Why blame religion for Alan Turing's prosecution?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s not precisely what Dawkins did. You should read the book before you make uninformed pronouncements about what its thesis is.
[/QUOTE]

You are making my head spin. You read the book, right? And you made the pronouncement about what the thesis is right here:

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

His thesis, though, is that the chances of God’s existence are no greater than the existence of Zeus or the FSM, and that we would consider anyone who claimed to personally speak to Zeus or the FSM to be “deluded,” so why is it any different for those who claim to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus?

[/QUOTE]

So the ‘uninformed pronouncement’ is not of my own making, but rather yours.

42

It’s deluded to live your life like you’re minutes away from winning the lottery also. Sinaijon, I’m really not picking up what you’re laying down here.

43

[QUOTE=Sinaijon]
You are making my head spin. You read the book, right? And you made the pronouncement about what the thesis is right here:

So the ‘uninformed pronouncement’ is not of my own making, but rather yours.
[/QUOTE]

No. I didn’t say the thesis was that belief in God is deluded. That’s imprecise. It’s not that categorical. The thesis is that it’s no more justified by evidence than beliefs which most people would say were deluded. The book title is really a question. Why do people think that belief in God is less silly than belief in unicorns?

44

[QUOTE=Sitnam]
What was that last part again?
[/QUOTE]

He is Richard Holloway. He has written a book called Godless Morality. I found a picture of him wearing an “Atheists for Jesus” T-shirt on the Richard Dawkins site.

I haven’t quite found proof that he is an atheist, but close enough.

45

Sinaijon’s difficulty in grasping this concept is quite common. Some theists see the burden of evidence for god belief to be different from that of any other belief. While I think the proper response would be to present the evidence for god belief showing it to be better supported than Zeus belief, instead we get an attack on those who ask the question.
This is exactly what the fanciful entities which I won’t name were designed to demonstrate, but in the same way bringing them up is considered insulting.
Perhaps Sinaijon can tell us precisely why his God belief is better supported than other beliefs.

46

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Sinaijon’s difficulty in grasping this concept is quite common. Some theists see the burden of evidence for god belief to be different from that of any other belief. While I think the proper response would be to present the evidence for god belief showing it to be better supported than Zeus belief, instead we get an attack on those who ask the question.
This is exactly what the fanciful entities which I won’t name were designed to demonstrate, but in the same way bringing them up is considered insulting.
Perhaps Sinaijon can tell us precisely why his God belief is better supported than other beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the strawman. That’s not what I’m arguing about at all.

I’m not disputing Dawkin’s claims that God is improbable or that belief is delusional. **Diogenes **stated that Dawkins was not a hard atheist, ie, one who asserts that a deity does not exist. I am arguing that is his. The fact that Dawkin’s book attempts to show God as improbable, just like the IPU and FSP, is in effect his way of saying: “I don’t believe God exists. Neither should you. Here’s why…”. He is a hard atheist, and he has a very specific conclusion he wants you to reach, even if he doesn’t come right out and say it specifically.

It’s no different than the ‘Icons of Evolution’ book aluded to earlier by tomndebb. The author doesn’t come right out and say ‘I’m a creationist’, but it’s pretty damn obvious.

47

Respectfully, you’re completely out to lunch. Dawkins has no hidden agenda. He’s just making the purely scientific point that untestable hypotheses cannot be absolutely disproven, but they can be examined for probability, and gods are extremely improbable. It would be unscientific and counter to his personality to say that it can be proven that gods don’t exist.

If you’re going to assert that Dawkins is lying and that he doesn’t really believe that gods can’t be disproven, then I’m going to have to ask for a cite.

48

[QUOTE=Sinaijon]
I’m not disputing Dawkin’s claims that God is improbable or that belief is delusional. **Diogenes **stated that Dawkins was not a hard atheist, ie, one who asserts that a deity does not exist.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps this may be where the problem lies - it might just be a misunderstanding, since to my mind the definition of “hard atheist” isn’t just someone who asserts that a deity doesn’t exist, but someone who asserts that they are 100% sure such a deity does not exist and possibly even that they could not exist.

Dawkins certainly asserts that it is (in his opinion) unlikely that a deity exists, and he himself can be fairly reasonably said to have no belief in any. But he certainly accepts he could be wrong. Hard atheism isn’t just denial - if it was, why would we need to differentiate it? - it’s certain denial.

