Dawkins Wants To Share Eroticism, Tim Stanley That Devil Intervenes

Richard Dawkins suggested that broadcasting loving erotica might help to tackle misogyny generally in theocratic states.

This was in response to what Boris Johnson said regarding blue balls theory that by not getting laid, this led to wanking at porn and then jihadists (I debunk the theory here.)

Clearly that was not what Dawkins was expressing. Rather, it was that women and men should be viewed in loving ways whether sexually or otherwise. Erotica that stressed that would be a contrast to repressive religious cultures that insisted on men and women being segregated, with women being covered up as a temptresses in need of modesty to preserve herself, and protect men from themselves.

Dear Richard Dawkins, my people WROTE the book on this. Most of it is athletic, if quite gentle, erotica. Didn't stop our violent tendencies

— Sunny Singh (@sunnysingh_nw3) January 31, 2015

Last year ended with Richard Dawkins being quartered, drawn and hung by the harridans. This year begins with his self-censorship for SWJs.

— Mduduzi Dlamini (@Quibbie_) January 31, 2015

In homage to Richard Dawkins's plan to beat Islamic extremism with porn, here's an excerpt from "Pride & Prejudice" pic.twitter.com/oTdcaVfVLl

— Paul Anthony Ward (@PaulAnthonyWard) January 31, 2015

Dawkins ended up deleting his tweet, following unloving mounting derision at the idea.

Tim Stanley seemed to find sadistic delight in laying the boot in:

After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.

Time was when it looked like Dawkins was about to go the full “nut-job 180” and declare that, upon reflection, there actually is a God and it’s Richard Dawkins – and have himself blasted into space on the back of a dolphin singing Onward Christian Soldiers. As you can tell, I’ve come to regard Dick with a great deal of affection. He’s just a mad uncle – a genius academic with monomania who probably isn’t a bad person just a rather naïve one. And his capacity for dreaming up new ways to irritate the religious is, at least, not boring.

So how did Tim show that he was far from a nut job or mad uncle himself? By trying to tell us the answer to Stephen Fry’s how could a loving God let children be born with bone cancer was already in the bible.

Not only has theology dedicated itself for thousands of years to unpicking that problem but the answer to it is there in the very Bible itself. Since Adam and Eve ate the apple, we’ve been living in a fallen world full of pain. God granted us free will not only to do bad things but also good things – like finding a cure for cancer or caring for those dying from it.
Terrible things happen because of a) random acts of nature, b) the intervention of the Devil or c) the corruption of man.

“I’m not saying anyone has to believe what I write…” goes on Tim, but I would like him to go further and write more. Does he literally believe there was an Adam and Eve that ate an apple? Was it a just God that then allowed all their offspring to suffer for such a transgression by being cast out of paradise? Did God not set the randomness of nature, or was it beyond his capacity to control? Does the devil intervene by controlling nature, us or influencing directly our thoughts and actions, even using children and loved ones let alone heads of state or Telegraph journalists? Does the corruption of man mean children must expect getting bone cancer, or a worm burrowing out of their eye, and still praise God while in pain thus accepting their corruption?

“…please don’t act like it’s never been said before or that the answer to Fry’s facile question doesn’t exist.” That is the problem – they are not answers. What evidence does Stanley have, significant insight to know this is of God, that he can use without sounding like a nut job mad uncle? He cannot, though he can say this is my belief and that is enough for me. Thing is,he sees this as an answer for everyone, one we should embrace in our wretchedness.

So the choice of spreading around the world loving erotica or the good news that children are responsible for their bone cancer because they are born corrupted. It truly is a mad world where Dawkins feels the need to delete his tweet, but Stanley can let stand dogma that is truly pernicious.

I appreciate some people wondering at the tweets by Dawkins. However, there are far worse things said as religion, which seems to make people authorities while standing on sand by a lapping sea of faith.

Watch for the tides, in case your reason is lost far out to sea.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Albert Einstein on Scientists Praying and Belief

Einstein was sent a letter by a school girl about prayer. His answer was honest and captured the magic of reality.

January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis’s class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

Einstein replied promptly:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

Einstein was no theist as his reply above shows. He made clear:

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” [Source]

He rejected calling himself an atheist, considering that lacked humility and appreciation of the sheer beauty that radiated from the cosmos. He was opposed to vocal atheism for seeming to reject that emotional awed response, as he was against the espousing of a personal God. Perhaps he would say seeing the new atheist debate that the

“struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope” and cultivate the “Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.” [ibid]

The “God Letter” shows he rejected the God of the Bible as to do with the infancy of our species and trying to represent his position as deist where he said:

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” [Source]

Misses that he saw in his time the human race as still quite childlike in appreciating how the universe is. Which I suspect is why he wrote so quickly back to the little girl. Einstein knew we needed to move beyond a religiosity that was theistic, pantheist and yes deist too. His concern with atheism was that it rejected the wonder of everything for harsh calculations, and cold realities. By lacking such spirit we would lack warmth as human beings.

