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

Views: 617

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

Chomsky is also an atheist - but the arrogant ignorance is absent.

 

I therefore take Chomsky far more seriously than Dawkins - who I still think is dangerously deluded. 

Dawkins is arrogant, Jean Marie - but then again, so am I (Matt 7 v 5)
I would expect that someone who feels confident enough to call Dawkins out and say he is delusional would have at least read Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" and would therefore know the answer to that question already. Dawkins is a weak atheist.
I have read the book Allen, and I think much of it is c### because of his anima towards religious believers - and his conceit to think he is soooooo right.

I hate this argument. I really, really do. I thought Christians believed faith was, like, the MOST important characteristic to have (second only to love). You're undermining your own... well... faith, by saying we have more of it than you. Shouldn't it embarrass you that an atheist has more of what God says you should have? Hmmm... Basically, you're admitting faith is a foolish thing to have just so you can make a jab at atheists. Lame.

 

It does not take faith to NOT believe something that has not been proven. I don't lie away at night wondering if I'm wrong about there being unicorns or fairies. You don't worry that Zeus is really the One True God, or that the Muslims are right, do you? Do you think it takes "faith" to dismiss other religions? Really? I hope not. I know you're smarter than that. There are thousands of things YOU dismiss out of hand and no one would accuse you of having "more faith" for not believing that over some other absurd, unproven (and unprovable) claim.

 

Anyway... you have a profound misunderstanding of what it means to be atheist. Atheists simply do not believe there are gods; they are not making a positive statement that there definitely are none. Now, personally, I would stake my life on the assumption there is no god, but that doesn't mean I can claim to know that. But you're right; I do have so much faith there is no god that I would risk eternal damnation to say I don't believe. If I was even slightly worried there was a Hell, I certainly wouldn't admit out loud I was having doubts.

 

 

No no. It was when the aliens came and showed us how to build pyramids. ;)
I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that any single human trait is completely absent in all other animals to such a degree that we can claim to be unique among other animals.

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps we are both 'Waiting for Godot' Allen ?

Instead of waiting for a shred of evidence that humans are not unique among animals why don't you try going back a reading the numerous comments where people provided you with evidence for morality and language in non-human animals?

 

WTF is Godot?

He's referring to the play 'Waiting for Godot' by Samuel Beckett.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service