I’m working through Richard Dawkins’ polemic The God Delusion and came to this passage below in his dismissal of The Argument from Beauty as evidence that God Exists.
I was once the guest of the week on a British radio show called Desert Island Discs. You have to choose the eight records you would take with you if marooned on a desert island. Among my choices was ‘Mache dich mein Herze rein’ from Bach’s St Matthew Passion. The interviewer was unable to understand how I could choose religious music without being religious. You might as well say, how can you enjoy Wuthering Heights when you know perfectly well that Cathy and Heathcliff never existed?
But there is a additional point that I might have made, and which needs to be made whenever religion is given credit for, say the Sistine Chapel and Raphael’s Annunciation, Even great artists have to earn a living, and they will take commissions where they are to be had. I have no reason to doubt that Raphael and Michelangelo were Christians – it was pretty much the only option in their time – but the fact is almost incidental. Its enormous wealth had made the Church the dominant patron of the arts.
The Argument from Beauty is a very weak pleading for the existence of a god. But the casual dismissal of the religious influence on the arts as Dawkins demolishes the argument is infuriating. The impression is that Dawkins does not want to ascribe ANY positive influence of religion on the arts (or society in general). Personally, I do not have the background to quantify religious influence on art such as that of Raphael and Michelangelo nor the motivations of such artists in incorporating religious themes into their work. But the arts is such a wide field and I know enough about the history of the Blues that the religious observances of the early practitioners were vital to the evolution of the style.
Irregardless that the decision to convert to Christianity by the African-American slaves was not by choice, Christianity did take root with its message of redemption and hope through suffering. The spirituals that developed out of the slaves’ West African heritage were a direct influence on the vocal stylings of early blues. Skipping forward to the 1930s, artists like Son House were steeped (even if he did develop an ambivalence to preaching over time) in the church and it influenced his music and as such was passed onto his disciples such as Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters. Others like Blind Willie Johnson just summoned up the fire and brimstone and kept it at that. That is not to have a distorted, romantic view of the artistic purity of the early blues artists. They played for pay, whiskey and the attentions of the opposite sex (except Blind Willie Johnson. Oh, he meant it. No doubt about it). But religion was an important aspect of their lives and there is no way to untangle the influence of the Church from the Blues.
And then there is gospel, without which rock’n'roll would have been impoverished and rhythm and blues likely to never have been. Popular music has been dependent on the influence of religious music. Not because of patronage or the simple economic realities, but because religion was an integral part of the fabric of life.
Dawkins was making the fair point that the existence of religiously inspired art is not proof of a god. However his dismissal of the motives of such artists ignores the integration of religion in society and the desire to praise god or preach fire and brimstone.
Maybe Dawkins would be pleased with Son House, who balanced the sacred and profane and once sang in a moment of doubt:
Say, t’ain’t no heaven, say, there ain’t no burnin’ hell
Say, where I’m going when I die, can’t nobody tell
very disapointing post.
shaun – you must have had a hard xmas and new year. first post of yours for the new year and it’s the first post I’ve seen for 2 years in which you haven’t worked in an AC/DC reference. Looks like 2007 isn’t going to be a good year.
C’mon buddy. Lift your game.
This is blatantly silly. You’ve been drinking the Kool Aid.
silkworm, your statement is confusing. Are you questioning the sociology or the theology? You may have an argument with the theology but the sociology is well known.
And Christian rock has been dependent on the influence of rock and roll.
Dawkins is being a little obtuse here, but his point would be that his notion of memes – cultural DNA – would be far more responsible for Art, than the artist’s affiliation or otherwise with religion. & the point that the church would be the focus of whatever was the day’s cutting edge stands. Bucketloads of money, access to materials, and the best venues. Even better than the NGA admin hallway.
Oh & read Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation – its a hoot.
I’m sorry FXH. It was a good run but I’ll Ride On and soon you’ll be Thunderstuck with references galore.
I don’t doubt that Bernice but Dawkins’ view of religion and influence on art is a little limited and that defeats his point. It seems frozen it time at a particular stage in Europe. And even if Dawkins is correct is doesn’t explain how religion influenced popular music (rock, country etc) via the blues.
Dawkins doesn’t sound like I will read him. He clearly hasn’t fallen in love with Sister Wendy and her art series. Shes enough to drag any sensitive atheist to an agnostic position.
