Sep
28
Written by:
Skeptic
9/28/2007 9:18 AM
Journalist Paul Jackson’s (I use the term journalist loosely even though admittedly I have only ever read one of his articles as I do not reside in Calgary) article in the June 26th edition of the Calgary Sun is a typical factless assault on atheism and especially Richard Dawkins.
The article titled Atheist Author no Einstein can be found here.
Jackson's attack on Professor Dawkins is unintelligent and insulting. Rather than attacking Dawkins ideas he attacks Dawkins himself. At one point actually stating:” Where is this guy coming from? Does he think he is more intelligent than God? Apparently so. Has he ever been over to the Other Side? I'll bet you 1,000-to-1 he hasn't.”
Did he actually ask if Dawkins had ever died? Is he implying that he has and so he knows all?
First of all Jackson’s entire argument centers around Einstein. As he states “assessed by many to have the greatest intellect of any human ever born”. What? Who did this assessment? I will grant him that Einstein was a smart man, he may even have been the smartest but if you make that kind of statement you need to site the study. Regardless of whether Einstein was the smartest man ever or not has nothing to do with the existence of god. Lots of smart people believe in god, it is the grandest of all delusions. The argument that Einstein believed in god is also one of the most common arguments made by theists. I think they use it to tie religion to Science in some way. Its like they are saying “Look this scientist believed in god and you atheists are all pro science.” The only thing they are missing here is the truth. You see, Einstein did not believe in god. At best Einstein was a pantheist. This is the view that all is god or nature is god. The view where god is a synonym for nature. Hell I believe in nature. Einstein’s view on what most people think of as god however are best summed up by Einstein himself:
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbour such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”
If anyone would like to read chapter one of Professor Dawkins book The God Delusion, it can be found here. Dawkins addresses Einstein in this chapter.
Jackson then states and I paraphrase “Perhaps Dawkins haven’t heard of Preston Manning and his daddy” excellent argument sir. I have nothing to say to that except its likely most Canadians haven’t heard of Preston Manning. Oh he stated a political party, well that should make the god belief thing rational.
And lastly Jackson says “Friends, I fully believe when I die -- if I keep to the straight and narrow -- I will meet my grandparents, parents, sisters and Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu friends in Heaven.”
So Mr Jackson what is the criteria for entrance to heaven? Is it just the religions that you named here or could I just believe in god on my own? Perhaps the ancient Mayan religions will that do it? If I follow Seuss or Ra the sun god does that get me in?
Do I get to go to heaven as long as I hold the belief in a supernatural and if I ask for evidence I burn for all eternity?
Don’t get me wrong I would love to live forever but I am a rational person.
P.S. The Bible and Qur’an do sell well. Sex and violence have always sold well.
Tags:
2 comments so far...
Re: In Defense of Rationality: I have tollerance for intelligent debates by Christians. This is not one.
First let me say I thoroughly enjoy your site. I've had a good time (and spent a good time) reading the Headlines archive. I truly hope this venture of yours takes off; even if there are many atheist/secular/humanist sites, as long as religion predominates there aren't enough.
That said let me correct you on one small point. You said "its likely most Canadians haven’t heard of Preston Manning. Oh he sta(r)ted a political party". I think it's likely most adult Canadians have heard of Manning (I'm guessing you aren't Canadian); he didn't just start any political party -- he started the Reform Party which through a later incarnation swallowed up The Progressive Conservative Party which had been one of only two major parties in Canada. Before that unfortunate turn of events he served as the Leader of the Official Opposition from 1997-2000. After a number of name changes the Reform Party eventually took power in a minority government under the 'new' name of the Conservative Party (no longer progressive) and under the leadership of Stephen Harper, the new Prime Minister, we now have a very Christian friendly government. All thanks to Preston Manning. Yeah most Canadians know who he is.
The reason for Paul Jackson's enormously stupid article -- and even stupider reasoning regarding the relevance of Manning's political background -- is that he is showing his support of an article written by Manning and featured in The Globe and Mail, Canada's main national newspaper. In the article, Manning is almost, though not quite, as asinine as Paul Jackson. You can read the article that Manning wrote about Dawkins here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1312,An-Inquisition-in-sciences-name,Preston-Manning
Anyway, thanks Skeptic for another much needed outlet for sanity in an insane world. I'll certainly be popping back from time to time.
By Crapsquire on
7/8/2007 8:47 PM
|
Re: In Defense of Rationality: I have tollerance for intelligent debates by Christians. This is not one.
Hi, thanks for the comment on the Blog, I encourage you to start one of your own.
Fact is, I am Canadian. I have long been a Conservative voter and PC before them. I am a fiscal conservative and not at all social conservative. I of course am aware of who Preston Manning is. Unless you live in Alberta I would bet if you ask the first ten people you see (who you don't know) whom Preston Manning is, you would be lucky if 5 could tell you. They might say the name is familiar or wasn't he a politician but that would be it. Mind you I have not done this survey but was merely pointing out that the authors attack on Dawkins and the fact he hadn't heard of Manning is ridiculous.
By Skeptic on
7/8/2007 8:59 PM
|