Just attaching a little aftersnark of my own to CC’s observations about the pitiful efforts of anonymous Bloggin’ Tory “JR” in pimping a book (more about that below) from evolution denier and self-confessed “crank” David Berlinski.
Not only does “JR” appear to be unfamiliar with the nature of atheism (that he vigorously decries), but also the sort of logical fallacy that he purports not to be employing against some of its leading advocates:
No ad hominem attacks here, just a few teaser quotes with the author’s biting ‘conclusions’. I recommend you read the book to get his full argument.
Hmmm. Really… no ad hominem attacks, eh?
Anyone who has read these authors couldn’t help but notice the strident, intolerant, arrogant posture the so-called New Atheists have adopted against religious belief and believers.
That’s aside from calling them “bellicose” proselytizers, of course.
Now, regarding the book, it’s somewhat curious why “JR” would be touting a volume that’s currently out of print, sells for $122 (or more) on E-Bay, and hasn’t yet been released in paperback (although you can pre-order for the low, low price of $10.85 and be eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping — gift wrap is also available, if/when it ever gets re-published).
Oh, and another thing…
Hitchens’s title says it all. Dawkins’ contempt is similarly blatant. And they all rely on arguments based one way or another on modern, and in quantum-physical string theory and cosmology, postmodern ‘science’.
They “all rely on arguments based one way or another on modern…” On modern what? There seems to be a word of some significance missing there. (Ha! Who says you can’t prove a negative?) I also love that “science” is placed in quotation marks. What’s up with that?
21 Comments
July 5, 2009 at 10:30 am
This web of stupidity just *has* to be a conspiracy. I’m sure it’s not possible to casually mistake Richard Dawkins for Deepak Chopra.
July 5, 2009 at 11:09 am
For some reason I let myself get dragged down into the dumb. I posted a few comments over there.
I thought JR had enough education to see Berlinski et al. for who they are. Maybe I was thinking of someone else.
July 5, 2009 at 11:32 am
Glad he clarified his use of the expression “quantum-physical string theory” — i.e., so that his readers wouldn’t possibly confuse it with macramé or whatever.
July 5, 2009 at 11:34 am
For some reason I let myself get dragged down into the dumb.
Hope springs eternal, eh? You think just once…once…one of them will say “Gee, you have a point” or “You know, I really don’t know where I learned that. Maybe I’m just talking about of my bunghole,” but that never happens.
One question the wingnut will never answer is “How have you come to know that?” It’s fundamental to learning and I suppose that’s where the problem starts with them.
July 5, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Macrame…heh
Classical string theory…that’s about the only thing that makes sense.
July 5, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Great quote from Mike over there:
Atheism is a “religion based on faith” as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
July 6, 2009 at 2:12 am
Atheism is a “religion based on faith” as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Religion concerns you relationship with everything , stamp collecting …less so . For people who are not going to die ,I suppose its not a pressing concern but they are quite rare.
July 6, 2009 at 3:54 am
newmania,
Stop stealing my lines…which I stole from Dawkins.
I wonder if my comment is still up over there?
Mike
July 6, 2009 at 4:23 am
Not me I was replying to the much admired aphorism. It does not work because it implies that just because you do not have to have an intellectual and spiritual attitude to ’stamps’ you do not have to have one to the universe ,all it contains ,all you will be and, why that is . That does not follow .
An atheist asserts that there is nothing but atoms and stuff he vaults a mighty chasm ,the feelings of love loyalty meaningfulness we experience and say we must ignore them for they are nothing but illusions.It must take a ferocious faith to stick to it which is perhaps why its practitioners are rather monkish and serious
July 6, 2009 at 4:37 am
the feelings of love loyalty meaningfulness we experience and say we must ignore them for they are nothing but illusions.
Nonsense. No one says anything like that. Move along.
July 6, 2009 at 5:29 am
Nonsense. No one says anything like that. Move along.
