Tag: Thought

  • Coming Up Next: Dawkins Responses and the Historical Jesus

    Folks, my apologies for being absent for the last few of weeks. I’ve got a bunch of excuses for my tardy responses to The God Delusion series, but I’ll spare you the details.

    The good news is that I have a bunch of new content for you. I haven’t forgotten about the numerous comments that I received to my Dawkins series. I have been thinking these through and will be addressing some of the more prominent responses in the upcoming days.

    And, related to that, I’ve been working hard on a paper for school that discusses the historical Jesus. The book, In Defense Of Atheism by Michel Onfray, challenges the validity of the historical Jesus and my paper critiques Onfray’s arguments. I’ll be posting this paper as a multi-part series over the next week or so.

    So stay tuned. There’s plenty of exciting content to come. And again, my apologies for the gap in my posts…

    Todd

  • Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and Concluding Thoughts

    Dawkins flogs the factual accuracy of evolution throughout this book. He is an evolutionary biologist, so I would expect nothing less. I respect his authority in this area of study and I appreciate the scientific explanations that it provides for the development and ongoing manipulations to life that see around us.

    Unfortunately, Dawkins is out of his league when he tries to apply his learning to the religious domain. At best, he misses some key details when he attempts to criticize religious faith and its historical, philosophical and ideological ideals. At worst, he fails at the basics of which he should know better: he uses red herrings to distract from articulating and dealing with the topics at hand, he fails at applying proper logic in many of his arguments and when he questions Christianity, he fails to address the great volume of academic literature in support of Christian source validity. This is disappointing, as Dawkins’ valuable academic accomplishments should better equip him than what we see in this book.

    For a moment, let’s take a look at “science as God-killer”:

    The scientific method is not perfect. Early research into new areas of study can look like a child dipping a toe into a pool of water to check the temperature. If scientific method was bang on, there would be no wasted research or hypotheses that fail to obtain a tangible result. I know… I know… all research is valuable as even in failure, it can discount potential theories so that they can be discounted for further study. That is valuable, yes. But if science has all the answers, then why wouldn’t the hypotheses be right the first time?

    As an example of science-gone-wrong, consider the recent problems highlighted in recent reports about Dr. Charles Smith, a high profile coroner who specialized in the field of forensic child pathology. His scientific conclusions significantly contributed to several convictions in suspected child abuse cases. The problem is that under closer examination, Smith’s findings were found to be problematic. Science definitely failed the ruined lives of those that were potentially falsely accused.

    Or, closer to this discussion of evolution, let’s look at a recent finding by Maeve Leakey and his colleagues in Africa: Paleontologists continue to question the factual accuracy of evolution. Consider this article in The Washington Post as just one example off the ongoing debate:
    Fossil shakes evolutionary tree

    Nature, the “International Weekly Journal of Science” published these findings as well, so this is peer-reviewed work.

    While I don’t dispute the basic claims made by Dawkins about evolutionary theory, I do question the logic that says that evolution completely replaces the idea of a creator God. Who’s to say that God didn’t use evolution as his tool to generate life.

    My point here isn’t that evolution is wrong or that Leakey has disproved evolution. My point here is just that evolution has yet to be fully explained or understood. I would argue that we may never fully understand evolution. And similarly, God is not fully understood, nor do I think God ever will be. This doesn’t disprove God though.

    And for those that are still claiming that there is no evidence for God, well… just because you refuse to examine the evidence and consider it in support of God doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist.

    I’ve got two more “scientific conundrums” for you:

    LOVE: Science has tried to explain love for years but with little success. For those materialistic atheists out there, I’d love to understand how you can explain love if you strictly look to the material world and empirical evidence to support your claims. Why do we love? Does love not exist because we can’t scientifically explain it?

    FREE WILL: Does the scientific worldview support free will? Science can’t seem to answer either way, as it will end up contradicting itself either way:

    • If yes, then doesn’t free will run contradictory to the idea that everything can be predicted based on the conditions and circumstances that lead up to each action? If science can ultimately answer everything, then it must subscribe to a worldview based on predestination.
    • If no, then are we really capable of making any decisions for ourselves, including whether or not we follow a religion? In this case, does Dawkins feel powerless to make a difference on his own, or is he simply following the predestined path that has been set out for him?
    • No – part 2 And further, if no, what caused this “causal chain”? And then where did that first un-moved mover come from? The 18th century Enlightenment philosophers questioned the validity of the causal chain, saying that we don’t necessarily live within the boundaries of a causal chain. So, if Dawkins’ scientific worldview does not support free will, then how does the idea of cause and effect balance out based on this paradox? Don’t we need cause and effect in order for evolution to work?