Y’know, Robert Johnson wasn’t at all about God. A little attribution would go a long way, Shaun.
Silkworm quote
In the words of that great philosopher Cliff Richards (who was covering a Larry Norman song -the Grand-daddy of Xian rock music) “why should the devil have all the good music?”
I recall sometime a couple of decades ago Frankie Shaffear (son of Francis Shaffear) having something to say about the influence on Christianity upon the Arts. Problem is, i cant remember if he was a good read or not and i’m too lazy to google tonight.
oh, and sister Wendy rocks bigtime!!
DD, irregardless of the godliness of Johnson, his music was shaped by Son House and others and carries the influences of church music on the blues.
Now Have A Drink On Me or Carry Me Home.
casual dismissal of the religious influence on the arts
Haven’t got to TGD yet (but, as they say, it upsets all the right people) but I’m most of the way through his “Unweaving the Rainbow” which is all about science,poetry, beauty (more tangentially religion therefore too) etc and I would not at all characterise his view this way. Maybe he’s changed but I don’t really get your point from the excerpt quoted either.
The problem with Dawkins is that he’s a very bad advocate for atheism. There are many better.
I have no idea why he would think that the philosophical arguments for the existence of God are of any interest whatsoever in this context. People get taught the holes in them in first year philosophy, or at least they did when I was doing first year philosophy. To “disprove” them is easy work, but proves nothing other than they’re weak arguments.
Secondly, as with other areas, he’s making claims which are eccentric and asserted dogmatically without any real knowledge of the existing literature. Which is very unfortunate for a scientist. Any basic art history would teach him that the origins of art lie in various types of spiritual, mystic, cultic and liturgical representations, and that art didn’t become divorced from religion until relatively recently in Europe – perhaps over the last five hundred years (though I don’t really want to get into what could be quite a complex debate).
Good point and something that illustrates the contrast between Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould. Gould loved to dive into history and that informed his view of religion (even though Gould was no believer). Dawkins, who I do think has some pertinent points and is a great writer, often glosses over (or even ignores) history to the detriment of his argument.
Gould’s approach has a lot of merit and has been a big influence on me in regards to wading through such issues.
Amanda,
I haven’t read “Unweaving the Rainbow” but one problem so far with “TGD” is that Dawkins rushes his arguments and as Mark mentions above, glosses over important historical aspects. The fact that Dawkins likes Mache dich mein Herze rein shows that he gets it but that doesn’t come across in the passage quoted.I may be a godless heathen myself but Dawkins seems intent on denying religion any leeway which I find puzzling.
Irregardless ?
“Christianity did take root with its message of redemption and hope through suffering.
This is blatantly silly. You’ve been drinking the Kool Aid.”
Get your hand off it Mulberry Boy. You’d be hard pressed to find any popular theory of human organisation that didn’t boil down to “do good and hard work now for future rewards” -whether it be Judeo-Christian-Islam or capitalism or communism.
“Any basic art history would teach him that the origins of art lie in various types of spiritual, mystic, cultic and liturgical representations, and that art didn’t become divorced from religion until relatively recently in Europe – perhaps over the last five hundred years (though I don’t really want to get into what could be quite a complex debate).”
It is a complex debate and I’m happy to get into it. It’s true great art is driven by matters of the spirit and soul and that it wasn’t really until the enlightenment that such matters got seriously seperated from the patronage and doctrines of various religious bureaucracies.
On the other hand, look at the Greeks and Romans who churned out a lot of arty stuff we still find relevant and moving today and did so from a very earthy perspective framed within a socio-economic world with a take on religion that’s quite alien to what we think of it as now.
I also note here haiku is one of the world’s most enduring art forms, created by a culture animated by animism and which still finds monothestic belief systems as odd as we find Japanese penis festivals.
I had an overarching point here but I’ve which completely forgotten as iTunes random shuffle just chucked up “Master Hare” by Savoy Brown. Think of a funkier version of “Hey Bulldog.”
No doubt it was something to do with the Devil having the best music.
Profane is sacred.
And Soylent Green tastes awful.
