Comments on: The Aesthetics of Dawkins’ Atheism http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/ Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:37:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282687 Mark Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:37:47 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282687 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/ 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/

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282686 Mark Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:24:24 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282686 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. 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.

]]> By: wbb http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282685 wbb Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:21:10 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282685 <blockquote>Religious people generally aren’t religious because they’ve accepted philosophical syllogisms.</blockquote> 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.)

Religious people generally aren’t religious because they’ve accepted philosophical syllogisms.

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.)

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282684 Mark Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:10:26 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282684 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. 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.

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282683 Mark Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:04:16 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282683 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. 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.

]]> By: Sir Henry Casingbroke http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282682 Sir Henry Casingbroke Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:56:42 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282682 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. 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.

]]> By: wbb http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282681 wbb Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:40:21 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282681 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. 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.

]]> By: Tyro Rex http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282680 Tyro Rex Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:17:29 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282680 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. 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.

]]> By: zoot http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282679 zoot Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:24:30 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282679 As I thought; no evidence. As I thought; no evidence.

]]> By: FaceLift http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282678 FaceLift Sun, 07 Jan 2007 05:21:17 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/02/the-aesthetics-of-dawkins%e2%80%99-atheism/#comment-282678 In moderation?? In moderation??

]]>