    So, just as we don’t have all the answers about religion, there are plenty of problems there with the scientific worldview as well. I’m no expert in this area, but if my simple mind can understand these scientific problems, then I can just imagine the more complex problems that exist and that have no answer. So Dawkins, my question to you is, “Why are you so arrogant?” You don’t have all of the answers. You’re hardly in the right place to be talking down to other people with such an authoritative tone.

    Ultimately, I think the answer becomes one of cohabitation. I feel the presence of God in my life every day. And, I appreciate God’s presence, just as I appreciate the scientific progress in understanding the world that God has provided for us. I am thankful for the scientific research that allows us to lead fuller, richer lives. But I am conscious of the limitations that surround practical scientific research. While science provides us with tools for survival, science lacks the moral compass required to be wise with it. for that, I look to God.

    A quick thanks to everyone who has been patient and dedicated enough to take this trip through Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” with me. I hope that you’ve found it as valuable as I have found it. I’ll take the next couple of posts to respond to some reader comments. Thanks to everyone that has submitted comments so far. Your questions and comments have been enjoyable. I’m especially grateful to the skeptics out there who I have been constantly aware of when writing my posts. You’ve kept me honest and at the top of my game.

    Thanks again and talk soon,

    Todd Dow

  • Dawkins Part 9: Childhood abuse and brainwashing

    I do agree that religious types have abused their children in the name of religion. This still continues to happen. In fact, we need look no further than a current story in the US media pertaining to polygamy and child marriages: Man Charged in Rape of Teenager in Fundamentalist Sect.

    Mormonism encourages polygamy and marriage to minors. Mormons have claimed that this is part of their religious beliefs and that they are entitled to live their lives in this way. To some extent, that argument should be allowed to stand. But, that right should not extend to harming other people in the process. And, in my personal opinion, I think it’s great that the US attorney’s office has finally found a way to deal with some of these crimes that are being committed in the name of religion.

    Protection for the weak and vulnerable among us is something that I hold in high regard. In some cases, this competes against some other rights that I hold quite high, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There are numerous ideas that I do not want to introduce my children to, but I don’t think it is right that those ideas and opinions be abolished. If we allow that, then what’s next? Burning books and censoring our news sources? Censorship is occuring in the world, notably in China. The state control of media and information can lead to population control, which can then be abused for the sake of state motivations. Without checks and balances like freedom of speech and freedom of information, there is no way to ensure that abuses are not taking place.

    Which brings me back to religion… Some religious people try to limit the amount of information available to believers. I remember when I first started taking an interest in my own Christian faith. I asked my pastor for a good resource that would explain the various types of religions to me and that would provide a good explanation for what made my faith something that I should believe. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive the response I had hoped for. I was told that there is no need to look at other faiths. I should just focus on the my own faith by reading the bible and some “my-faith-specific” reading to solidify my beliefs. It was disappointing, to say the least. And, when I mentioned that I was going to go to University to study philosophy and religious studies as a potential precursor to ministry, I was again disuaded. I was told that questioning my faith in this way wouldn’t strengthen it, but instead, would only weaken my faith and my ability to believe.

    Good advice or bad? What do you think? I didn’t buy it… I’ve always been one to question things. I think questioning things is healthy. Unfortunately, any opinion is open to question. Any time someone puts a stake in the ground, someone else will come along and challenge it. I think debate is good. It is healthy. It leads to more understanding. It leads to increased awareness and if the argument is a good one, it will stand up to scrutiny. And, bad arguments will be exposed for what they are: bad arguments.

    So… I didn’t particularly like the advice to keep my head in the sand and sit still. If my faith was worth following, it should stand up to scrutiny. So, I did the opposite of what I was advised to do. I went out and compared and questioned my faith. I believed then, and I still believe now. And my faith is stronger now because of this journey. To be fair, I must say that not everybody learns or believes or requires this level of commitment. And that is fine. But I do think that there is danger in not being able to explain what we believe and why. “Just because…” is not sufficient. There’s gotta be something more.

    And that’s where I think that many abuses stem from… isolation and lack of information. If people are kept in the dark and are unable to ask the tough questions, then how can this work out for the best?

