Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[Belacqua]

Can you be more specific? Exactly what did Dawkins have to say that you disagree with? How did he fail to rebut Thomas Aquinas?

He says that Aquinas intended the Five Ways to be comprehensive reasons as to why we should believe in God. But they aren't that. They are more like the table of contents for fuller arguments, useful for students. No one would find the Five Ways persuasive on their own.

He doesn't understand the Aristotelian idea of primary and secondary causation, so he thinks a "first cause" is a beginning temporal cause, which it isn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas argues for a temporal beginning to the universe, which in fact Aquinas specifically argues against. 

He thinks the argument from natural teleology has something to do with intelligent design, which it doesn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas' discussion of motion involves local movement from one point to another, when in fact it is about act and potency. 

He mistakes arguments about transcendental perfection for something about quantitative magnitude, which it isn't. 

He doesn't rebut any of them because he doesn't understand a single one. Granted, the terms are not familiar to a lot of modern people. But a lot of modern people have the good sense not to think they understand things they don't.

[Angrboda]

I would say that philosophy is a skill, like any other. Sure, nothing than an inclination is required to do philosophy, but to do it well requires talent, knowledge, experience, and practice. Obviously if you have no raw talent, you will find it difficult to make up for this defect through experience, knowledge, and practice. A good philosopher needs to be well read in the literature, both to know what has been thought already, as well as to expand their mental openness and exercise their ability to understand ideas. A creative writer or a poet is a better one if they are well read. The same with philosophy. It requires knowledge, obviously, and academic training is the most assured route to this knowledge. It requires experience and practice because it is a skill like any other. So while these things aren't necessary to do philosophy at all, they are largely the means by which one comes to do philosophy well. Thus while to road that leads to destruction is wide, a good philosopher enters through the narrow gate.

(As a personal note, I'm not well read at all, which is my main failing at philosophy.)

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Dawkins is painful to listen to. Just goes around in circles much of the time without substantiating anything.

[Gwaithmir]

Can you be more specific? Exactly what did Dawkins have to say that you disagree with? How did he fail to rebut Thomas Aquinas?

He says that Aquinas intended the Five Ways to be comprehensive reasons as to why we should believe in God. But they aren't that. They are more like the table of contents for fuller arguments, useful for students. No one would find the Five Ways persuasive on their own.

He doesn't understand the Aristotelian idea of primary and secondary causation, so he thinks a "first cause" is a beginning temporal cause, which it isn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas argues for a temporal beginning to the universe, which in fact Aquinas specifically argues against. 

He thinks the argument from natural teleology has something to do with intelligent design, which it doesn't. 

He thinks that Aquinas' discussion of motion involves local movement from one point to another, when in fact it is about act and potency. 

He mistakes arguments about transcendental perfection for something about quantitative magnitude, which it isn't. 

He doesn't rebut any of them because he doesn't understand a single one. Granted, the terms are not familiar to a lot of modern people. But a lot of modern people have the good sense not to think they understand things they don't.

I find your objections rather odd. When I was in Catholic high school, Aquinas' arguments were used to "prove" God's existence exactly the way Dawkins says they were used.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Why I don't pay much attention to Dawkins

Dawkins = Snake Oil Salesman trying to get your $$$

[Mister Agenda]

Gosh, I've never ever seen an angry theist. Never had one damn me to hell, tell me I'm ruining my/families salvation, that I'm fucked up in the head, or that I would be better off dead. Nope, all theists only ever say good things to me.

Edit: A side note, you might run into atheists with less tolerance when it's perceived that there may be a hidden agenda or motive.

Ad Hominem. The cheapest and most used fallacy...
Stop defeating ur own claim... Watch and Learn if u can follow logic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg

I question your capacity to understand the video you have linked.

[vulcanlogician]

Aquinas was a great philosopher by any measure. He did important work in just about every field of philosophy, from aesthetics to epistemology to ethics. Some of this is long out-moded, of course, but a lot is still fascinating to work on. If people knew it better and engaged with it fairly, they would see that. 

We looked at the scholastics in a few of my classes, usually as their arguments pertained to religion. I can't say I found them enjoyable to read, nor did they take hold of me and occupy my thoughts (like a great many other philosophers have). That being said, I admit that I haven't taken a proper dip into scholasticism. If you wanted to present some of their less religion-oriented ideas for discussion, it might be an educational experience for some of us. One thing I'm interested in are their elaborations on Plato... epistemology concerning intelligibility... that sort of thing.

We also have to be careful about the common view of intellectual history, in which the wonderful rational Greeks and Romans were held underwater and drowned by the evil Christians, who were defeated in their turn after a thousand years of Dark Ages by super-hero Francis Bacon and the Enlightenment Avengers.