I have no idea why he would think that the philosophical arguments for the existence of God are of any interest whatsoever in this context. People get taught the holes in them in first year philosophy
I wonder if I wandered down to Hillsong this week, or my local church or stopped to talk to the evangelicals who invite me to church on my way to the video shop, and asked them about the exisence of God whether they are more likely to discuss the epistemology of Duns Scotus or “the world is beautiful, god exists” or “I prayed for my father and he got better, god exists” or “nothing comes from nothing” or “there have been lots of christian matyrs, god exists” or “it says so in the bible” or my personal favourite “Jesus was either mad bad or God so …. ” I was looking at a new whizz bang Sydney Anglican website aimed at “the unchurched” the other week and all of it were these “demolished in PHIL101″ arguments. They are still the most dominant form of public apologetics, and this is a book aimed squarely at the public. (the book might still be overall crap, dunno, but none of the arguments I’ve seen raised against it sound convincing to me, the “he should be engaging with sophisicated theology” thing least of all, rather misses the point.)
Shaun,
In trouble from Eagleton et al for not detailing s reply to every single random theological thought which has ever occured to anyone in the history of humanity and now for not mentioning Son House. How long did you want this bloody book to be anyhow? Is there a chapter on Bob Dylan????????
Unweaving the Ranbow is the one where he unloads on Gould for the deficiency of his biolgical ideas (“bad scientific poetry”). Heh.
If you don’t want to read the Dawkins book there is a shorter Dawkins at Background Briefing.
There is a review in the London Review of Books by Terry Eagleton. It begins:
Amanda,
Dawkins sez:
His simplification and dismissal of religious influence on artists is just boneheaded. While Dawkins shouldn’t need to into a full account of the history of the arts, the Blues is just example of how ridiculous Dawkins is being in this regards. He’s made a sweeping generalization that does nothing to buttress his argument but instead detracts for a valid point.
And no, there isn’t chapter on Dylan. I’m surprised this hasn’t got you up in arms!
Dawkins and Gould was a great scientific stoush. I reckon Gould had him but alas the stoushing is no more. Dawkins’ tribute to Gould in ‘A Devil’s Chaplain’ is very moving.
Tony Abbot, enter stage left.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/why-our-christian-legacy-gets-an-eachway-bet/2007/01/02/1167500123294.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
He is simply saying, to me, that it is more complicated than “beauty in the name of god=argument for god/religion” See the Abbott article if you don’t think that’s still an argument being made.
He doesn’t dismiss relgious influence on art in Unweaving the Rainbow, in fact that’s the whole subject of the book. (although of course he says it would have been much better for Keats to have been inspired by the insights of Newton in creating his art, rather than by fear of them.) Which is why I am questioning that interpretation of the passage.
Maybe if I’ve read ‘Unweaving’ I’d have a more charitable reading of Dawkins in this case. If Dawkins’ views are as in ‘Unweaving’ then he should have done a better job.
Abbot’s op-ed is silly indeed as I do agree with Dawkins in his overall point. And everyone knows that the Devil has all the good songs but we never see that used as an argument for the existence of the Devil (well, maybe some fundy groups have).
‘Livin’ easy, livin’ free, season ticket on a one way riiiidde’
This is a misrepresentation of Dawkins’s argument as presented in the extract.
“Religion” derives from the Latin “religio” (what attaches or retains, moral bond, anxiety of self-consciousness, scruple). Religion is therefore a binding together of human beings in a quest for meaning and membership. Originally the term applied to devil worship. Thus the existence or non-existence of a god has nothing to do with the fervour and persistence in the human bond of religion in quest of that god.
One of the leading elements of any powerful and enduring human bond is the creation of a language and a culture which becomes encoded in various forms of representation. Some of these representational codes are then accorded the status of “art”.
And indeed they are very “artful” in the sense that they are highly evolved and developed by practitioners of enormous technical skill.
Thus Dawkins is saying: “Even though I discredit the religious presuppositions that underpin religious art, just as I discredit the literal existence of Heathcliff, yet I am willing to suspend disbelief to the extent of being awed by the genius with which the practitioners of this religious art have mastered and then further elaborated the codes of religious (or romantic) aesthetics.
And this is exactly how Christian art lovers approach, let us say, Classical art. They don’t have to believe in the specific claims about the divinity of Zeus to be awed by how that particular godhead was encoded in representations of him.
Why should Christian art be any less awesome for a non-believer?
Dawkins is therefore not “dismissing” the religious influence in art. He is in fact awestruck by its passionate, creative, evolutionary wrong-headedness.
I agree with Pedantica. “Irregardless” is such a barbarism that it almost undermines your argument by itself.
