you use it, is and insult and a lie).

Do you ever notice that no one else even thinks what you are saying...? That you are the only one who seems to use words and say the crap you say? It's not an overgeneralization to say religions in general tell unverifiable things and claim that they are higher truths. It's a fact. And everything I and Gayak says was in direct relation to the OP piece where a creationist tour guide had a little kids saying to an evolutionist "why do you teach false facts?". Somehow you seem to think THAT is worthy of defending by criticisizing gayak's follow up question, "who says religion isn't child abuse?". Gayak wasn't talking about ALL religions. But even if he was...it's an opinion...the OP contained an act which was egregious--you decided to defend that act and make a big stink over gayak's commentary-- and you do that all the time. You claim not to be a religious apologist or "an intelligent design proponent", but you are indestinguishable from them. You sound exactly like Behe. You just never say anything. You changed the topic on this thread and the last one to apologize for religion! You take every opportunity you can to make snide commentary towards Dawkins, evolutionists, and atheists or to obfuscate or mistate their words-- you take every opportunity to accuse anyone who says anything bad about religion of "overgeneralization" or of not having proof or some other such silliness.

Religion isn't true. It's wrong to fill kid;s heads with BS and obfuscate their understanding of general knowledge. It's wrong when you do it; and it's wrong when anybody does it. It's really wrong when people pretend this makes them better or more moral. Dawkins has facts. Religion never has--but they sure do like to make people think they have them--and when they can't do that, they do everything in their power to make sure people don't understand the facts (just like you!) and they all encourage bigotry towards science in the areas that they claim to have "divine knowledge" about.

No amount of evidence is enough to make you conclude that religion is harmful. And you offer the weakest of evidence showing that it's beneficial. But the bottom line is that all religions claim to have truths they do not have. That IS dishonest and that is true of religions in general--and I, find that harmful.

All your criticisms of others would serve you better if you applied them to yourself before spewing them.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It is wrong to lie to children, but it isn't child abuse.

Equating lying to children with abusing them is the fundamental mistake you make and it is what I am criticizing you and Dawkins for.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Another quick question, articulett:

What do you think Michael Savage means when he says "liberalism is a mental disorder"?

Do you see how a claim (or a rhetorical question) that implies "religion is child abuse" might be taken in the same way and how it is a bit disingenuous to argue that collective nouns with out modifiers are not universal by default?

 

[John Hewitt]

From John Hewitt:
Obviously I did not make myself clear; I was suggesting that a professional responsibility might exist within the context of the debate about group selection. Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection? If so, I would like to know about it. If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

I don't. Intelligent design is not science and Dawkins presence just makes them look credible. Evolution is not a debate, it's a fact. Dawkins has been instrumental in furthering understanding in this area and sharing that info. with millions--and religion is a thorn in his side as much as they were with Galileo-- each step of the way. They have no truth and they seek to obfuscate understanding of the truth--the one that is the same for everybody--the one that only science and mortals are accumulating over time. They are dishonest, ask loaded questions, appeal to emotionalism, interrupt, and have nothing at all in support of their claims except to say "I don't understand how evolution could be true" in a million different pedantic ways. They use so many words to say nothing at all. Nothing they say clarifies understanding of anything. And the same goes for Dawkins critics. they never really "say" anything. It's all the same BS that Behe says...lots of pedantry but no real claim. It all sounds like the courtiers reply to me http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

In a book, Dawkins can't be interrupted and forced into silly digressions. He has as much a right to comment on God as Behe does to write his silly, anti-scientific gobbledy gook about how things must somehow be designed. Behe and his ilk do nothing to forward understanding--it's all about making sure people don't understand evolution. Because once you understand it, those who speak for some intelligent designer seem to be full of crap. I endorse his books and his educating in the manner that he chooses, and many people, apparently, want to hear what he has to say. Governments and Religions are having a harder time in spinning out the truth they want people to have because there is a world of people connected by the internet making sure that everyone has access to the FACTS. The facts are the same for everybody. Dawkins illuminates those facts and is more than eager to show people where they can find those facts themselves. His critics offer no facts.
It's just emotionalism and opinions and spin and self aggrandizement and apologetics for an invisible man and the people who spend their only life trying to curry favor with him.

I think those who critique Dawkins recognize this on some level. They want to be the person people go to for credible information. But, instead, it's Dawkins. Because Dawkins doesn't need to appeal to emotions or obfuscations--the facts are there for anybody who wants to look at them.

Yes, I know your views on that but what about Dawkins and Sloan Wilson?

