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

Tags: Bering, Dawkins, morality

Views: 341

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Do you take Shine's telephone calls too, David ?
No, I just understand Shine's point, which seems to escape you. Do you have anything worthwhile to say, or just snarky comments to hide the fact that you are conflating position 2 and position 3?
I'm just making short "snarky comments" now David. It's way past my bedtime, and I'm getting tired & irritable. Sorry.
Then get some rest, man! We'll still be here in the morning. :)

Do you take Shine's telephone calls too, David ?

 

A private message would be more analogous to a telephone call.  Comments on an internet forum are like dinner party conversation, where it is generally appropriate for anyone to respond at any time.

You wouldn't take that on faith. I could look outside to confirm your statement or look at the weather channel to confirm the report that it is raining...I have read every response up until now and it seems you are just angry with atheists. You have yet to respond to the questions regarding proof for your "Mega" theory, it is still the case that "Mega" theories require "Mega" evidence? You have now resorted to angry insults and countless baseless claims regarding your own "Mega" beliefs and have committed the straw-man argument by telling someone what their beliefs are and then refuting them. If you seriously want us to consider your beliefs, then present some evidence and support that are not befuddled attempts at quote mining.

I am NOT angry with Atheists Jake - but I am angry at Dawkins & Bering for leading others down a 'dead-end street'.

 

"Proof" of Mega Instinct ? Sorry, no can do - none that would satisfy you anyway, I suspect.

 

But where is the "proof" for Freud's "Unconscious". Where is the "proof" of that Thought which you are thinking now - is Thought a Thing or about a Thing ?

Where is the  "proof" there is a God - or not a God.

 

I believe you're 'chasing rainbows' if you want the "proof" you seek. 

Richard you are brilliant!!! Every time you ask someone to critique your idea, and someone asks for further evidence, and to assuage the rough assertions, you could always respond with special pleading. When asked to prove whether or not your idea is correct, you instead shy away and say, "No, it wouldnt be prudent, besides you wont like it"...Give me a break Richard. If you want to ask us what we think of your "Mega" theory and offer no proof when asked, then your "Mega" theory is dead, sorry. If your basic idea can not even be tested, then you are just wasting your time, and your audience's. You think the editor of your new "Mega" theory is going to publish it on the first draft? Perhaps I now know why you are religious...And by the way, "Freudian" psychology is not testable in the first place, and not terribly many schools use that as the pinnacle of their psychology department. So before you throw out straw-man, try to bolster them up a little bit.
Give over Jake - I have provided back-up "evidence" for the Mega Theory; it's just that you don't accept that "evidence" as proof.

Wrong again. The Theist hypothesis is: there is a god. The Atheist doesn't have a comparable hypothesis. We simply pass the ball back to the Theist and say "show me the money or get out."

 

"Strong Atheists" are rare and believe there is no god. You rightly assert there is a type of faith in that position.

 

"Weak Atheists" are the majority of the people you are dealing with here and our position is that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that god(s) exist.

What is Dawkins - a "strong" or a "weak" atheist ?

On the scale that Dawkins proposed in The God Delusion, where 1 is a strong theist (stating that there absolutely is a god) , 4 is neutral, and 7 is a strong atheist (stating that there absolutely is not a god), Dawkins rated himself at about a 6.9. He does not assert that there is no god, but does say that he sees no evidence for one and finds the likelihood of there being a deity so improbable that extraordinary evidence is required to conclude that a god does exist. (See Carl Sagan's comment on how extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence)

 

Therefore, Dawkins is a weak atheist, but one with stringent standards of evidence.

RSS

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 1 Comment

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service