Andrew Rilestone on The God Delusion
I don't particularly want a debate on The God Delusion, I just wanted to bring it to the attention of those of you who are interested in that sort of thing, and re-iterate that Andrew Rilstone is one of my favourite writers. (His essay on Gay Bishops is still one of my favourtie things on the internet
If you can't be bothered to read the whole thing, the proofs at the end of this page
made me giggle.
And to add to that, Proof by Andrew Rilstone:
Andrew Rilstone exists
Andrew Rilstone is God
Therefore God Exists.
I, and IIRC some other CTS folk, got drunk with Andrew Rilstone at Tolkien 2005. It was fun.
|Date:||June 1st, 2007 09:56 am (UTC)|| |
Yes, lots of people I know know him. It's as though we're on opposite sides of the great social blob.
Still, one should be careful about meeting heros in real life. He'd either be a great disappointment, or I'd want to have his babies even more, and I'm not sure either of these is a great outcome ;-)
|Date:||June 1st, 2007 09:57 am (UTC)|| |
|Date:||June 1st, 2007 12:51 pm (UTC)|| |
Both of those seem to be hopelessly out of date too.
|Date:||June 1st, 2007 10:01 am (UTC)|| |
I wrote about Rilstone's mammoth essay here
. People are welcome to debate if they like :-)
I like those proofs, I'll have to go and read the rest when I've got time.
I have a nasty feeling I'm slowly sailing through all reasonable proofs that I don't know that God does no exist toward the argument from contrariness with a touching affection for the argument from onanism.
|Date:||June 1st, 2007 10:48 am (UTC)|| |
Ee! He was reading it in the Boston Tea Party on Park Street! That's my city! And a mighty fine cafe, too.
Dawkins pretends that he thinks that some Christians believe in:
The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists
Some scientists, especially in the olden days, believed in God
Therefore God exists.
Well, certainly a lot do - or at least a lot in the Christian circles I used to be in, as I heard this kind of argument quite a lot. Even modern 'intellectual' clever academic Christians say this kind of thing, look at the video I just posted about Alastair McGrath for instance, he wants to claim Einstein as someone who believed in God when Einstein was very clear that he didn't.
|Date:||June 1st, 2007 11:09 am (UTC)|| |
It is quite a common thing to say in Evangelical circles, and Creationists say it all the time. Creationists and Evangelicals are those Dawkins has encountered the most because they tend to be the people opposed to evolutionary biology.
|Date:||June 4th, 2007 06:34 am (UTC)|| |
The game "I'll tell you what you actually believe" might be fun for you, but just in case you haven't noticed it is really offensive. It's also a load of rubbish. You might as well tell me what my favourite food is, because it turns out that the world expert on me is ... me!
|Date:||June 4th, 2007 08:00 am (UTC)|| |
I don't speak as some disconnected external observer. I was an Evangelical, and at one point I was a creationist too.
Also I'm saying this based on what I've heard on Alpha and Christianity Explored courses, and have had said to me by Evangelicals since I stopped being a Christian.
You might not be like that, but that isn't what I said. What I said was that IME it is largely Evangelicals and Creationists who make arguments and so those are the ones Dawkins has heard this kind of nonsense from. He hasn't pulled it out of thin air.
Also: In the same vein as his amusing proofs are the hundreds of proofs of God's existence
, except these proofs are both amusing and (to a large degree) proofs people have actually tried on me.
|Date:||June 1st, 2007 12:13 pm (UTC)|| |
I was in borders yesterday, and someone had put a book about Jesus by the pope on the shelf with a load of god delusions
it amused me
Possibly (just possibly), a same sex union, since it lacks the sacramental dimension, is 'inferior' to a heterosexual union—in the sense that marriage was traditionally said to be 'inferior' to virginity. It would be better to remain celibate if you can; but it's not a sin to marry if you want to; it would have been better to have been straight, but it is okay to live with another bloke if you have to.
I read the God Delusion expecting to love it (based on the facts that I really like the evolution books Dawkins has written, such as "Climbing Mount Improbable" and I really like well reasoned books on theology such as "The Great Divorce" by C.S.Lewis, and I am interested in as much evidence as I can get on all sides of the religion question so I can draw my own conclusions).
Sadly "The God Delusion" is really crap.
I don't mind the atheism - that is the point of the book, after all, and I believe that either he'd be right, in which case yay a good argument wins, or wrong, in which case yay a good argument wins - but ARRGH! it is *so* poorly written!
The things I really liked about Dawkins previously was his logic and clarity of prose, but in this book he commmits several crimes against this, including dissing an argument-tactic then using it himself (occasionally on the same page), skipping over the actual 'meat' of the explanations about evolution (because he has already covered it elsewhere) but without explaining why so it jumps abruptly (as he complains christians do in their arguments about both evolution and God), not researching properly (eg: he has obviously never heard of a rumspringa, for a start), being sarcastic when logic ought to prevail if the argument is good enough, having a rant and mixing personal belief with fact with no distinction between the two.
I sadly feel that Dawkins may be one of those people who would have career-benefitted from dying young (like Kennedy and Elvis)- the books he 'might have written' appear better than the ones he has actually gone on to write, and he is also starting to be somewhat embarassing for those people who like his biological work but not his current rather rude statements (I count myself amongst these).
|Date:||June 4th, 2007 06:36 am (UTC)|| |
Small world syndrome
By freakish conincidence I don't know Andrew Rilestone, but have still being reading, and enjoying his journal for some time.
Reading his parable of the ass I am not fond of his style, but may read more later. When dealing with the sensitive issue of gay bishops or homosexuality as a whole I find the whole "you just treat scripture selectively" argument so unhelpful. Of course it is a true statement, everyone does it and both sides of the debate are guilty of it, but if you read documents like the windsor report which theologians have theologised over for yonks this happens less and less the more honest people are. The implication is that I as an evangelical am automatically homophobic because I sing worship songs (although I actually don't sing worship songs very much :) ) and therefore I make scripture mean what I want it to mean, ie that homosexuality is wrong. It doesn't seem to allow for the large amount of conservatives who sweat blood over trying to make it mean what they would prefer it to mean, that homosexual romantic relationships are considered holy by God.
Is this partly because homosexuality has become the meta-argument about authority in the Church? Rather than talking about whose method(s) of exegesis is best, or whether authority in the church should lie with Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience, or some combination of the above, or how much leeway provinces in the church should have to do their own thing, we instead shout at each other about homosexuality.
The church will never sort out what to do over the homosexuality issue if it can't leave it alone for a while and address some of the underlying issues in a less polarised, dare I say it, more Christian manner.