I would have thought that quite the reverse of religious influence is the basis of the origin of the blues. It is the influence of the african rhythms on the existing (some would argue souless) christian music that saw the origins of the ‘devils music’. Further it was the injection of humanism into religious art that saw the renaiassance of art and particularly the beautiful bodies of Michealanglo et al which again lifted their work into the realms of ‘art’. As for Dawkins it is about time someone articulated the negatives of superstition and intolerance and the priveleged position acorded to irrationality. While only halfway through the book it is in my opinion one of the best reads around and is so simple and clear in challenging superstition that it is no wonder the critics are lining up to knock it.
Abbott (on atheists):
Howard (on feminists):
Note common rhetorical/psychological strategy: diss the opponents by saying they only believe what they believe because (*gently and sadly*) there is something terribly, terribly wrong with them, caving in like that to peer pressure, reluctance and fear. Which of course are the only possible reasons they might not have seen the light.
Are these two using the same scriptwriter, and is he a Scientologist?
Naturally, I left out the relevant bit of the Howard speech re feminists:
Apropos the Bob Dylan strand of this thread, I was going to write something about Verdi and the way his agnosticism informed his great and scary Requiem, but I think I’ll quit while I’m behind.
Let’s see if we can put this one to bed.
It jars on my ear, but to say that it almost undermines the argument is prejudice. I’ve heard the usage colloquially in SE Qld. If Shaun and others use it often enough it will become accepted usage. Nevertheless I’d rather it didn’t in the written code unless it has advantages in terms of adding to meaning or economy.
I suspect that in most cases it could be replaced by ‘regardless’ (which is more economical) but that doesn’t work in the following:
There it could be profitably replaced, I think, by “Even though the decision to convert…”
Irregardless of the controversy over its usage I regard it as a perfectly cromulent word.
Nice observation PC.
Do pollies go to Spinmeister Summer School to learn this stuff?
Or is this evidence of Ratty and the Mad Monk hanging out together shooting the breeze about What’s Wrong with the World?
Or have they come up independently with this rhetorical device?
I’d suggest however, that the formulation implies quite the opposite to the assertion that the Wrong-headed Other has failed to see the light. On the contrary, Ratty and the MM assert that the Wrong-headed Other has in fact seen the light but refuses by reason of character defect to acknowledge The Truth and to act accordingly.
Ratty and the Mad Monk are therefore not claiming intellectual superiority. They are making the much bigger claim of moral superiority.
‘Irregardless’ is the same kind of usage as that American barbarism ‘could care less’ to mean ‘couldn’t care less’ — the exact opposite of what one intended to say. ‘Irregardless’ is a double negative; if you wanted to mean what you wanted to mean, and for some reason wished to eschew the usual ‘regardless’ (ie ‘without regard to’), you’d have to say ‘irregardful’.
Which is also a perfectly cromulent word.
I supect this is what is behind it:
Which means that the matter will decided in the end by emotion rather than logic, irregardless of what Bismarck and Pedantica think or feel.
Not really on the aesthetics, but linked to this is the op-ed by David Williamson in today’s Australian, ‘Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity’, which firmly blames all war on religion, based on Dawkins book!
Of course, this means that he firmly believes, as Dawkins does, that all religion is wrong, and that all believers, therefore, must be wrong, and that, by association, all believers are militant terrorists. He answers his own question with insertion of the rather important word ‘extremists’, which kind of places the responsibility with a minority rather than the rest of us believers, certainly Christians, who have no desire whatsoever to be involved in any kind of bloody warfare with anyone else, mostly based on the teachings of our faith, which, in fact, preaches a message of peace-making!
Of course, the fact that wars existed long before Christianity, the Jewish faith or Islam, and have generally been fought as power struggles between war-lords intent on, rape, pillage, sacking villages, towns and nations and claiming land, don’t come into his equation. Neither do the revolutionary wars of ultra-athesitic Marxist movements, and the death and destruction meeted out on the planet by deliberately non-religious groups.
__________________________
On subject – art and music are of the soul. They reflect a person’s passion, devotion or desire, be it for God, love, a nation, a feeling, the devil, whatever. Art and music in themselves are neutral. Paint is paint. A piano is a piano. They are nothing until the artist moves on them. The way they are fashioned, performed or created expresses the passion and desires of the person who writes, paints, composes or performs.