Well Richard Dawkins comments on the problem of consciousness and says that his theories work just as well without it ,taken with his description of the mind as an onboard computer it amounts to more or less what I have said .
I don’t know if you like Richard Dawkins who I take to be an atheist pin up boy. I enjoyed , his popular science stuff. Hardly an adequate response to “Life the universe and everything “ though is it . I mean ,be reasonable……
July 6, 2009 at 8:57 am
Newmania — I don’t think that you’re accurately representing what Dawkins has said. Perhaps you need to provide a citation or link so that people can determine whether the context of the remarks is appropriate to the arguments you claim to be making in his name.
July 6, 2009 at 9:27 am
In other news, I noticed you have a link to your twitter on your sidebar!
I seem to remember that you were NEVER going to do this…heh. But I’m glad you are.
July 6, 2009 at 9:40 am
As long the approach to Twitter is irreverent, I can live with it. I’ve been seeing the expression “Twatting” recently. I like it.
Still believe it’ll all end in tears, though.
July 6, 2009 at 10:36 am
newmania,
Apparently you have problems discerning meaning and metaphor. Aspergers?
Might explain the spelling and bizarre punctuation as well.
All emotions are the result of chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain responding to stimulus. Consciousness itself is thought o be an emergent quality of our hight interconnected brain network.
But you can continue spouting your unscientific and illogical dualism. We’ll ignore you.
July 6, 2009 at 10:50 am
His post is twaddle, but I think there is a place for discussion about the worth of faith and whether religion can have a positive role in an individuals’ life and in society as a whole. I have been privy to intelligent and nuanced discussions that generate more light rather than heat, and where we may not end up agreeing with each other but have learned to respect each other and work for common goals.
Sadly, I have never met an evangelical/fundamentalist individual of any faith who can engage in these discussions.
July 6, 2009 at 10:59 am
We’ll ignore you.
Not bloody likely! It’s always the loonies who get the most attention.
Anyway, as a rule, I don’t listen to anything Richard Dawkins has to say about religion (he won’t tell me anything I already know). If I’m looking for an atheist/agnostic/evidence-based/neutral discussion about religion, I pay attention to anthropologists or historians.
July 6, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Aurelia — Did I say “never”? If so, I should have known better than to ever say that.
Curiosity finally got the better of this cat, I guess.
I’m still not that keen on it though and have mixed feelings about the whole process. Also, the 140 characters restriction is somewhat “challenging” for me, being a bit verbose and all.
July 6, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Yeah, me and you both…I’m trying to look at the 140 characters as an intellectual exercise. Like if I practice enough, I can acquire the skill of brevity.
July 6, 2009 at 3:03 pm
That’s the way I look at it too, but I just don’t want to slip into that texty acronym laden phone-speak.
If that happens, the terrorists have won.
July 7, 2009 at 3:56 am
,,,, ((((
There have some punctuation , mine is better than Shakespeare’s although a bit of a mess admittedly .
The converted – I am not at all sure what you are on about ,“discern meaning and metaphor” ? Do you mean notice it as its shyly peeps its head from the dappled woodland at dusk ? Its not clear , it is clear however that you are a pleasingly adolescent user of English and thus far I am amused .
Red T – You will have to take my word for it have faith old chap ….
Look if it makes you feel any better I am prepared to accept that some of you may be a random configuration of quarks, and such like, of infinitely small significance . I ,on the other hand, am a symphony of love, hate, jealousy, desire and yearning, none of which Mr . Dawkins Hitchens et al, have much to say about . To me it is a far easier default assumption that there is a spiritual dimension ,a reality to the ”chemical process ” we call ”Love “, than to boldly assert there is not .
If there is more then for whence does it come ? Hint hint !! If there is not then why bother ?
I am not an evangelist I am a moderately confused Church of England -ish person who tries to think about stuff sometimes .
REPENT !!! ( sorry just slipped out )