    As with other abuses that we’ve already discussed in this series, I do think that the church has contributed to numerous abuses within society in the past. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that these abuses are identified, corrected and that proper controls are put in place so that they cannot happen again. But, no system is foolproof… didn’t World War Two prompt the expression, “Never again” in response to the holocaust? Well… what do we make of the recent ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or Darfur? I say this only to say that even the most visible of abuses cannot always be prevented. They should be prevented, but they aren’t. But at the very least, they should be recorded and their perpetrators brought to justice.

    So… what can we do? Well… we should start with open minds. We should be allowed to question. If our beliefs are worth believing, then we should be able to explain them and defend them. As I’ve demonstrated over the course of this series, Dawkins hasn’t provided anything that should disuade our beliefs in religion. He’s highlighted some of the abuses that can occur as a result of belief, but that doesn’t discount the belief itself. All it does is highlight the crimes that have been committed by misrepresenting the belief.

    And, we should also ensure that sufficient controls are in place to avoid the obvious abuses that can occur. We can easily ensure that physical and sexual abuse are guarded against. Censorship… well, that’s a matter of opinion. The argument over what to believe and why is a tough one. It’s quite subjective in nature. Just look at the current “should creationism be taught in schools” argument. I think that kids should be taught about the debate, if only so that they understand that there are different worldviews. And, part of that education process can be to help kids assess what they believe and why. But I don’t think the people that are most invested in the debate want that… they don’t want the kids to think for themselves. They are too busy fighting about what they want their kids to believe. And that’s the real shame of that situation.

    As for my two cents on what worldview a child should be given… well… it’s not my place to push my worldview on anyone else, but I have written a series that has taken on a life of its own since I published it. This article started as a philosophy assignment during my undergrad. I wrote it quite sincerely, but from the perspective of a philosophy student. I don’t intend for this to become public policy in any way, shape or form. My only request is that it make you think about what you believe and why. This series has earned me more scorn and vilified hatred from anonymous readers than I thought possible… So much for freedom of expression, eh? hahaha. Anywho… Give it a read and let me know your thoughts:

    Should atheists have children?

    But back to today’s discussion…

    Dawkins and others within this genre offer the following argument: Religion has led to the abuse of people throughout history. Because of this, religion should be abolished. Well… our global economy is currently supporting the slavery of children in the manufacture of the products that keep our global economy humming along. Should we abandon our current economic system in favour of more local production so that we can do away with these abuses? But that would be crazy talk… the global economy has opened doors and created opportunities for untold numbers of people that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. That’s the typical response that we hear.

    The obvious point here is that we should try and correct the wrongs and to continue to support the rights. So, onward and upward. Let’s keep an open mind. Let’s open up the dialogue. It’s already happening in a lot of places. Educational institutions are rife with debate over the pros and cons of reliigon. I think it’s great. I think that the critical reflection that we’re currently experiencing will strengthen the church in extremely positive ways.

    So… I guess I should be thanking Dawkins, Harris, Onfrey, Hitchens and the gang. So thanks guys. Thanks again for the great press you’re giving to religion. And thanks for your criticism. I view you guys as external auditors. You’re doing a great job of keeping religious folks honest. And, you’re also helping to weed out the bad apples. Soon enough we’ll be in tip top shape. Couldn’t have done it without you.

    Much appreciated,

    Todd

    Next up: “Dawkins Part 10: On Evolution and concluding thoughts“.

  • Dawkins Part 8: Are All Ideologies Bad

    So… Dawkins has been going on and on about how religion has been so bad and that it should be abolished in favour of scientism, evolutionism or some other worldview of his liking. He suggests that a religious worldview leads to child abuse and human rights violations.

    Dawkins argues:

    “As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect for the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers. The alternative, one so transparent that it should need no urging, is to abandon the principle of automatic respect for religious faith. This is one reason why I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself, not just against so-called ‘extremist’ faith. The teachings of ‘moderate’ religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” (pg 306)

    I find this extremely short sighted and dangerous. Isn’t it this kind of narrow-minded censorship that religious extremists have exhibited in their abusive theocratic rule throughout history? As I have mentioned numerous times during this series, I am in complete opposition to the extremist views that fanatical religious adherents try to push on other people, but I adamently oppose any sort of censorship or blanket persecution of a worldview or ideology just because a few twist that perspective for their means.