49

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
…the secular government…
[/QUOTE]

What secular government? I didn’t think we had one.

50

[QUOTE=Sinaijon]
Thanks for the strawman. That’s not what I’m arguing about at all.

I’m not disputing Dawkin’s claims that God is improbable or that belief is delusional. **Diogenes **stated that Dawkins was not a hard atheist, ie, one who asserts that a deity does not exist. I am arguing that is his. The fact that Dawkin’s book attempts to show God as improbable, just like the IPU and FSP, is in effect his way of saying: “I don’t believe God exists. Neither should you. Here’s why…”. He is a hard atheist, and he has a very specific conclusion he wants you to reach, even if he doesn’t come right out and say it specifically.

[/QUOTE]

The statement “I don’t believe that any gods exist” is far different from the statement “I assert that no gods exist.” Dawkins is very careful to say the former but not the latter.

Hard atheism is the belief that there are no gods, and soft atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. In 33 years of discussing this issue online, I’ve only run into a handful of atheists who claim to know that no gods exist. I’ve run into far more theists who claim this is the atheists position, followed soon after by “show me a proof that god doesn’t exist.” So **Diogenes ** is correct in saying that Dawkins is not asserting that no gods exist. In fact this is an absurd position given that the definition of god is very fuzzy and that some varieties of god, like the deistic one, are unfalsifiable by definition.

Now, given my definition of hard atheism, and Dawkins’ argument, explain why it is an unreasonable position. Why is it reasonable to believe that God exists? (Be sure to explain which god.) If it is reasonable to believe that no god exists, why is it odd or wrong to try to convince people of this?

The impression I’m getting from your posts is that being a hard atheist is something like being a deviated prevert, something no moral person would admit to. I’m a hard atheist, and for very good reasons. Please give me a counterargument, which is simply some solid evidence for the existence of some god. Believing on faith with no evidence is not delusional given that you know that’s what you are doing. But doing that and acting as if it were clearly true (like by starting a Creationist Museum) seems pretty delusional to me. The non-delusional theists don’t try to control the sex life of others and don’t send Dawkins nasty letters.

As far as strawmen go, please explain how god belief is fundamentally different from IPU belief in terms of solid evidence for it, and the process of determining whether a belief is reasonable.

51

This thread seems to be getting off the subject of Turing, to some extent. To address the OP, I’d agree with Voyager that while the Church of England did speak out for the decriminalization of homosexuality in the 1950s and 60s, it was Christianity that helped stigmatize homosexuality in the first place. In fact, if you look at both the Church of England’s 1954 report “The Problem of Homosexuality” and the book “Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition”, both written by Fr. Derrick Sherwin Bailey, they make the same argument…that early in Christianity, the bible was misintrepreted to condemn homosexuality, and the early church fathers joined in in condemning homoeroticism, and further that this condemnation was the source of much of the anti-gay legislation and sentiment in modern (well, 1950s) England.

Now, some later writers have accused Bailey of overstating, most notably Boswell, who’s argued that Christian condemnation of homosexuality didn’t really happen until the late middle ages. But however you slice it, it seems pretty clear that traditional Christian condemnation of homoeroticism contributed to the criminalization of sodomy.

52

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Dawkins certainly asserts that it is (in his opinion) unlikely that a deity exists, and he himself can be fairly reasonably said to have no belief in any. But he certainly accepts he could be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
His claim is stronger than that, though. He says that God “almost certainly” does not exist. This is a statement of extreme confidence, not merely a tacit admission that he might be wrong. (This makes his choice of title – The God Delusion – all the more interesting.)

Do you know what else is interesting? Earlier on, Diogenes deeply derided people who took issue with Dawkins’ claims regarding the violence caused by religion. He dismissed this as a “minor point,” even though Dawkins devoted considerble verbiage to this issue. Yet now, the question of whether Dawkins argued for God’s non-existence of merely his “almost certain non-existence” is trumpeted around as though it somehow redeemed his erroneous premises and foolish logic. It does not.