If a person wishes to express their devotion to God through the arts, then there is indeed a connection, and an expression of beauty, pain, anger, lust, or whatever emotion is tied up with their desire. That is we why art and music are intrinsically part of Christian culture in reflection and devotion, praise and celebration.
Dawson always misses the point because he can’t get into the very soul of a believer. He only sees the amazing way the paint sits on the canvas, but he can’t enter the soul, life or charisma of the painter.
I have gone into moderation.
The early Protestants out-Talibaned the most fanatical Muslim fundamentalist in their wholesale destruction of as much art as they could get their hands on. As their texts form the foundational texts of Protestantism, perhaps their successors might explicitly state their attitude to this vandalism.
But most religious art is non-Christian religious art. Do non-Christian artists share in this charisma even though they may be worshiping false gods, man-mande fetishes, or perhaps even devils?
Excellent post Facelift (2.45pm). Was there another one in moderation?
“out-Talibaned the most fanatical Muslim fundamentalist”
Hmmnn. I can understand that early Protestants would be keen to throw off the vestiges of Rome, having rediscovered their faith. Missed a few bits and pieces though.
I havent read all of the posts here because I’m in a hurry, but I am half way through Dawkins’ book.
I think its excellent because he tackles religion head on and systematically and bluntly exposes it for the made-up rubbish that it is.
Its time us athiests came out of the closet and worked toward ridding the world of the pernicious influence that all religions imposes on us. Its clearly outlived its usefulness.
Shaun, as to religions influence on the arts, Dawkins’ point (as revealed in the quote you have taken) is that throuout history, artists have had yo make a living. In the old days they took commissions from wealthy collectors and other benefactors. Very often these were the churches – because they had lots of money.
But why, Katz, did the Taliban destroy the artifacts of another religion? Was it because they weren’t art lovers? It had nothing to do with aesthetics. They smashed religious icons because they couldn’t stand what they stood for – foreign gods, deities which, to them are false or misleading.
So now Dawkins and his ilk want to retain the art but destroy the reason for the art, and thus, for generations to come, eliminatee the truth, inspiration and reality behind the artists’ efforts, which is as much of a travesty as you claim for the Taliban. This tells us that religious art more often than not has a meaning beyond aesthetics – it has a definable spiritual and emotional connection.
But Facelift.
You misunderstand completely the fundamentalist iconoclastic mindset. The Taliban and early European Protestants had identical attitudes to art and aesthetics.
In a spirit of ecumenical vandalism, the Taliban also smashed up Muslim artefacts even before they blew up a couple of Buddhas.
Read a short bio of Richard Culmer
As a fanatical 17th century English Puritan, Richard Culmer believed that art works were inherently evil.
He was the government-appointed smasher-up in-chief. He really thought he was doing God’s work, as did the Taliban.
Like true fanatics, the Taliban and the Puritans rejected any distinction between religion and aesthetics.
I note you haven’t addressed my questions about the representation of ‘false gods’.
Actually Gould did not even come close to “having” Dawkins & within evolutionary biology circles quite the opposite is the case. Perfectly demonstrated by Gould’s 1979 paper with its supposed refutation of adaptionism – which in most part was so sloppily argued and inclusive of some equally sloppy notions of architectural history. The problem with Gould was that his often poorly argued postitions were fallen on by the public or evolutionary-ambivalent without his peers wading into to clarify the trail of half chewed arguments he left behind.
In any ways Dawkins project re atheism is a forward campaign in the battle between evolution and “intelligent design”. Religions demands that the completely ridiculous be given equal status to scientific work – I think it entirely appropriate that Dawkins demand right of reply.
But the problem, Bernice, IMHO, is that Dawkins gets carried away. I saw him on a doco about ID and thought – compared to some of the scientists who argued carefully and logically as to why ID was crap – he came across terribly. He was sitting in what appeared to be the stereotype of an Oxbridge College Room and basically his tone and what he said were incredibly arrogant. Like I said at the start, there are better advocates for the causes close to Dawkins’ heart than him.
Indeed there may be more photogenic, more aurally satisfactory, but I suspect Dawkins does what he does because many others who could, are so cowered by this ridiculous hijad of religious sensitivity that so many now cloak themselves in. & after all most are research based scientisists – very very dependent on grants funding, all horribly easily stopped by the meddling righteous.
