The Telegraph is outraged because Richard Dawkins had the temerity to say that Mormonism has ridiculous stuff in it. It uses loaded language to convey its outrage.
Richard Dawkins on Sunday accused Mitt Romney of being a “massively gullible fool” as he launched into a furious tirade against the Republican’s Mormon faith.
Britain’s most prominent atheist attacked the core tenets of Mr Romney’s religion, saying that the Church of Latter Day Saints’ founding prophet was “a fraud” and that the presidential contender was “too stupid to see it”.
“No matter how much you agree with Romney’s economic policy, can you really vote for such a massively gullible fool?” asked Prof Dawkins during an outburst on Twitter that lasted several hours. [emphasis added]
So? Mormonism does have ridiculous stuff in it. We need to know if candidates for public office believe ridiculous stuff. (In the US they almost all do, but that’s no reason not to point it out when they do.)
The Oxford academic focused his criticism on the Church’s belief that its founder, Joseph Smith, was visited by an angel in 1820s New York, who guided him to a set of golden plates buried in a hill.
Smith claimed to have translated runes engraved on the plates, and compiled them into the Book of Mormon. The text describes how Jesus Christ appeared in the United States after the Crucifixion and how Adam and Eve went to the site of present-day Missouri after being expelled from the Garden of Eden.
Well exactly – and that’s ridiculous!
Dawkins expanded on his “outburst” in a couple of comments at RDF. He addressed the claim that Mormonism is no more absurd than the other religions.
Christianity, even fundamentalist Christianity, is substantially less ridiculous than Mormonism…Christian scriptures are genuinely ancient. The translations from Hebrew and Greek that Christians use are in a language contemporary with the translators. The Book of Mormon is not ancient and the language of its alleged “translation” is ludicrously anachronistic. It was dictated by Joseph Smith, a man with a track record of charlatanry, purporting to translate it from “Reformed Egyptian” with the aid of a magic stone in a magic hat (Douglas Adams’ Babel Fish is not less plausible). The English in which Smith dictated it is not the English of his own time (1830) but the English of more than two centuries earlier. As Mark Twain cuttingly observed, if you remove all occurrences of “It came to pass” the book would be reduced to a pamphlet. The language in which it is written proclaims it to be a palpable fake – as if Smith’s cock-and-bull story of golden plates hadn’t already given the game away. Smith obviously was steeped in the King James Bible, and he made up a whole new set of “scriptures” in the same style of English.
Which is so…rube-like. It depends on not realizing that the King James language is 17th century English, not goddy or holy English. Mind you, it worked, so perhaps I shouldn’t laugh. But I do.
Setting aside the mountebankery of Smith’s English style, many of the core beliefs of Mormonism run counter to everything we now know for certain about the colonisation of America. DNA evidence, for example, utterly refutes the claim that native Americans are “a remnant of the House of Israel”. The idea that Jesus visited America is preposterous, and the idea the Adam and Eve did too is even worse (it is at least arguable that Jesus existed). The traditional Mormon belief in the inferiority of black people (only lately renounced for reasons of political expediency) is as scientifically inaccurate as it is obnoxious.The great “prophet” Brigham Young even prescribed the death penalty for inter-racial marriage.
Yes but it doesn’t do to say so!
And then there’s the no religion test retort.
The other main retort to my Mormon tweets is an important one. It is that a candidate’s religion should be ignored unless he allows it to impinge on his policy. The principle of this was laid out by J F Kennedy, when his Catholicism was counting against him. It appears to some readers to be enshrined in Article VI of the Constitution: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Of course that is right. There should never be any law barring a person of any particular faith (or none) from holding office (as the law of England, for example, prohibits a Roman Catholic from occupying the throne). But of course that admirable constitutional clause doesn’t prohibit individual voters from taking the religion of a candidate into account when they make up their own minds in the voting booth.
Yes and not just individual voters; also observers and commentators…and bloggers and tweeters. We all get to point out the problems and discuss them and form opinions because of them.
Even if Romney, like Kennedy (but unlike G W Bush) scrupulously kept his religion out of his politics, a voter would still be entitled to take account of his religious beliefs in deciding whether he had the intellect and the judgment to be a good president. It is rational to say something like this: Never mind whether Romney’s taxation policy, foreign policy, education policy etc is completely free of Mormon influence, I am still entitled to say that a man sufficiently gullible to believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet, and sufficiently unscientific to believe Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel, is not qualified to be president of the world’s most powerful country.
Yes indeed. (But never forget – it doesn’t do to say so.)