This is why I have a great deal more respect for Ruse and Orr, even though I disagree with their atheistic views. Even though Ruse and Orr agree with Dawkins’ conclusion (that there is no God), they are still honest enough to see that Dawkins makes broad, unsubstantiated (and frequently erroneous) claims. What’s more, they acknowledge that even if Dawkins’ premises were true, his conclusion still would not logically follow from his arguments.

53

[QUOTE=JThunder]
His claim is stronger than that, though. He says that God “almost certainly” does not exist. This is a statement of extreme confidence, not merely a tacit admission that he might be wrong. (This makes his choice of title – The God Delusion – all the more interesting.)
[/quote]
On the contrary, I’d say it’s far greater than a tacit admission he might be wrong. As I personally read The God Delusion (so obviously a subjective standard), I think that Dawkins feels very strongly that God doesn’t exist, and that for him all the evidence is against it. That God might exist goes against everything he believes in terms of religion and faith, and (again IMHO) his own personal viewpoint of the world. But equally he doesn’t let his own viewpoint and what he believes allow him to say he knows for certain. I personally consider someone who believes they have overwhelming evidence (or the lack of it) and has very strong views but despite that says that still there’s a chance they could be wrong to have made a much stronger admission that merely a tacit one. It’s not an innate view, but very much one of intellectual thought. Regardless, of course, whether that thought is wrong. :wink:

I would tend to agree that Dawkins “devoted considerable verbiage” to that particular issue; certainly i’d argue that he focuses more on what he thinks are causes of or explanations for religion, but I wouldn’t agree that his arguments on the bad points of religion are a minor point, nor the subset of that that is violence. So when I trumpet things around, please take it into account that I feel no need to redeem those points, if indeed you’re referring to me as well as Diogenes.

I don’t believe this particular argument works, however. To say that by seeing through those claims makes those atheists honest suggests that not doing so makes one dishonest. Do you believe that Dawkins isn’t just wrong, but deliberately, knowingly wrong? Are his arguments not merely mistaken but fraudulent? Likewise, because Ruse and Orr agree with you on those points, does that mean that they cannot possibly be right (in your opinion) by misunderstanding but by truly getting the correct state of affairs?

I ask because you seem to be correlating honesty of argument not with sincerity of belief, but rather with the extent to which they agree with you. Not everyone sees the world the way you do, and what they argue may very well be the truth from what they see. I think Dawkins is right in some of his arguments; am I dishonest for saying so, or merely wrong? :wink:

54

[QUOTE=Voyager]
In any case, besides the religious nature of Communism,
[/quote]

Communism has no religious nature. In its most common form it had the most stringently atheistic nature of any movement the world has ever seen.

Assuming that you meant to say the opposite of what you actually said, I do deny that the Russian Orthodox Church had influence on the leaders of Soviet Russia. The Soviet leaders were extremely proud of their total rejection of religion in general and the Russian Orthodox Church in particular. They denounced the Church as an agent of class oppression and vowed to eliminate it. (It is true that at the end of the Soviet period the government reconciled with the Church, but this was long after the mass killings of Stalin’s rule.)

Yes. (Though many do oppose special rights such as hate crimes laws that impose harsher punishments for those who target homosexuals.)

Geoffrey Fisher and the aforementioned John A. T. Robinson both spoke out for legalization of homoexuality throughout their careers, and they were not atheists. Both these men were Archbishops in the Church of England; I hope that’s mainstream enough for you. The Roman Catholic Church specifically endorsed the recommendations of the Wolfenden report, which demanded immediate legalization. It’s true that this was in 1957, slightly after Turing was convicted, but I doubt that they flipped their position totally in such a short time period.

55

Voyager, you said The CoE has Atheist ministers, I asked you ‘what?’, you answer ‘Richard Holloway’, who WAS a Bishop of Edinburgh but resigned and is now an atheist. That is not that what you said in your post #34 quote “CoE maybe - they’ve got atheist ministers, after all.”

So…?

56

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
A question. I have not read the books you have read, but there is (and I assume was) a rather significant difference between “the Chuch” as including the head bodies/priests and so forth, and “the Church” as includes the general believers/churchgoers. After all, the Catholic, Anglican et al. churches today preach tolerance from their highest levels - yet it does not always seem to make its way down to the individual members. I would add also that you seem to be taking the government’s secularity as it is today, rather than as it was then.
[/QUOTE]

I honestly have no clue what the average Englishman thought about the issue in the 1950’s.