    In fact, I’d like to suggest that in many instances, it hasn’t been religion that has been persecuting people, but instead, it has been the political ambitions of the religious leaders that has hijacked religion for their own needs. Throughout most of recorded history, the church provided the main religious AND political leadership throughout the developed world. This often led to a conflict of interest when it comes to following Jesus and satisfying the material needs of society. Consider these examples:

    • 313 CE: Augustine & the Political Realm – In the early 4th century, the Roman empire was being attacked from barbarian hordes from lands that surrounded the Roman empire. At this time, the population was becoming more and more Christian which was problematic as Christianity was a religion of peace up until this time. And, since the population was becoming more and more Christian, willing military conscripts were becoming fewer and fewer. This meant that in order for the Roman empire to survive, the military required Christian participants. At this time, Augustine (one of the early church fathers) developed a Christian justification for violence in order to support military participation. It has been suggested that Augustine was under extensive political pressure to develop this treatise.
    • 1095 CE: Pope Urban II & The Crusades – I’ve argued in the past that Pope Urban II abused his authority as Pope to kick off the Christian Crusades, which are one of the greatest blemishes on the face of Christianity, even today.
    • 2001 CE: Modern Day “Crusades” – This one’s kind of a no-brainer, but the US is currently involved in a political and economic war in the Middle East to secure oil rights and to advance economic interests in the area. George W. Bush kicked off this campaign against the “war on terror” with this rousing quote:

      “On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”

      (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

      So far, the US has done a great job of creating their latest victim (who remembers the red menace of communism?): Islam. While vilifying this same enemy that the US used to be so chummy with (who remembers the assistance that the US provided to the Taliban in fighting against Russia in the 80s?), Bush has done a fantastic job of creating a “cover” under which to obtain carte blanche to stir up a hornets nest of resentment in the Middle East that is sure to last for at least the next generation. For more on this topic, check out this article: A Tragic Picture of Death

    • Economic Human Rights Abuses – For more on this topic, I’ll defer you to an internationally respected organization and their extensive catalogue of abuses: Amnesty International – Economic Globalization and Human Rights.

    So yeah… if we apply Dawkins’ logic, we may as well disassemble our democratic state and our economic system in its entirety. In fact, I’d argue that religion has in some cases indrectly led to human rights abuses by a few, extremely influential yet extremely misguided individuals. The economic and political ideals that we as a modern society have adopted, on the other hand, provide a system whereby a few are allowed to prosper, while at the same time ignoring the plights of the majority who are underfed and under cared for.

    Dawkins seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Religion has also been responsible for the majority of the world’s charity up until the 20th Century. And, these institutions (hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc.) were set up with the ideal goal of providing universal well being. Today’s capitalist health care system doesn’t seem to reflect those same ideals.

    So where’s the problem here? Is it religion, or the abuses that its members have commited? In my opinion, we need to focus on oversight to ensure that the needs of everyone are met and that abuses don’t occur. And when abuses do occur, we should be proactive in removing the abuser(s) and correcting the situation. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do?

    Next up: “Childhood abuse and brainwashing“

  • Dawkins Part 7: The Slippery Slope of Abortion

    In chapter 8, Dawkins talks about abortion. He makes a couple of startling claims. First, he argues that religion is bad because a select few fundamentalists kill abortion doctors, and then he goes on to argue support for abortion because fetuses aren’t really human anyways.

    Dawkins’ logic is seriously flawed in this chapter. There are two problems here.

    First, he uses the red herring of religious fundamentalists that have killed abortion doctors as a protest against abortion. I touched on this in my last post when I talked about fundamentalism. Even though a select few choose to kill in the name of their cause, that doesn’t necessarily make the cause a bad one. Thus, Dawkins yet again shows a flawed sense of logic in his arguments. Another strike against Dawkins and his writing in this book. I talked quite a bit on this topic of religious fundamentalism in my last post and I’ll be talking about it again in my next post. So, I’m going to put this aside for now.

    The second problem is this: Dawkins tries to dehumanize abortion in an attempt to justify it in some way.

    My views on this topic have gone from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. I think of myself as fairly liberal in a lot of respects. I lean towards rehabilitation for criminals, I’m against capital punishment and I think that social assistance is an important safety net for all of us, including the least among us. Those aren’t typical conservative views. To stick with the stereotype, many liberals support free choice, while most conservatives are pro life. Yes, this is a generalization, but I think it’s a fairly accurate and it does seem to represent the “typical liberal or conservative” agenda.