 

[articulett]

Dawkins didn't say it, and I didn't say it. Dawkins said threatening kids with hell is child abuse and that he thinks it's wrong to label kids by their parents religion. I agree. Moreover, I don't anyone needs permission or an APA study to call something else child abuse. Locking kids in cages is child abuse. I have no APA study to support it. But you don't rush to apologize for that, do you? It's only when someone criticizes religion that you jump to the defense...and the only real complaints people have about Dawkins is that he has the audacity not to believe their religion deserves respect. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors to avoid confronting the fact that they are covering for a lie just as sure as the Catholic church covers for pedophiles. Sure, not all religions are to blame...but in a society where blowhards start pontificating at the mere mention that religion is not all it's cracked up to be, the damage festers.

And I'm not going to reargue this issue with you. You were trounced by everyone on the last thread already--particularly by slimething who revealed you for the dishonest religious apologist that you are. The facts are this... What the OP was about was way worse than gayak's query. You chose to attack the later and defend the former. You make sure religion gets it's extra special deference while demonizing all those who dare to say anything about it. You make your inane strawman that it is in reference to ALL... and who cares if it is-- everyone still has a right to their opinion even if they don't jump through Mijo's hoops. You generalize about atheists and evolutionists all the time. You are all about generalizing about words like "random" when it fits your religious apologetics... heck, you threw spirituality and indirect evidence into the pile when you were claiming religion is beneficial...but no evidence was enough to support the claims that it is also harmful. But even if it wasn't--it isn't true. It manipulates peoples emotions, hopes, and fears by pretending it is. You apologize for this. I find the real heroes are the one's who don't cover up for lies and who make an effort to share the truths that are available to everyone--the stuff that you don't need to "believe" to benefit from and understand.

And I won't press your silly link. You never go to anyone's link...even when it directly answers a question you asked. This thread is not about your opinions on Gayak or religion. It never was. Go troll in your own thread. Go hang out with those who share your opinions and have get a kick out of semantic flummery like you do.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If by "trounced" you mean I left the previous threads because I was tried of dishonest argumentation that ignored the bulk of research on the benefits of religiosity and spirituality to mental health in favor of insults and rhetoric, then, yes I was trounced in the last thread.

Now, would you like to present some actual evidence of the claim you have been making?

 

[articulett]

Yes, I know your views on that but what about Dawkins and Sloan Wilson?

I already responded... Wilson reminds me of the courtiers reply...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

I find almost everything Dawkins writes comprehensible and eloquent, and he is responsible for conveying much knowledge to many. I don't really understand Sloan Wilson's beef...but he may envy the fact that Dawkins is selling more books and has more people interested in his opinion. Dennett has already talked plenty about the evolution of religion...so has Shermer. It took Dawkins to mention the elephant in the room that is getting in the way of everybody understanding that, not only is evolution a fact, we are uncovering more and more everyday as we decode genomes. All humans should be able to understand and celebrate this newfound knowledge--but religion continually obfuscates and raises smoke and mirrors under the guise of deferrence or piddly non-issues. I think David Sloan Wilson also spoke at Beyond Beyond, didn't he?

It seems to me that those who actually read Dawkins and respond negatively, never really have a real "reason"--no claim of fact that you can examine--it's just...opinion... I can't relate to such opinions and I most people seem to be bending over backwards to protect the sacred cow of religion rather than actually saying anything of value. If there is no god, isn't it time for someone to make the case? We have much better ways of knowing things now.

And we've gone down the group selection road before... I know you have an alternating theory. I think genes do select for cooperation and in group amity...even in ants and bees. We know apes show altruism... and that some mammals care and protect animals form other species. We even know one of the main chemicals involved in nurturing behavior--oxytocin... and we know know that mirror neurons are related to empathy. We know where the brain can be damaged to make person unable to reason "morally"... it's irrelevant to Dawkins book... and creationists will never believe that genes can account for group selection anyhow... no matter how much evidence there is.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So how can we disagree with Dawkins on the subject of religion then and not be called "religious apologists", articulett?

 

[qayak]

Do you ever notice that no one else even thinks what you are saying...? That you are the only one who seems to use words and say the crap you say? It's not an overgeneralization to say religions in general tell unverifiable things and claim that they are higher truths. It's a fact. And everything I and Gayak says was in direct relation to the OP piece where a creationist tour guide had a little kids saying to an evolutionist "why do you teach false facts?". Somehow you seem to think THAT is worthy of defending by criticisizing gayak's follow up question, "who says religion isn't child abuse?". Gayak wasn't talking about ALL religions. But even if he was...it's an opinion...the OP contained an act which was egregious--you decided to defend that act and make a big stink over gayak's commentary-- and you do that all the time. You claim not to be a religious apologist or "an intelligent design proponent", but you are indestinguishable from them. You sound exactly like Behe. You just never say anything. You changed the topic on this thread and the last one to apologize for religion! You take every opportunity you can to make snide commentary towards Dawkins, evolutionists, and atheists or to obfuscate or mistate their words-- you take every opportunity to accuse anyone who says anything bad about religion of "overgeneralization" or of not having proof or some other such silliness.