Concerning secularity, it is true that the relevant boards of authorities in the medical and psychiatric fields considered homosexuality to be a mental illness up until the late 1960’s and early 70’s in both Britain and America. In America this had specific legal consequences, and when the APA ceased to list homosexuality as a mental disorder the decision influenced many court cases. Form what I read, it seems that the same was not true in Britain. As we can reasonably describe those groups of authorities as being quite secular, it gives us a picture of where the non-religious side of society stood on the issue.

57

[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Voyager, you said The CoE has Atheist ministers, I asked you ‘what?’, you answer ‘Richard Holloway’, who WAS a Bishop of Edinburgh but resigned and is now an atheist. That is not that what you said in your post #34 quote “CoE maybe - they’ve got atheist ministers, after all.”

So…?
[/QUOTE]

I suspect I was remembering a dig at a too liberal CoE minister - perhaps him, before he left. I certainly withdraw the statement that they currently have atheist ministers for lack of evidence. Someone called Spong an atheist also, though he clearly isn’t one. So, in these circles, atheism is hurled as an insult, while I misinterpreted it as a compliment.

58

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Communism has no religious nature. In its most common form it had the most stringently atheistic nature of any movement the world has ever seen.

[/quote]

Clearly Communism has no God belief. However it does have inerrant holy books, icons, and saints. It also must be believed in with a perfect faith in the face of facts and evidence against it. Thus it is a secular religion. Just as Protestants in Elizabethan England oppressed Catholicism, Communism oppressed competing religions. I oppose Communism for much the same reasons as I don’t accept religions.

Whatever they did to the church, do you really think that the Communist leaders (and Stalin had religious training, remember) could act as if the moral codes of their parents and friends did not exist?

Here is a poll about SSM, which shows Americans opposed, 52 - 40. Do you think Christians favor SSM more than atheists or Jews? More than Muslims, very likely. Now there is strong support for equal employment, and some for civil unions. The polls do not give religious affiliation. Do you think strong believers or fundamentalists support rights more strongly than liberal Christians?

BTW, there is strong support for hate crime laws, stronger than anything I noticed except equal employment opportunities.

59

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I honestly have no clue what the average Englishman thought about the issue in the 1950’s.
[/quote]
Then how do you know what the average English Christian’s reaction was?

I would say it doesn’t, for the very same reasons i’ve disagreed with your earlier issue; you seem to be taking the decisions of the leaders of a group (in this case, those in charge of the APA) as being representative of all its members. Simply being secular doesn’t mean it’s representative, just as being religious doesn’t mean it is.

And I would argue that you have provided evidence for the opposite, anyway. If the finding of homosexuality not to be a mental disorder any more had widespread affect in the US, it suggests that people were at the least more open to secular pronouncements on the issue. If the response of the UK was different (aside from us generally not being all that beholden to an American group), doesn’t that suggest that we took secular reports less seriously - and that perhaps we took our ideas from a different place?

60

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I would tend to agree that Dawkins “devoted considerable verbiage” to that particular issue; certainly i’d argue that he focuses more on what he thinks are causes of or explanations for religion, but I wouldn’t agree that his arguments on the bad points of religion are a minor point, nor the subset of that that is violence. So when I trumpet things around, please take it into account that I feel no need to redeem those points, if indeed you’re referring to me as well as Diogenes.
[/QUOTE]

No, I was not referring you at all, though I can see how my words could be construed that way. For that, I apologize.

I quite agree with you that Dawkins’ “religion causes violence” argument was by no means a minor point, given the considerable amount of verbiage that he devoted to that topic. That precisely echoes what I said earlier.

Not at all. Quite the contrary; as I emphasized earlier, I strongly disagree with Ruse and Orr regarding their atheistic beliefs. I also disagree strongly with a number of Orr’s other claims. Nevertheless, I applaud them for their honesty in disagreeing with the logic of Dawkins, even though they agree with his atheistic conclusion.

So no, no careful reader can claim that I only consider them to be honest because they agree with me. Rather, I deem them to be honest because they are willing to criticize a book for using erroneous facts and sloppy logic, even though it promotes their cause.

Merely wrong, and I never claimed otherwise.