Scathing Atheist 70: I Fincke Therefore I Am Edition Extended
Added 2014-06-19 08:23:55 +0000 UTCEven when the show goes to an hour, we still manage to capture more than ten minutes of extra stuff just for our beloved Patreon Donors.
Comments
Not offended in the least. By the by, is easy to tell a true Scotsman from a part. .... simply lift the kilt. ;)
Jason Caryl
2014-06-21 21:59:51 +0000 UTCYour opening statement there seems to willfully disregard everything I just said. I never said religion had a positive effect on society, nor did Dan. Nobody claimed that and nobody is defending that. I've clarified a number of times that nobody is making that claim. Your second paragraph is simply a variation on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You're saying that if an evil act is perpetrated by a person, that person is evil. Now, obviously we can both agree that there aren't really "good" people and "evil" people, but if you define a person as evil when they do an evil act, it is definitionally impossible for a good person to do an evil act. If, however, you define a good person as a person who generally acts good and an evil person as a person that generally acts evil, then anything that might sway an otherwise good person toward an evil act needs to be accounted for. On the other hand, if you stick to the definition you're using now, the mere act of a person doing something evil (whether or not they're religious) makes them an evil person. I think I should clarify that NOBODY IS DENYING the third paragraph of what you just said. I never did. Dan never did. Nobody is arguing that religion isn't capable of making otherwise good people do bad things. Nobody is arguing that the chief function of religion is not to make good people do bad things. Dan simply said (and I emphatically agree) that religion does not have a monopoly on it. Lastly, I am by no means offended and hope I haven't let on that I am. One of the things I love about belonging to a community of rationalists is that there is a point to debating. Please don't mistake my vehemence for offense. And likewise, I hope I haven't offended you.
The Scathing Atheist
2014-06-21 21:27:00 +0000 UTCIf you can give me just one example of religion having a positive effect on society then I will concede that I'm wrong. Im not sure why you keep referring to people being tempted by power to do bad things as destroying the argument. I've repeatedly stated that when people do bad things (example: rapists rape to have power over their victims) they are bad people. Good people don't think about doing those things. Good people who wouldn't think of doing bad things WILL turn off their conscience simply because the think they are doing gods will. In any case, we may just have to agree to disagree. As always, looking forward to next week's episode. Hope I haven't offended. I do really appreciate you taking time to respond to me. I know you have a busy schedule.
Jason Caryl
2014-06-21 19:32:26 +0000 UTCThought this was worth adding. Because honestly, I may well be misinterpreting his arguments and you may have them spot on. Dan just posted a blog where he goes into more detail about all the points he was making on the show. I figured it would be a good spot to clarify this and challenge him on the points you disagree with. <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/06/the-worst-arguments-atheists-make/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/06/the-worst-arguments-atheists-make/</a>
The Scathing Atheist
2014-06-21 18:44:57 +0000 UTCDan admits freely that specific religions are the result of indoctrination. But in the same way, no babies believe in, for example, atomic theory. And almost certainly wouldn't believe it unless it was explained to them. He freely admitted that there was a utility to that argument, and I'm sure he'd have loved enough time to delve more deeply into it, but it honestly seems that you're inserting an intention that wasn't there. The point he's making is that children may be born without a specific god belief, but they're not "born atheists". In fact, as he pointed out, the "original equipment" tends towards supernaturalism so if anything, babies are born "spiritual but not religious." The point you made about a baby's first words seems meaningless against the actual argument he was making. Again, he freely admits that specific religions are the result of indoctrination. On the point of embracing the changes of religion, I think you've entirely missed the point he was making. What he said was that we shouldn't be making arguments about what the "true form" of a religion is. If person X says "I'm a Christian, but I believe in rights for gays," it's illogical for us to then say, "Well then you're not a true Christian." This is little different than Oprah saying that if you believe in wonder she doesn't consider you a true atheist. It is not for Oprah to define atheism any more than it is for me to define another person's religion. They believe what they believe and to argue that it isn't the "true form" of the religion is silly. Your point doesn't in any way address the actual argument he was making (that it is inappropriate for us to frame arguments around our interpretation of another person's religion if our interpretation does not comport with their own). Additionally, I think you've grossly misconstrued the point he was making about Weinberg's indefensibly stupid point. The point Dan made was (in a round about way) that there are non-religious reasons good people do evil things. The promise of power, fear, money, kinky sex... any of those things can tempt an otherwise good person to do something bad. The idea the religion is the root of "all" evil is not supported by the facts and can be easily refuted by a single example of an atheist doing something morally objectionable. But that is not to say that all religion is not the root of evil. That's not a point that Dan made (to my knowledge). I think you've conflated these two ideas. Yes, all religion inspires evil, but all evil is not inspired by religion. Based on these comments, I honestly think you've gotten yourself worked up over an incorrect interpretation. I still haven't seen a single complaint that stems from something he said or a point he actually made.