Religion isn't true. It's wrong to fill kid;s heads with BS and obfuscate their understanding of general knowledge. It's wrong when you do it; and it's wrong when anybody does it. It's really wrong when people pretend this makes them better or more moral. Dawkins has facts. Religion never has--but they sure do like to make people think they have them--and when they can't do that, they do everything in their power to make sure people don't understand the facts (just like you!) and they all encourage bigotry towards science in the areas that they claim to have "divine knowledge" about.

No amount of evidence is enough to make you conclude that religion is harmful. And you offer the weakest of evidence showing that it's beneficial. But the bottom line is that all religions claim to have truths they do not have. That IS dishonest and that is true of religions in general--and I, find that harmful.

All your criticisms of others would serve you better if you applied them to yourself before spewing them.

 

[articulett]

So how can we disagree with Dawkins on the subject of religion then and not be called "religious apologists", articulett?

Well, don't misquote him, for one...

But I don't really care. Even David Sloan Wilson's argument is weird though I don't know that I'd necessarily call him a religious apologist...he wants to look at the possible adaptations of religion... but most people really care about whether it's true or not. They don't want his pedantry on how it came to be. Even if it were as good as people pretend it is, that doesn't make it true.

Everything Dawkins says is heard with this ridiculous hyperbole by apologists and believers... and only because people have learned this deference to god. Nobody would be saying any of this stuff if Dawkins had written The Astrology Delusion-- who cares what benefit or adaptive purposes it may have had? If he said it was wrong to label kids by their astrological sign, no-one would be having a tizzy. If he has said he thought it was abusive for Muslims to tell their kids that Christians were going to hell... no one would bat an eye except Muslims. I am clicking up my heals in glee that Dawkins book is outselling the inanity proffered by Behe and the hate proffered by Ann Coulter--and that primitive best seller-- the King James Bible. It isn't a good book--it never was, and I'm thankful for those not afraid to point it out in public.

The cheesiest people come out of the woodwork with the lamest of arguments when someone dares say anything about the "god" they believe in...or "religion in general". They offer nothing in the way of knowledge or no thanks to the real heroes of our world. The same people wouldn't bat at eye if someone said teaching your kids to be white supremacists is child abuse... or "race is an illusion". And what have the critics offered to the world... nothing but obfuscation and self aggrandizement as far as I can tell.

God stays alive so long as the illusion stays alive... and people want the delusions and/or want others to be deluded or maybe they are just so used to sticking up for the naked emperor that they don't see how they partake in the continuation of the charade.

(Say, if you would have stayed on topic, no one but me and gayak would be aware of what a religious apologist your are (at least on this thread)--but now you've laid your cards on the table while using words to say yet more nothingness... and it's going to be harder to keep hiding your intent to obfuscate.)

 

[articulett]

If by "trounced" you mean I left the previous threads because I was tried of dishonest argumentation that ignored the bulk of research on the benefits of religiosity and spirituality to mental health in favor of insults and rhetoric, then, yes I was trounced in the last thread.

Now, would you like to present some actual evidence of the claim you have been making?

What claim? And since when do you even acknowledge the evidence you are so fond of asking for? And yes--trounced. Of course, like the incompetents in my sig line, most incompetents don't realize how incompetent they are. And I think if we took a vote, you will have been voted more dishonest than those you claim are arguing dishonestly. You always say crap like that without a smidgen of evidence as though someone, somewhere agrees with your delusional view of that thread or anything else. If I were you I'd be demanding an APA report proving that what anyone said was dishonest like you demanding such for anyone even to infer that religion is harmful to kids.

But quit hijacking John's thread... you can at least offer him some support since you seem to share his views about Dawkins,--plus, he thinks Behe has some good ideas and I can't tell your blathering apart from Behe's blathering, so I think you guys should be best friends...

 

[andyandy]

No amount of evidence is enough to make you conclude that religion is harmful. And you offer the weakest of evidence showing that it's beneficial. But the bottom line is that all religions claim to have truths they do not have. That IS dishonest and that is true of religions in general--and I, find that harmful.

I am interested in your evidence,

particularly

That in general a religious person will be harmed to a greater extent than a non-religious person.

With clear definition of "harm" and a generalised view of religion which does not focus on specific subsects.