I actually agree with Dawkins over Russell Glasser on something. I didn’t expect that to ever happen. To add to what he said about Christianity, many liberal forms are far less fantastical than your stereotypical Baptist or Pentecostal Christianity. Obama’s given no indication that he expects God to step in and solve the US’s problems, for instance.
The Mormons believe that a Semitic group immigrated to the Americas despite a complete lack of genetic, linguistic or archeological evidence for this belief. All religion is based on various forms of bullshit but Mormonism is more obviously bullshit than most.
It could be worse. Romney could have been a Scientologist. BTW, I never did figure out how John Kennedy managed to convince the People Who Count that he wouldn’t be the Pope’s man in Washington.
It was pretty obvious he didn’t listen to the pope.
I continue to be amazed how little discussion there is about Mitt’s real mission – that is, to fulfill the “white horse prophesy”.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_and_the_white_horse_prophecy/
This election is not about economics…it’s about establishing a theocracy. The Trojan Horse, this time around, is a white horse.
@chrisv #5 – “This election is not about economics…it’s about establishing a theocracy. The Trojan Horse, this time around, is a white horse.”
Yes, but it doesn’t do to say so.
Waa. the mean old Dawkins said something mean and logical and correct about Mitt Romney’s brand of magical thinking. somebody call the waaaambulance.
I’m not sure I agree with Dawkins on this, simply because being old doesn’t really mean being substantially less ridiculous. Genuinely ancient, genuinely dumb. I get that he’s saying that the age makes it seem less of an obvious scam than the Mormon additions, but I think it is balanced out by the fact that there’s been much more time to see how really dumb general Christianity is.
Steve R @ 3
A joke from that era: Did you hear Vice President Nixon broke his leg? He tripped over the Pope’s luggage!
Improbable Joe, I think that Dawkins was saying that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are talking of events that (supposedly) happened long ago, but the Bible at least comes from long ago. The Book of Mormon comes from 1820. It also comes from a magic rock. The Bible could have been written by people who saw Jesus. The Book of Mormon requires an angel, at least.
The age of the religion isn’t Dawkins’ point, per se. It’s the age of the documents and their relation to the events they describe.
The Church of Mormon (whatever it’s called) also relies on contemporary prophecy. Which is whatever the elders say it is. Mitt could reveal everything about his religion, promise to live by its precepts, and, after his inauguration (God forfend), be told by the Mormon elders that the rules had changed. He would have to do whatever the frak they told his was now policy, despite what he told the American public was the tenets of his religion.
I think the point he’s making about how obvious a scam it is is fair enough: the absurdly bad wannabe-KJV-aping mangle of a ‘translation’ ole’ Joe pulled out of his butt is kinda a giveaway all on its own, sure (and never mind the ‘Book of Abraham’ turning out to have been translated from humdrum funeral papyri). Pretty much rises to the level of Hubbards’ aliens conveniently flying craft that, oddly, look a lot like DC-8s. Would be ‘prophets’ and their lazy writing, these are the skeptics’ friends..
… but I’d add: there’s a certain level of silly past which being more silly is really pretty gratuitous, and as religions generally do achieve this anyway, the fact that Mormonism is, sure, slightly more obviously absurd is, well…
Well all I can say is: I’d say the silly meter is already redlined to the point the needle’s slammed past the endpin and winging its way across the room once we get to the talking snakes. Hokey faux-Jacobean English popping up in the mid-19th century is fun as icing on the cake ‘n all, but kinda redundant. And yeah, I think people do tend to lose sight of just how bizarre and generally incoherent the dominant religions actually are from simple familiarity.
Shorter: yes, Mormonism is perhaps marginally more obviously ridiculous a worldview than Christianity, thanks to these convenient, documented gaffes and Mormonism’s relative modernity. But it achieves this distinction only by being mightily silly indeed. Anything less would have left that crown in the hand of Benny Hinn and co., who–credit where credit is due–also work damned hard for it.
Mormonism is a latter-day shop of horrors. Time to move on.
I fully understand Mr. Dawkins arguments. He presents them intelligently and they are very strong arguments indeed. However, I believe that religion is outside the realm of choice for many folks. Dynasties are not created from diverse beliefs or diverse cultures. You will never see ‘powerful families’ made up of individuals of differing beliefs or differing ethnic backgrounds. The whole idea is to erect fences and tie families together to create a “Dynasty”. Successful families keep undesirables out and practice selective breeding. I was never against inter-racial marriage for those persons who are true individuals, but it is and always will be, the dynasties that rule. Religion, any religion, is just a fence to keep the unwanted out of your house. The strength which one adheres to his religion plays an important part in the success of his life. Religion is an automatic support system. Regardless of the right or wrongness of any religion, it is not smart for a man on the rise to abandon ‘his beliefs’. If Mitt Romney had abandoned his religion, I doubt he would be a Presidential contender today. So how smart is that?