Dawkins knows very well what is at stake – its not about attacking religion for a bit of Sunday sport – its about the continuing feasibility of science based work having validity in the West. Given that the US ranked 33 out 34 countries surveyed asking adults about their acceptance of evolution, beating only Turkey, Dawkins’ courage, not presentation, would be better applauded, before we all find the toy dinosaurs removed from Kmart and burned in the village square.
I disagree, Bernice, because he alienates a lot of people with whom he could make common cause. Like liberal Christians for instance. And not so liberal. There are a lot of statements from the Vatican I could cite for you displaying respect for science based knowledge. He unnecessarily polarises things, and by making unfounded generalisations and dogmatic statements on matters about which he knows little, and doesn’t take the trouble to find out much, he undermines his own standing as a voice for rationalism and science.
Katz,
It can’t be the same charisma, if that’s what you’re asking, but each artist has their own emotional reasons for creating art or music. And whether they want to experience the ‘charisma’ of the artist is entirely up to them. Dawkins is so devoid of empathy that he can’t go that far, otherwise it might challenge his no-god philosophy.
Faith isn’t dependent on what we observe emotionally or sensually. It’s a spiritual connection. Religious music and art are sensual expressions of a spiritual realisation. The way we interprete art and music is dependent on our own experiences and worldview.
What Protestants or whoever did with art in a bygone century has no bearing on the efforts, religious inspiration or will of the people who fashioned the artworks.
… which may or may not be actual belief in the deity whose identity is being celebrated in the work of art.
David was equally brilliant and insightful in depicting and celebrating the aristocracy, and the revolutionary regime that lopped the head off several of the very aristos who sat for him. He didn’t have to believe in either.
And that’s precisely Dawkins’s point. QED.
Presumably, those would be the scientific-based statements from the Vatican condemning the use of condoms as a preventative measure against STDs such as HIV, or its opposition to stem cell research based on the premise that 150 cell blastocyst has a soul ( fear not, a recent Vatican conference of 30 theologians debated the issue of limbo. We can sleep easy in our beds now), or the church’s ambivalence over the provision of HPV vaccine, or indeed the church’s role in having abortion for any woman in any circumstance in El Salvador criminalised. All very science-based.
‘Irregardless’ comes from confusing ‘regardless’ and ‘irrespective,’ both words having the same meaning.
The real question is, am I correct in placing the comma inside the quotation mark, or should it go ouside?
Sorry, silkworm, you’re not correct.
The comma should go outside where it is used to punctuate a phrase, unless it is punctuating a phrase contained within the quotation mark. Thus the following are correct:
‘A conga line of suckholes’, said Mark Latham.
‘A conga line,’ said Mark Latham, ‘of suckholes’.
No, Bernice, I’m referring to positive statements about the validity of evolution. I, and many others, live in hope that the positions on stem cells and contraceptives will be revised. And I think if you look through the LP archives, I think you’ll find a record of my opposition to what’s gone on in El Salvador – I consistently argue a pro-choice position.
IMHO it should be a full stop, not a comma. And the stop should go outside the quotation mark in this case, because the quotation marks are referring to the word, not the sentence.
Now we can go back to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
Sorry, didn’t see Liam’s comment.
Thinking about all this whether god exists or not bizzo, here is a classical method to resolve the argument.
And this – too scientific, too rational – ladies and gentlemen?
[link]
I thought Dawkins idea of preserving Hitler and Saddam as guinea pigs for research into megalomania would have been funniest, if it hadn’t been so serious. As if either of them would have made much sense to psychologists beyond hysterical, dictatorial ramblings. I wonder what you’d do with Pol Pot or Stalin if you could retrieve them in a time-machine? Or how will Osama b•n Lad•n be sentenced when and if he’s captured and tried? Will the world want him confined? I think Mr Dawkins has lost the plot. Maybe he could be psychologically dissected for research into unreasonable reasoning.
Pot, kettle, black.
Thank you for the benefit of your unique insight Facelift. Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions?
Thanks zoot. Well, Saddam’s court appearances would be a good start. Then there was time he had to get things right and apply a bit of self-anaylsis after the first Gulf war, when the US led UN troops overwhemingly routed his troops, but allowed him to stay in power, which may have been a humbling, or humiliating time, but he seems to have remained completely unrepentant and stayed on his course of hysterical dictatorship over Iraqis, and defied his conquerors, who could have marched into Baghdad any time and taken him away the first time, but let him continue to rule, there being no obvious replacement, and avoiding the chance it would all fall apart. A great second chance, which he failed to accept. A strong indicator there of the defiance of the dictator.