Let's take the Church of England - a very secular religion and representative of religion in Europe as a baseline. Your anti-religious zeal may be applicable in bible belt America, how applicable is it to England or Europe?

I can agree that religion can be hugely harmful - but the generalisation that it is therefore child abuse does require some rigour.

If child abuse is "not telling the truth to children" then surely all parents are guilty
If child abuse is "telling your children something you believe to be true, (even though you have no empirical evidence for that belief)" then again most parents would be guilty
if child abuse is "telling your children something that you believe to be true, but others believe to be false" then all parents are guilty.

Perhaps I consider bringing a child up to be materialistic to be child abuse.
Materialism brings with it the false promise of happiness - plenty of studies delineate materialism from happiness, and indeed suggest that it can cause unhappiness. And yet, most parents subscribe to materialistic consumerism and as a result teach that to their children. If the term "child abuse" is to have any general applicability how is materialism not child abuse?

Or bringing a child up with a poor appreciation of diet through a lack of well thought out dinners. Is that child abuse? There are plenty of studies linking poor diet with illness, and low life expectancy - if the term "child abuse" is to have any general applicability how is imparting poor dietary habits not "child abuse"?

I could dream up a hundred more examples....if "child abuse" simply means "does some harm to some children in some way" then of the thousands of decisions parents make which affect their children's lives, some will have to be classified as "child abuse"

You ask why people are bending over backwards to defend religion - but the question should be what's so special about religion relative to everything else a parent does that constitutes such a label?

*awaits the mudslinging and shrill cries of "apologist" for having the termerity not to subscribe to absolutely everything Dawkins says*

qayak, I don't believe you got round to giving me your evidence of how you know that "many" Dawkins critics who regard themselves as atheists really aren't. Or for that matter how you can regard atheism as an ideology.

 

[qayak]

It is wrong to lie to children, but it isn't child abuse.

Opening up my dictionary (Collins Canadian English Dictionary) I find these definitions:

Abuse

1- to use incorrectly or improperly; misuse
2- to maltreat, especially physically or sexually
3- to speak insultingly or cruelly to
4- improper, incorrect or excessive use
5- maltreatment of a person; injury
6- insulting or course speech
7- an evil, unjust, or corrupt practice
8- see "child abuse"
9- (Archaic) a deception

The case of religious indoctrination (education) of children being abusive can be made using definitions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9.

Equating lying to children with abusing them is the fundamental mistake you make and it is what I am criticizing you and Dawkins for.

On the contrary, not equating religion with child abuse is the fundamental error you make.

Lying about Santa Claus is a mild form of abuse. However, systematically teaching children falsehoods about the nature of the world around them, the origins of that world and insisting that things that are easily refuted are in fact true, is; deceptive, insulting to the child, an improper use of authority, corrupt, unjust, evil, immoral, and a dispicable form of child abuse.

It is also an insult to call it an education.

 

[articulett]

What do you make out of the given quote then? are you saying it's a made up one? also, if he was a believer, then why so many, as printed in Dawkins book, theits sent him very nasty vicious letters attacking him for questioning the existence of god?
As Dawkins said:"The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them." If you have the book you can look those letters up starting from page 14.

In respect to mystery, Dawkins is quoted in his Gift to Us or at least perhaps to me LOL. (I named TGD) as follows:

"Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do." He goes on to say: "More generally, as I shall repeat in chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." ...and that's exactly what religion does, it promotes ignorance.

Regardless of what Einstein believes, as I said to The Atheist, he is a part of very tiny elite. We need to consider the general effect of religion on the masses. That's what needs to be carfully scanned.

Just a note of warning, because I'd like you to stay around. The Atheist and herzblut are widely considered trolls--if they something that rubs you the wrong way, consider it your baptism into the JREF forum community, and don't let them drive you away. Use the ignore button if they become too offensive-- (remember, even the mentally ill have access to computers.)

 

[articulett]

Andy Andy... why don't you resurrect the other thread... we can take it there.

 

[andyandy]

Andy Andy... why don't you resurrect the other thread... we can take it there.

I've no great desire for a protracted discussion. I would simply appreciate a short exchange to clarify your position. It would appear to be as useful here as anywhere else. I don't know the thread in question, but if you really don't want to post in here, resurrect it and i will repost there.

 

[articulett]

I've no great desire for a protracted discussion. I would simply appreciate a short exchange to clarify your position. It would appear to be as useful here as anywhere else. I don't know the thread in question, but if you really don't want to post in here, resurrect it and i will repost there.

Sure. Where is your location? I resurrected the thread and my position. If you are in the UK, you may not be aware of the insidiousness of religion in the US. read the OP first...because that is what the thread was originally about.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85338&page=13