I would hope he would see in the current debate that it was religion, and not a lack of appreciation for the sublime nature of the universe, which was the target for atheists. Our understanding of the natural world through science, and using our knowledge of the world to better how we all live, is something humanity can get together on. A humanism that transcends faith and non faith with improving and valuing.

Regardless of how it all may have all began.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

My Huffington Post Blog

Genocide in the Bible

Joshua, slayer in chief

From the lands of Canaan to the people of Amalek where even animals, let alone babies and children, (1 Samuel 15:3) were to be destroyed. As god’s judgment or punishment for defying his will the Hebrew Scriptures have god sanctioning genocide.

The easiest way out of this for Christians would be to insist that it is the Old Testament – nothing to do with Jesus and his teachings. Though in the New Testament much is made of god’s judgments in killing people (Sodom and Gomorrah), and Jesus himself made much about everlasting hell being punishment after death. Unless we claim that the god of the old is replaced by Jesus the god of the new (apparently there from the beginning of creation at Jehovah’s right hand, therefore at least guilty of manslaughter by collective responsibility).

Treat Jesus as a man there seems to be a different direction that has less smiting and at least more compassion in his doctrine to the living. God being cruel and vindictive would demonstrate god being cruel and vindictive – it would not prove there was no god only that he was not sweetness and light.

Not taking the bible literally also gets you out of the knot. Either these genocides were decided by the Israelites, claiming divine legitimacy for barbaric acts or this is the work of literature. Myths that are the legends that make up a common narrative of a people.

William Lane Craig has a rather different way of allowing divine slaughter. His justification for killing babies:

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Selfish us not thinking that little kids being killed by a military were going to a happy place! This mind set

Holy slaughter

logically means that speed restrictions should not apply round infant schools. After all, you kill the child by going too fast there is a 100% chance they will go to heaven.

Even Thomas Aquinas rejected killing someone on the basis that the innocent go to heaven. Not Dr Craig. He goes on to suggest that waiting 400 years from Sodom and Gomorrah to the Canaanites shows that god is long suffering. That this was a message of no mixing with pagan cultures, to avoid idolatry. That the Jews being slaves gave Canaanites a chance to change their ways before the punishment.

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods” (Deut 7.3-4).

For Dr Craig Yahweh is not one to mess with. A dictator commands obedience on the edge of a sword. This is a god that gives me free will but will see fit to kill those that use it. Much is made of the wickedness of the people. Ritual prostitution and child sacrifice. There are those that claim the modern world does the same with sex on TV and abortion. Even in my Mum’s wood work class a student has been asked to not go on about the 99.99% of people to be killed at Armageddon. A concept given weight to what the Israelites supposedly did in the cities around and in the Promised Land.

So we can kill in the name of God according to Dr Craig? Well he claims that Islamic suicide bombing, Jihad, is different because that is about forcing faith on people with violence. What happened in Canaan was god’s judgment.

The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.

The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct, but which is the true God?

God is love – and any actions that the bible says he has done he has done. These actions cannot contradict that god is love. The Bible is literally true. Ergo the acts of genocide reflect the will of a loving god. So many hoops to jump with – but a god that orders the death of babies and a theologian that says I should rejoice?

Rather I am with Dawkins assessment in The God Delusion:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

It seems bad enough thinking such an entity is real. Let alone one that is worthy of worship on the basis that Dr Craig thinks. Though he is not alone in thinking this. Another site concludes:

This is not to downplay or minimize the devastating impact of Israel’s invasion. Many people (men, women and children) were slain. In some cases even all livestock from a city were slaughtered. The Canaanite culture was evil and God wanted it removed. But he didn’t want everyone killed. He was not merciless. Gradually driving the Canaanites out of their land and into neighbouring nations where they would be the minority would force them to change their ways (Exodus 23:27-30).

Israel’s invasion demonstrated God’s justice, mercy and practicality at work. He executed justice upon the Canaanite ruling class. They tended to live in the cities, and they were most responsible for the evil Canaanite culture. God granted mercy to the Canaanites outside of the cities. They had their lives, but they would eventually have to move and give up all their sinful culture.

There are always apologists for the evil people do. Reminds me of what Obama said when talking to Rick Warren that much evil is done by people that think they are doing good.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78