Sweet FSM, obvious Loki is obvious.
Harry A. Knuss says:
And yet there are plenty of successful European politicians who have done just that.
I saw the actual show(aired at Norwegian and Swedish channels), and while agreeing completely with the facts of Richard Dawkins’ desciption of the fraudster Joseph Smith (and the ramifications for mormonism), he did one rather obvious mistake.
This became evident a couple minutes later in the show, when he declared that he don’t offend believers of the various crees he critisizes(!).
It was very evident that his previous characterization of mormonism (as a silly fraud or what consept he employed) directly offended the mormon pop-icon present. I suspect also other viewers would think he did exactly what he later stated he shouldn’t.
So, in order to avoid inconsistensies between his creed for public debate and an honest description of obviously false belief systems, I would think he should describe them something like this:
I don’t like to offend other people, but it is very difficult (impossible(?))to give an honest and accurate desciption of ……………..(fill in flim flam du jour, here) without offending the believers.
Just to avoid misunderstandings. I do not personnally think it is inherently wrong to offend people beliefs, or that people somehow “have a rigth” not to be offended.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Harry A Knuss,
That sounds remarkably like racism to me. It also runs in the face of the facts. Maybe you were thinking of Dynasty the tv series?
Take for instance HM Queen Elizabeth II, aged 86, just celebrated 60 years on the throne, current head of a dynasty which, with the odd blip, has survived for over a millennium. As this dynasty has been around for so long its genealogical records were rather better kept than some of the guff we are now asked to believe, often on the basis of wishful thinking.
Among HM’s direct ancestors are Philippa of Hainault, 1314 – 1369, and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 1744 – 1818 and wife of George III – both of recent and acknowledged African heritage when they arrived on these shores. (The nineteenth century’s peculiar brand of racism set out to obscure the facts but, in the end, failed.)
The Queen is also descended from the Prophet Muhammad along 5 lines of descent and there are members of other religions in the wider royal family today.
Before you go leaping to conclusions, I am both a socialist and a not-very-active republican but I was able to arrive at both of those positions by use of hard fact and rational discourse. Strangely, I found no need at all to re-write history.
If bored, you might want to look at the ethnic make-up of the Egyptian Pharaohs over an even longer period.
Romney could say he believes in Tinkerbell and the ratbag Yanks would accept him. “At least he believes in something,” they would say.
Dawkins is certainly correct in his analysis of LDS and the conclusions he draws therefrom, and I admire him for saying it.
However, I admire him more for the way he says whatever he’s saying. He hits hard, but always fairly, and without calling anyone any of the meaningless names that are so popular here on FtB and among the A-Plus contingent generally.
Maureenbrian, um, I don’t think you’re correct about the African heritage, unless you mean Iberian relations that may have had some Berber blood…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz#Claims_of_African_ancestry
However, I admire him more for the way he says whatever he’s saying. He hits hard, but always fairly, and without calling anyone any of the meaningless names that are so popular here on FtB and among the A-Plus contingent generally.
Yes, dear muslima was so fair. I mean, after all, unless you’re having your genitals sliced off and are forced to wear a sack in public and are basicaly property, there’s nothing to complain about in relation to how men treat women is there? And he retreated a comment from a lady who fortunately had never had problem with guys, as if that meant all women had never had problems with guys harrassing them, or just causally being privileged, and to complain was just to be a whinning bitch….
Very fair and admirable that was of Richard.
retweeted, not retreated. For the love of the FSM!
When it comes to absurdity, most extant forms of Christianity have a great advantage over every other religion I know of, in that they are necessarily false: false in all logically possible worlds. Even Mormonism and Scientology fail to achieve this height of silliness. I refer to those forms of Christianity that accept the doctrine of the hypostatic union, according to which Jesus was “wholly God and wholly man” or “true God and true man”. Since “God”, as defined in Christian theology, and “man”, have incompatible attributes (e.g. “God” is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, while a man is none of these things), the doctrine, along with all forms of Christianity that accept it, is necessarily false.
Do let go of those pearls, briane. You’ll strangle yourself.
1. Berbers come from Africa: most of them are still there.
2. Try a contemporary portrait – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Queen_Charlotte_by_studio_of_Allan_Ramsay.jpg – not absolute proof of what I said but not disproof either!
Do let go of those pearls, briane. You’ll strangle yourself.