I think you know how I feel about distortions of the reality. Yes, the picture of history you portrayed is certainly a distortion... but it is not a complete misrepresentation of the facts. To me, Christianity isn't the only boogeyman. It is true that anti-intellectualism has nonreligious forms. After all, Socrates was executed for -mostly- nonreligious reasons. Also, much of the widespread ignorance of the Dark Ages/feudal era can be attributed to the "barbarian culture" which swept over Europe, and (as you say) cannot be wholly attributed to the influence of Christianity. Who knows? Maybe Christianity (alone) carried the beacon of Rome through the Dark Ages, and we ought to thank them for it. But I feel like this view is a distortion too. I try to look at things more neutrally. Sure, the Church didn't burn every non-Biblical book it came across... but they don't need to be commended for this. They did their fair share of suppressing thinkers. Popular religion has an undeniable anti-intellectual bent to it.  

I despise this component of religion. 

Baruch Spinoza is a good example. He was shunned by his Jewish religious community. He was attacked with a knife by a crazy person shouting "Heretic!" His works were banned across Europe for containing atheistic ideas, prompting him to publish his greatest work, the Ethics posthumously. Anyone who has read Spinoza knows that his ideas are far from dangerous. To the contrary:

Spinoza believed in a "Philosophy of tolerance and benevolence"[62] and actually lived the life which he preached. He was criticized and ridiculed during his life and afterwards for his alleged atheism. However, even those who were against him "had to admit he lived a saintly life".[62] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spi...and_career

There is only one reason why Spinoza, a rather gentle person who lived a humble life faced so much opposition: religion. It is hard to imagine any of those hardships listed above happening in any other context. It didn't matter what that man's philosophy actually said: he doubted the existence of God. That was enough to warrant the banning of all his works by the Catholic Church. This man's ideas should have been widely circulated around Europe and discussed openly in the salons. The Ethics should have been published when Spinoza was still alive, included in academic curricula, and responded to by all thinkers of the day. But it wasn't... it was suppressed... for one reason and one reason only. Religion. And it pisses me off.

I know you think that atheists give "this side of religion" too much attention and ignore many of Christianity's merits. I disagree. You yourself commended the scholastics for "folding Aristotle into Christian thinking" (or something like that). I think that's commendable too. But, ask yourself,  WHY is it commendable? Because they were protecting ancient philosophy from the vultures, that's why! They knew that the dogmatists might possibly pile Greek manuscripts in the churchyard and burn them! So it was rather wise and thoughtful of them to baptize those ancient works, given the circumstances. It's rather like Nietzsche says, religion wants to be patted on the head and held in esteem for curing diseases that religion itself has introduced.

---

Though he might wanna go and take another look at the sophists.  They were professional teachers.  Plato was a cranky ass old man, lol.  I think we all know better than to blindly trust in one partisans hit piece on an entire discipline, by now.

Yes, many sophists were extremely talented, intelligent, and did good work. Plato was undeniably a cranky ass old man, but he had some good criticisms too.

My view on the sophists is more nuanced than I let on. Plato admired a great many sophists, btw. It's just that (as a whole) he considered sophistry to be a mess... filled to the brim with snake oil salesmen, self help gurus, and people who advised taking positions on issues because "that position will go over well with the crowd." They often adopted relativistic positions concerning things like morality-- and even truth. So you gotta forgive Plato for shaking his head at them.

Admittedly, Plato was too hard on them. They were (for the most part) sincere devotees of knowledge. Many of the issues they raised were dismissed and paved over by Platonism, only to reappear in modern philosophy. So there's that side of things too.

[Belacqua]

When I was in Catholic high school, Aquinas' arguments were used to "prove" God's existence exactly the way Dawkins says they were used.

It's unfortunate that there are so many bad teachers in the world. Each of us has a responsibility to be as accurate as possible.

---

It is hard to imagine any of those hardships listed above happening in any other context. 

Have you read about the CIA? They inflicted widespread torture and murder in many countries, to anyone who challenged US capitalism. 

The CIA top guy in Uruguay, for example, got beggars off the street and tortured them to death for training purposes. It was worse than what Spinoza went through. When the Uruguayan resistance finally assassinated this murderer, Frank Sinatra did a benefit concert for his widow. 

It's really easy to imagine (because we don't have to imagine it) death and destruction committed by anyone who thinks he's right and the other guy's wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that a person can mount a credible defense of the abuses of religion by comparing them to the CIA at the height of their own assholery.  I think that the CIA would -love- to have had the ability that religion had..and, in point of fact, they use religion for it's known assholish abilities. /  shrugs

[Belacqua]

I'm not sure that a person can mount a credible defense of the abuses of religion by comparing them to the CIA at the height of their own assholery.  I think that the CIA would -love- to have had the ability that religion had..and, in point of fact, they use religion for it's known assholish abilities. /  shrugs

I am not attempting to mount a defense of any abuses. I am against all abuses. 

I am responding to a particular sentence in a previous post.