THE DAWKINS DELUSION & THE BERING "SON OF DAWKINS" ILLUSION
At risk of being dismissed as a "troll", may I submit this Paper for discussion. I've bought & read Jesse Bering's "The God Instinct", and it was a waste of money & a waste of time.
"JESSE BERING - SON OF DAWKINS"
A Short Paper by Richard W. Symonds. Member of International Society For Philosophers (ISFP) - December 31 2010
"GOD IS...A SOPHISTICATED COGNITIVE ILLUSION"
('The God Instinct' by Jesse Bering - NB Publishing 2011)
.1 This Paper seeks to show it is not the vast majority of people Jesse Bering believes to be living an "illusion" - but Bering himself.
.2 I mean "illusion" in the sense that, say, the clever people in Galileo's time - who built a vast, monolithic body of knowledge on the (false) assumption the Sun went round the Earth - were living an illusion...and (unintentionally) deluded countless millions of the not-so-clever in that false belief.
.3 Jesse Bering ("Son of Dawkins") and Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") - both committed 'Blind Faith' Evolutionists & Moral Relativists - have built a vast, monolithic body of knowledge on the (false) belief that Human Beings are just Animals - not unique Moral Beings - and are deluding countless millions of the not-so-clever in that false belief.
.4 70 years ago, Philosopher & Moral Realist 'Professor' CEM Joad (1891-1953) pleaded with his colleagues to mend their newly-found philosophical ways (eg Moral Relativism, Logical Positivism & Animal Behaviourism), predicting that failure to do so would render Philosophy (& Psychology) increasingly irrelevant – and increasingly vulnerable to totalitarian thought.
.5 CEMJ’s warning ‘fell on deaf ears’ in his time – and continues to do so….except for a few readers of Cambridge University’s Alumni Magazine (”Essay : In Defence Of Moral Philosophy” by Professor Simon Blackburn – Michaelmas 2009 Edition), and adherents to Mega Theory.
.6 Totalitarianism, which George Orwell – a contemporary of Joad – was warning against in 1949, was already prevalent within the social and economic culture of the time – primarily due to the ‘false teachers’ of philosophical relativism (eg Wittgenstein & The Vienna Circle). Times have not changed. 'False teachers', like Bering & Dawkins, continue to successfully peddle this increasingly-obsolete, biologically-rooted-only, Darwinian Evolutionary Psychology.
.7 Cyril Joad, as a Moral Philosopher, was warning against Moral Relativism 9 years earlier than Orwell :
In 1940, Joad warned his profession of the dangers in rejecting its ‘Classical’ tradition (eg Plato’s ‘Forms’ of Truth, Beauty & Goodness), and pleaded for a return to that tradition (”Appeal To Philosophers”, University of London Aristotelian Society – XL 1940).
Dr. CEM Joad continued to warn – but nobody was listening….except a few debaters at Oxford University:
.8 In June 1950, 5 months after Orwell’s death (and 3 years before his own), Cyril Joad won an Oxford Union Debate : “That This House Regrets The Influence Exercised By The U.S. As The Dominant Power Among The Democratic Nations” – resulting in Randolph Churchill accusing him of being a “Third Class Socrates”.
.9 ‘Professional Outcast’ Joad, also a celebrity wartime BBC Brains Trust panellist, was treated with ridicule, contempt and disdain by most professional philosophers of the time – especially Bertrand Russell – and his warnings were ignored and dismissed within his profession, and beyond – and remain so.
.10 CEMJ was a Moral Realist – in direct opposition to Moral Relativists – and later developed his “Transcendence-Immanence” ideas in his last book: “Recovery of Belief – A Restatement of Christian Philosophy” (Faber & Faber 1952)
.11 Today, we can’t say we were not warned of this ‘totalitarian’ danger – now more prevalent than ever – and we can’t say moral philosophy (& philosophers) have had nothing to say in dealing with the problems which continue to haunt us.
.12 Joad is still ’shouting from the rooftops’ – through his many books – but we need to understand (and deal with) the unpalatable reasons why such clear warnings are still loudly ‘falling on deaf ears’.
.13 One 'deaf ear' is Bering - the other 'loud mouth' is Dawkins. They are the deluded ones. Be warned.
.14 A greater understanding of Moral Realism (especially through the work of Moral Philosopher CEM Joad) – and an unequivocal rejection of Evolutionists & Moral Relativists (especially Bering & Dawkins) - will be two critical pre-conditions for Humanity’s survival in the early 21st century.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Richard W. Symonds MCIPD is a Member of the International Society For Philosophers ( http://www.isfp.co.uk ),
Founder Member of The Cyril Joad Society (CJS) & Gatwick City of Ideas (GCI)
Author of “The Mega Instinct : Mega Theory & The Moral Revolution"
He can be contacted by Email : richardsy5@aol.com or at GCI :
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&start=0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on -
I can assure you Adriana, "moderate theists" stand up against the "extremist theists"; it's just that such voices are ignored - especially in the main stream media...unlike the more media-loving atheists like Dawkins - who, I would suggest, does not get a good press because of his thorough "scientific method" relating to evolutionary biology, but because of his irrationally-obsessive atheism, and his extreme opinions on religion (& religious people).