What a weird comment to make. I looked it up, and the closest you can get is moorish. So, possibly Berber blood (I know Berbers are from North Africa, I have lived in Spain, where they’re called Moors, after the latin from which we get Mauritania), also possibly Mozarab, or Vandal blood. You’re picture looks caucasian to me, so I’m not sure what you think it shows. I know wikipedia isn’t the most reputable source, but it suggests the African theory is pretty slim.
I guess I should have just taken what you said on face value, lest you accuse me of clutching pearls or something else.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there could be a discussion of something, anything at all, without some arse wandering in on the pretense of contributing, but really only wanting to start another fight. Or continuing the old one. Whatever.
I admire Richard Dawkins for the way he says whatever he’s saying, without going off on a tangent just to satisfy a petty need to be a prat.
I don’t think much of his attitude towards sexism, but hey-ho, this was about Mormons, so why not stick with that?
Apologies for my part in derailing.
@jenny6833a
Please discuss your strawmen elsewhere. Thanks.
—
Back to the topic, there are Christians like Joel Osteen who are out trying to convince other Christians that Mormonism is just another brand of Christianity, so they shouldn’t be afraid to vote Romney.
Which is completely untrue. Mormon beliefs have little in common with Christianity other than the fact that Joseph Smith was smart enough to use a more established religion’s central characters and ideas to create his own. In Mormon theology men can become Gods of their own planet. The better Mormon you are, the more wives you’ll have in the celestial kingdom. Brigham Young taught that Adam was actually God, which isn’t part of mainstream Mormon theology anymore.
Most of the Mormon temple endowment ritual was plagiarized by Joseph Smith from Freemason rituals:
http://packham.n4m.org/mason-endow.htm
And then there’s the White Horse Prophecy chrisv mentioned.
At this distance and without DNA from the poor woman plus several dozen other people, neither of us can prove anything but why would it be so dreadful if Charlotte had arrived straight from Angola rather than acquiring some of her genes via the Portuguese royal family?
We are all of African descent, after all.
Again this is not proof but I worked for many years with a woman whose mother, whom I met, was very dark of skin and from Jamaica. Her father was by all accounts a “white” Englishman. My colleague’s skin is the same sort of colour as mine, her hair that very dark blonde but she has the facial features of sub-Saharan Africa, west Africa – very, very like Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz which is why I became interested in a dead queen.
That’s all it is, kid, interesting facts about other people and not a value judgement!
Agh, sorry briane if you thought I meant you, it’s because when I started to type my comment would have been further up the page. Then the cat came along, and I started picking those sticky green seeds out of his tail, etc. I was aiming at the “here’s my comment, and also, you people all smell” poster further up. Tangential discussions can be fun and interesting, and even if I thought otherwise, I wouldn’t assume the right to tell you that.
Carry on, everyone.
*sits down in the back, looking embarrassed*
Read the article and can’t find the outrage. The telegraph doesn’t seem outraged by it (at least in the article).
It reads like a report on Dawkins view and a sensible one.
Wait, wait wait – you lot have thrown Dawkins under the bus remember? You don’t want anything to do with him, remember?
Sorry – back to your “A+” corner, and leave Dawkins alone. He’s for intelligent people.
Dawkins is intelligent, educated, an excellent speaker and a good writer. Much of what he says and writes are reasonable and well supported. However he has some blind spots in his makeup. He looks on the world from the viewpoint of an educated, white, wealthy, heterosexual, male Briton and cannot conceive that not everybody has the same viewpoint.
Oh brother, you can’t conceive of anyone having more than one bit of memory for storing their opinion of Richard Dawkins — and you think that puts you in the “intelligent people” category?
@Oh brother j
What are the odds? Your nym and my reaction to your comment match!
@ 32 – get a grip. There’s no such thing as “you lot” – not in the sense that we all have but One Opinion and all say but One Thing.
I’ve certainly never said I want nothing to do with him.
Sorry, little late for that now. You might have had a point if it were not for the tsunami of dreck that was directed against Dawkins, or the shameless cashing in on this mob mentality.
So come on. At least have the courage of your mendacity. You wanted him under the bus, own up to it! Own that position. Don’t try and retrench just because you’ve learned that he owns the bus. Back into the “A+” corner and keep telling people you don’t need no words from them old white men! (Old White Men like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie etc. but we all know what “Old White Men” is code for, don’t we?)
Incidentally, @33, if I’d say Dawkins detractors could conceive of no other position than that of the halfwit, ill-educated woman, everyone would see the problem with that line of argument, but it’s tolerated, nay, encouraged to talk like that when it comes to the people you don’t like.
One of the unpleasant aspects of this debate are the atheists who keep popping up who match every lazy stereotype theists have about us.
“Atheists believe in darwinism which leads to eugenics”? Check out the “toughen up or kill yourself” crowd.