Anyone with a deadly antisemitic master-race worldview like A Hitler is highly unlikely to soften on the analyst’s couch. In fact, there would be no analysis because tyrants like these would a) insist the rest of us are, in fact a bunch of loonies, and that the process of analysis is illegal, and that they should be restored to power immediately b) that even by force they would only be analysed by psychologists they appointed themselves who were trusted members of their party and regime.
Do I take it that you think Dawkin’s idea is a good one, and that deadly dictators like these can actually be analysed to discover what a dictator looks and sounds like? Is there anything that they would actually volunteer that we don’t already historically know about their background, methodology and lifestyle that can help?
In moderation??
As I thought; no evidence.
I am fully with Mark here, I think that Dawkins does himself and his cause an immense disservice. Great art is constantly informed by religion; romantics like Blake and Turner for example, baroque music, the classical themes of life and death, fate, and divine retribution found throughout art (Wagner for example), the great works of art that came from the reformation. Even Carravaggio, who painted from life, wouldn’t be so interesting if he wasn’t painting the typical religious subjects from life, which was what got him into trouble.
Although there is the counter-example of Shakespeare – humanism’s greatest artist.
Dawkins did lose the plot with that Saddam thing. As he himself said, “Then again, are there lots of Saddams and lots of Hitlers in every society, but most of them end up as football hooligans wrecking trains rather than dictators wrecking countries? If so, what singles out the minority that do come to power?”
The thing that singles them out is opportunity. But irregardless of that blind alley, his comment had all the timing of our Germaine’s on Steve Irwin’s demise.
About a point you made earlier, Mark, it is the god botherers who feel compelled to make philosophical (and even pseudo scientific) arguments for the existence of a deity, aethetic theory nowithstanding, not us atheists.
Which brings me to Bernini’s Ecstasy of St Theresa. Is it divine influence or is Bernini showing the lass having a down and dirty orgasm? I daresay that Bernini would have better opportunity to observe the latter than the former.
Anyhow, are you saying Mark that Dawkins should not be disposing of these lame arguments because they are, er, too lame? Dawkins went after the watchmaker creationists and did a thorough job of it and now he is hopping into the philosophical arguments. Fair enough.
Sir Henry, most human behaviour is complex in motivation – Bernini was probably thinking of the divine and orgasms
As to the philosophical arguments, yeah, they’re lame. But my point is also that they’re also religiously unconvincing. That is, if you accepted them, they don’t prove the existence of any actual divinity (Jewish, Christian, whatever) or inspire faith in anything. They’re arguments for deism really which itself is really a philosophical rather than a religious position. They could prove the flying spaghetti monster.
Religious people generally aren’t religious because they’ve accepted philosophical syllogisms.
As to who feels compelled to make them, you may note that they’re all rather old (the ontological argument goes back to Anselm in the 11th century, for instance). Some of the older ones date from the time when theology and philosophy were pretty much the same thing (our friend Occam was a monk, let’s not forget) while some of the newer ones (and generally weaker) date to a time when Christians felt that fighting (rationalist) fire with fire was appropriate. I’m not aware that there’s any Catholics out there now who’d give tuppence for them, let alone try to persuade people by making them. Perhaps some fundies do. I don’t know.
The ontological argument is kinda fun to get your head around, though. And the hardest to refute.
There are a lot of Wittgenstein’s disciples from Cambridge who claim it’s valid.
No, they’re not.
But taken together over hundreds of years the theological arguments provide the crushing weight of cultural gravity that moulds Christians out of successive generations of new humans.
Neither religion nor science are innate. But understanding is innate and religion is the precursor to scientific understanding. (I don’t claim our science is the be all and end all, but at least it is an open-source project.)
Yes, but I don’t think that the arguments for the existence of God form much part of the “cultural gravity” (which is largely socialisation and practice) – they’re add ons really.
If I may, I’d also like to point to an old post of mine on “the god of the gaps” which is relevant, I think, to the question of the philosophical arguments.
Pascal summed it up best when he pointed out that people with faith believed in the God of Abraham not the God of the Philosophers.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/01/02/intelligent-design-god-of-the-gaps/