The Scathing Atheist
2014-06-21 18:31:33 +0000 UTCI went back and listened to the interview again. This time I took 5 pages of notes. ( I promise I won't post all of them) Clarifying the "all babies are born atheist" statement, @29:30 Dan says, "there are some well intentioned arguments that are just really screwed up." He then goes on to give the example "all babies are born atheist". Dan says that the argument is easily refuted by the reply, "no babies like Christopher Hitchens". When did a literary taste for Christopher Hitchens become the litmus test for lacking a belief in a god? @30:10 he finalizes his comments by saying "citing the opinions of babies is just ridiculous". This statement is a misrepresentation which relies on emotional hijacks to sell its point. The argument is simply that babies are all born lacking a belief, which of course could be easily disproven by evidence of a baby's first words being "I Love Jesus" without first being mentally lobotomized by Christian parents but that's probably not gonna happen. Clarifying "not all religion is bad" or religion is the root of all evil. @31:30 dan roughly quotes physicist Steven Weinberg and says that this statement ignores well-intentioned people who are ignorant, which isn't at all what Weinberg was talking about. Weinberg was talking about evil, not good people doing bad things because they didn't know any better. Truly, an ignorant person would most likely stop when confronted with evidence that they were doing harm because after all they are "well intentioned" albeit ignorant. On the other hand, a religious person will do a bad thing even when they know its bad "because God". And this really is the crux of what Weinberg was getting at. I would like to cite 70 excellent episodes of the Scathing Atheist chock full of news clips which support this idea of good people knowingly doing bad things "because god". People who knowingly do bad things not at the command of an almighty moral being..... Well, those are called bad people. This is not a new idea. Lucretius said this in 55 BCE. " to such heights of evil are men driven by the practice of religion. For good people to knowingly and willingly do bad things there must be a source of moral authority which is believed to be higher than one's own conscience. I completely agree with Dr Fincke that as atheists we need to raise the bar when it comes to engaging believers we need to use real arguments and provide real answers. I appreciate his comments on not calling believers stupid or mentally ill but I disagree that we should be happy with liberal believers changing their religion to bring it in line with current knowledge. We need religion to change its immoral degrading hurtful deals like we need the k_k_k to change the color of their bed sheets. Painting the church another color does not change the fact that what is taught behind the pulpit is inheritly evil and all the other colorful words which go along with that description. Religion should be eradicated like the horrible disease that it is. Because like polio, religion has never left any of its victims better able to stand on their own two feet.
Jason Caryl
2014-06-21 09:37:05 +0000 UTCI think you've misconstrued some of Dan's points (or, just as likely, I've misconstrued some of yours). His mention of the "babies are born atheists" argument came with the caveat that was worded very close to the point you made. He did admit that there was some utility in that, but I think the point he makes about the mind of a baby being pre-programmed for illogical cognitive biases is quite a valid one. He admitted that it does have some rhetorical utility, but very often in the way it's used, it's useless. As to him (basically) saying "not all religion is bad", I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't recall hearing him saying anything like that either when I did the interview or any of the three times I listened to it during various stages of editing. Admittedly, I could be missing something. I also have to call you out on a misstatement in your response. You said that religion has "100% behind the justification for slavery and child rape and genocide." If you're saying that no non-religious justification has been offered for these things, that's simply demonstrably false. There are certainly atheist child-rapists. There are plenty of agnostic slave-owners in this nation's history. There are plenty of examples of non-religious ethnic cleansing. If that's not what you meant, I invite you to clarify.
The Scathing Atheist
2014-06-21 01:47:59 +0000 UTCSorry for all the typos.... smart phone is an oxymoron.
Jason Caryl
2014-06-20 23:45:30 +0000 UTCIt would be difficult to explain everything here in a comment but I will pick two points that I found disheartening. First, before I will qualify my negativity by saying I don't have a phd and my wife says I'm almost never right although she's never been able to provide evidence that I would accept (I think that makes me right) 1. Fincke says he doesn't like the argument that "babies are born atheist". He then contradicts himself by saying "babies aren't born anything" which by definition qualifies them as atheist which is to say they are without belief in a god or gods. It may seem petty but in making the assertion that no one had ever--or of the blue--jumped up from their John Deer green couch and said "jesus Christ is logged"without first having been introduced to the fable beforehand. Therefore it is a completely valid point to make when arguing the unnatural state which is called "belief". Second, he states that basically you can't say religion is all bad. ... Well, I would encourage him to support that statement with one positive thing that religion had done for humanity. ... Don't worry, I'll wait. There has never in documented history, been a time where religion has been the delivery agent for progress, human rights or the advancement of science. I'm not saying that religion is the only source of evil, but without fail it has been 100% behind the justification for slavery and child rape and genocide. A bad person who does something wrong is a piece of shit to be sure, but nothing says evil like an edict from on high. When he says we should embrace religion's embrace of gays and it's renouncing of slavery he forgets that both of these illicit scars on human history were supposed commands of God and it took two hundred years to overcome BECAUSE it came from religion and ignorant people are terrified of contradicting an invisible authority with a penchant for tribalistic massacre. We don't need religion to change just like we don't need the key to be a little lest hateful. .... We need to deprogram, educate and eradicate because nothing slows the advancement of humanity like the iron chains of bigotry, hated and immoral authority. Hope I haven't offended, I have a lot more to say on this.
Jason Caryl
2014-06-20 23:28:28 +0000 UTCWhat, specifically, disappointed you? Was there a point you think he should have been challenged on? Did I go too easy on him? I'd love to hear more details.
The Scathing Atheist
2014-06-20 21:54:32 +0000 UTCVery disappointed with the Dan Finkle interview. Other than that awesome episode.
Jason Caryl
2014-06-20 03:30:16 +0000 UTCUgh, Vacation Bible School, at the church I went to, it mostly involved wool carding and using wooden hammers supposedly to teach us what biblical times were like. Though since I was a girl, I wasn't allowed to spend more than five minutes in the "carpentry tent" I actually was told that it was only for boys. There was juice and cookies, but I would rather have given blood to get them.
Lauren
2014-06-19 13:12:43 +0000 UTCI feel so special!
Scott Hansen
2014-06-19 12:10:31 +0000 UTC