    But, that’s not what I’m here to talk about today…

    Like I said, I used to be extremely pro choice. I always thought that abortion should be the individual’s choice. My views on this were strongest in my teens and early twenties, which is the age at which most of us may feel the need to deal with this issue on a personal level. And, I remember at the time feeling that this would be “the best choice for me as I wasn’t ready to have a kid yet.” Fear, uncertainty and unreadiness are the thoughts that came to my mind when I considered the options available to people in my age group when it came to having children. If I wasn’t ready, well… the medical system had the easy out, the so-called “get out of jail free” card.

    It wasn’t until I had matured more that I revisited my thoughts on abortion. And, I didn’t revisit these views until I started to think I was stable enough to have a family of my own. At that point, my views started to take a turn in a different direction. All of a sudden, abortion represented the death of a child. As any expectant parent understands, that week 12 visit to the doctor is extremely symbolic. At week 12, most parents hear the heartbeat of their new little baby for the first time. I remember the first time I heard Noah’s heartbeat. I was instantly connected to the baby. And the connection was more vivid for Julie as she started to experience Noah kicking and punching inside of her as he grew in her belly.

    It’s interesting how perspectives change depending on the circumstances, eh?

    Dawkins tries to bring in a third view, which takes us in a totally different direction. He tries to debate whether or not fetuses are fully human, or if they are just a “bundle of cells”. The distinction is a strange one to me because a scientist could look at any living person and make the same distinction. By dehumanizing the new life growing inside of a woman is to grossly misrepresent that life. The standard argument is that a fetus is not a human for numerous reasons, including that the fetus has no nervous system, thus it will not suffer or the fetus is unable to survive outside of the womb, thus it is not a viable life. There are many other justifications to support abortion as well.

    My primary response to these types of justifications is this: would you take a human life if the person was in this kind of position? Non-responsive nervous systems or inability to survive outside of the womb… well… any baby I’ve ever seen is unable to survive for long outside of the womb without assistance from a parent or guardian. Should we be allowed to kill babies at our leisure and pass it off with a dismissal shrug of the shoulders? I think not. Strange how Dawkins can so trivialize the act of abortion by turning it into a scientific procedure with no mention of the human life that is being affected. Would we accept his argument if he were talking about newborns? I think not. So why is it okay for him to talk about it in such stark terms with an unborn child?

    But… I guess this is where it all goes back to perspective: as parents, we eagerly grasp that first inkling that we’re fostering new life. That first glimpse of life, no matter how small, is such an exciting time. Is Dawkins really being serious when he suggests that it is just a bundle of cells?

    Don’t get me wrong… abortion is a tragic situation no matter what the circumstances. I am sure that in many cases, the options are quite limiting and abortion seems like the easiest way out. I feel for people in those situations as it can’t be an easy decision to make. And the last thing I want to do is judge people. It is tragic any time the decision to take a life occurs. What can we do to save more lives?

    Regardless of the outcome, this is where, in religion, love and support must shine through. Times of struggle are the times when people most look towards God for help. But with abortion, many people are afraid to look to God. Not only has the individual dismissed an innocent life, but in many cases, the individual has also convinced themselves that it wasn’t a life at all. Turning to God after denying him is next to impossible. Thus, it is important to reach out to people in times of struggle like this type of situation.

    This issue is one that polarizes us as a society. It’s not an easy topic to agree upon. There are compelling arguments on either side. But, I think that if we consider the unborn life inside of the mother and if we approach this unborn life with the same rights as any other person, then how can we not think of abortion as murder? I know that my own personal views from my teens and early twenties still haunt me sometimes. I think to myself from time to time, “what was I thinking? Was I really supportive of the ending of another human life? Would my own happiness be worth the cost of taking a human life?” If only we could give people the understanding and experience of planned parenthood before they have to embark on a decision such as abortion… I’m sure if that happened, the outcome would be much different in plenty of situations.

    In fact, some states in the US are now requiring that women have an ultrasound before they have an abortion. This is an interesting new approach, as it counters the dehumanizing process that has been propped up by pro choice arguments and scientific approaches such as those by Richard Dawkins. And interesting enough, it is science that is having the greatest impact on these vulnerable decision makers. By attending an ultrasound, the mothers-to-be get to experience first-hand the new life that is inside of themselves. While statistics are difficult to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests that the scientific tool of ultrasound is making a difference in reinforcing the new life and saving it at the same time.

    I wonder if Dawkins would consider that to be an example of evolution and survival of the fittest at its finest.

    Next up: “Why not rid ourselves of religion, politics and economics all at the same time?“