“Holy shit. I actually have an invisible friend who grants me wishes. I actually believe in magic and the power of magical incantations and magical substances. Maybe those things are real but WOAH I’d better look into this.”

I’m not arguing as to whether or not it is okay to mock religion, but rather my criticism is that agreeing with the paragraph above carries with it a presupposition that God isn’t something anyone reasonable should believe in. As an atheist that would seem like a reasonable position to take, but since you claimed to be a strong believer at the time you made that statement, it would seem your belief wasn’t really all that strong to begin with.

In Western society, “God, Creator of the universe” does not really equal “Invisible friend”. “Invisible friend” in Western society has a connotation that implies something stupid you make up as a kid. I.e. By agreeing that the concept “God” = the concept of “Invisible friend”, you’re more than likely presupposing that God is something stupid that only a kid would believe (although, ironically, in a sense that isn’t far off from what the Bible actually teaches… but I guess most people are too smart for that stuff).

Just the same, “Magic, Magic incantations, Magic substances” does not really equal “beyond natural existence”. Again we tend to associate “Magic” with “Magicians, Magic Tricks”, etc… I.e. presupposing that anything beyond nature is a completely stupid concept.

1. I believe in God.
2. I believe God is my friend and that God is invisible.
3. I believe I have an invisible friend.

I would think many Christians, for example, would believe in 1 and 2, and I would agree that 3 does follow from 1 and 2, but it only sounds stupid or silly because you probably also think something like this:

An invisible friend is something that kids tend to make up when they’re too young, bored, and too stupid to know any better.

If you loved a woman who was overweight, would you tell her that her weight troubles have you concerned about her health, or would you call her a fat ass? You can certainly argue that both carry the same general observation about her weight, but I imagine the response one would get from one versus the other would be very different with most women.

By the same reasoning:

1. Anything supernatural is magic.
2. I believe in some things that are supernatural.
3. I believe in magic.

3 follows from 1, but only sounds stupid with the cultural context that suggests that “magic is something only naive little children believe is real”.

Forgive the length of my post, have a great day Luke.

hawke123: “These days, I openly invite ridicule because I’ve decided the emotional content cannot harm me – either the statements against me contain a grain of useful truth, or do they not.”

…

So you actually believe that the universe popped into being from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing?Yet, you have the audacity to mock theists for believing in magic and myth?  

…

So you actually believe that the universe popped into being from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing? Yet, you have the audacity to claim theists believe in magic and myth?

I do believe strong intellectual debate is important on both sides: atheism and theism. However, mocking and ridicule doesn’t get us too far, though at times it can help drive a point home.

Back to lukeprog’s above post.

Basically, I’m just nitpicking and am not looking for a debate. One of Hart’s criticisms is not the fact that Dennett doesn’t address every possible counter-argument, rather Dennett doesn’t even give good arguments, nonetheless account for at least some of the main counter-arguments that are out there. I don’t think Hart’s criticisms of Dennett’s book was he (Dennett) neglected to deal with every possible counter-argument, but more with the fact that his methodology, evidence, logic, and reasoning are… well, simply put, done so on err.

As Hart put it, “The idea of memes might provide Dennett a convenient excuse for not addressing the actual content of religious beliefs and for concentrating his attention instead on the phenomenon of religion as a cultural and linguistic type, but any ostensible science basing itself on memetic theory is a science based on a metaphor—or, really, on an assonance… His story is a matter not of facts but of conjectures and intuitions, strung together on tenuous strands of memetic theory… To put the matter bluntly, no one could mistake it for a genuinely substantial argument who was not firmly intent on doing so before ever reading the book. Viewed impartially, Dennett’s project leads nowhere, and its diffuse and flimsy methods are altogether unequal to the task of capturing the complex, bewildering, endlessly diverse thing they are designed to subdue.”

Hart provides valid arguments and points to back up his reasoning. For those interested in reading it the link is above in MJ’s post.

Since we are talking about reviews, some others are:

Alvin Plantinga’s review of The God Delusion
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html

Anthony Kenny’s review of The God Delusion
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPHI%2FPHI82_03%2FS0031819107000010a.pdf&code=207d55dd9bea142691802b67ab63f032

You can find many other reviews for The God Delusion by Richard Swinburne (a philosopher of science & religion and theologian) Thomas Nagel (a secular analytic philosopher), Allen Orr (an evolutionary biologist), Terry Eagleton (a popular British literary critic), and others.

I would not be so harsh of Dennet. Many of Hart’s criticisms – for example that Dennett did not deal with every possible counter-argument on every issue – could be leveled at almost anything ever written. Also, Hart – as many theologians and Christian philosophers do – defends a rare kind of intellectual and less-harmful-than-usual kind of religion, whereas Dennett is attacking religion as actually practiced by billions of people. In this way, the recent atheist books are more relevant than their critiques, even if something like The God Delusion is poorly argued on the finer points of the logical possibility of religious claims.

I agree with Hart’s greater point, though, that Dennett’s book is unimportant.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394

I hope you give some blog space to Hart’s new book on atheism when it arrives in April!

I attribute it to one basic thing: in church-on-every-corner America, there are those who buy into the noise and fury of religion and miss Christ.

That, my friend, is you! Sorry to make you defensive right off the bat, but I’ve seen it time and again and it is symptomatic of the anti-intellectual wave which has rocked the American church since just after WWII. (Thankfully, that is turning around!).

Theology on Eternal Security aside, had you encountered the solid grounds upon which Christianity is based, you would not have fallen prey to Dillahunty and his band of Austin atheists.

Yet, I don’t blame you. I’m sure their at least sounding reasonable made more sense than the shallow stuff you’d been hearing and the Postmodern nonsense you’d encountered.

How tragic.

I’d like to offer this: Do you realize that the same “buzz” – the same psychological rush and components -that result from religious commitment takes place upon atheist commitment? Any radical sea-change, when embraced, produces a sense of release and sometimes even euphoria.

You have traded one liver-quiver for another. You have traded one cause for another. And emotional confessions have nothing to do with truth.

Follow the evidence. 1) Naturalism hits the wall at the Big Bang. 2). Christ is who he claimed to be.

Thanks for thinking,

Kevin