You say "Science, to be science, has to follow the scientific
method". It appears there is considerable debate within science
as to what is "scientific method".
The late great Sir Karl Popper was a Philosopher of Science -
or more specifically Philosopher of the Scientific Method.
His Scientific Method seems very different to yours.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
Adriana, I think we are misunderstanding each other, which is giving rise to unnecessary hostility.
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't learning something. I could easily 'flounce off', especially with some of the tedious rudeness (& arrogance) of certain contributors here, directed personally.
I am not a scientist, nor a professional philosopher, but I know something of the "scientific method" through Karl Popper, whose own method :
P1 -> TS1 -> EE -> P2 -> TS2 -> EE -> P3 -> TS3 -> EE etc
I have found extremely valuable for many years.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
It's a simple problem-solving formula - 'trial & error' in a scientific form - useful for everything & anything in everyday life.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
Adriana, perhaps you can now better understand why the non-scientific 'layman' confuses evolutionary psychology & evolutionary biology, and lumps the likes of Jesse Bering & Richard Dawkins together.
By the way, Dawkins could easily help to disentangle such misunderstanding by replying to our concerns here, but he seems inaccessible, as if were 'above' such inferior talk.
Unlike Chomsky, for example, who makes himself accessible to people if they are genuine in their search for greater understanding of a subject - whoever they are.
-
Permalink Reply by Kirk Holden on -
His holiness Asimov tells us (quoting from the gospel of Isacc)
"When people thought the earth was flat they were wrong. When people thought the earth was a sphere they were wrong. But if you think that they were equally wrong - you are wronger than both of them."
First - wiki Theory, then read the rest of the posts. Done? Now read this...
Popper's Measure of Theory Quality:
1. Confirmation is easy to obtain, especially if we look for it.
2. Confirmation only counts if it results from risky prediction. If, unenlightened by the theory we should have expected an event incompatible with the theory - i.e. an event that would refute the theory. We expect two objects of unequal mass to fall at different velocities...
3. Every good theory has restrictions and forbids certain events.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it. Some theories are more more at risk to refutation.
6. Confirming evidence only counts for a genuine test of a theory (#5).These mental illusions are PROVISIONAL STATEMENTS about reality. That's the scientific method which work by definition. I make a conjecture about my perception and WRITE IT THE FUCK DOWN so that others can begin the work of falsifying it.
Note that the Philosophy of Religion is officially bankrupt and I will find that evidence to cite later.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
Great stuff on the Philosopher of Science Karl Popper, Kirk, until your last sentence on the Philosophy of Religion - which is effing nonsense :
http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/02/karl-popper-on-god-...
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
"Crap" indeed Adriana - but that's what can happen when Evolutionary Theory - and Atheism - become like a Secular Religion, with their own fundamentalist, non-scientific dogmatisms ;)
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
"Methinks he doth protest too much" (Shakespeare) - Goodnight doone.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
Doone, is this misrepresentation of my position deliberate on your part, or are you just doing it subconsciously ?
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
"That's what CAN happen when Evolutionary Theory - and Atheism
- become like a Secular Religion, with their own fundamentalist,
non-scientific dogmatisms"
How the hell can that statement above be EXACTLY like this one ?
"I think evolutionary theory is FULL of non-scientific dogmatisms"
Stop misrepresenting my position.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
Doone, the 7 colours of the rainbow are there to illustrate, more simply, the 7 Values/Motivations - although the 'synaesthesia' idea is intriguing (eg seeing a Value as a Colour).
I'm not impressed by Darwin's Evolution Theory - so I'm not impressed by Dawkins ideas - which are based on Darwin's ideas.
Lamark & Kropotkin, at the time, had better theories - in my view.
The question which intrigues me is : Why & how did Darwin's ideas (eg Competition) prevail against those of Lamarck & Kropotkin (eg Co-operation)...which also begs the question : Why do Dawkins ideas prevail against others today ?
The answers, for me, are not pretty.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on
-
Dawkins himself is full of secular fundamentalist, anti-Theistic, non-scientific dogmatisms - especially when it comes to religion & religious people.
He should stick to his science - and its principles - when it comes to evolutionary biology.
What's new today
Forum
Should illegal aliens in the US be denied medical care?
Started by Holo Gram in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by archaeopteryx 1 hour ago. 19 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Why Respect Relgion - A Post From FB.
Posted by Robert Karp on May 21, 2013 at 10:34am 3 Comments 1 Like
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