“Atheists reject God just so that they won’t be constrained by morality”? Well, just look at those yelling their heads off about any minor restrictions to their attempts to mate.
“Atheism is a religion and Dawkins is its pope”? …Well, just look at Oh Brother hissing at the apostates over here.
Depressing. I guess we’ll have to respond to theists with “We’re not all like that” rather than the old “You’re full of shit”.
BUT, OPHELIA. People on FTB are MEAN to some people. Especially certain mens, who are offended and victimized.
And you are BORG QUEEN, are you not?
Oh no you don’t, “oh brother.” That’s a pack of lies.
I had a cordial email exchange with RD a few months ago. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think you think RD is a fan of the hatred-gang. You’re wrong. (Not confusing him with Paula Kirby are you? She’s a fan, for sure. He’s not.)
Soo… if people here have disagreed with RD’s opinion on something in the past, they’re not allowed to talk about him at all, ever? That’s fascinating.
I don’t suppose the same rule applies to people occupying the “A-” corner.
I didn’t know Dawkins’ every word is to be treated like gospel. And that if you disagree with something he said you are an apostate.
People might have some issues with Dawkins regarding his views on certain topics but I think we’re allowed to disagree with him, right? Unless you’re trying to start a new religion, Oh Brother, and have elected Dawkins the new Pope.
“but we all know what “Old White Men” is code for, don’t we?” Nope, have no clue what the hell you’re talking on about. I’d ask you to clarify but I think you’ve derailed this thread enough.
Now you can go whine to all your friends that people at FTB are big meanies and don’t allow “dissent.”
Technically, I think that people who agree with Dawkins on some things, but reject his opinions re: sexism, are heretics, not apostates. People who reject him altogether, like Oh Brother demands they do, are apostates, and people who never listened to him in the first place are infidels.
Is this about right?
So many people are just obsessed with the grave injustice that is the A+/FTB/PZ/Skepchicks nexus!
Even a post about Richard Dawkins and his statements about Morminism is an opportunity for smearing A+.
“Oh brother!” is right, and so are “Good gravy!” and “Find a new hobby horse!”
Dawkins is clearly correct that Mormonism is absurd even by religious standards, but I can’t quite go as far as he did in assuming that makes Romney incredibly gullible. Don’t get me wrong, I have no shortage of reasons for voting against him, but it won’t do my blood pressure any good to list them here. It’s just that (1) we have no idea what Romney actually believes of the Mormon tradition (or much else, for that matter); and (2) humans have an astonishing capacity for ignoring cognitive dissonance, suggesting that believing in a god, or even Joseph Smith, doesn’t necessarily render a person incapable of being logical in other ways. After all, quite a few atheist leaders have a blind spot about sexism, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong about everything. I think we have to evaluate the extent to which Romney’s political positions are shaped by his Mormon heritage to hold Mormonism against him. That shouldn’t be very hard.
Sure you did. Funny thing though, I don’t recall a word from you objecting to the dreck thrown at Dawkins, all the “Dear Dick” stuff and so on. As I recall, you were too busy saying that TAM was jes’ like Nazi Germany (skip the protest, Scented Nectar has very kindly stored all the info on that piece of filth).
Oh, yes you do. “Old White Men” is code for “anyone with independence, courage or character”. That’s why “Old White Men” includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Abbie Smith etc.
Oh, come now, come now. You formed this movement. It was “time for a new wave” wasn’t it? You didn’t want one just of “Old White Men” exchanging their views, did you? You said you didn’t need people who’d actually built the atheist movement, didn’t you? You can’t pretend that that was a “disagreement”, you wanted Dawkins ostracised.
Well come on then! Show us what the A+ is made of! Don’t go scurrying back to the real thing, just because you’ve found out you’ve got nothing. Where’s your big, bad movement now?
Oh brother needs his diaper changed–again.
‘ “Old White Men” is code for “anyone with independence, courage or character”’
Mmmmkay.
You do know that Ayaan Hirsi Al is not white not old and not male? Do you believe she therefore lacks independence, courage and character? Not very nice of you.
So there’s Real Atheism and it only belongs to certain people?
I am entirely aware of that, and that has not stopped this crowd from sliming her and ignoring her when they don’t have the guts to do so. So that rather neatly proves my point about “old white men” being nothing more than a code.
And please don’t try to appear more stupid and unable to read than you already do. It gets actually painful.
“that has not stopped this crowd from sliming her and ignoring her when they don’t have the guts to do so.”
Evidence? Just because you keep saying something over and over doesn’t make it magically true.
And “this crowd” is made up of individuals with individual opinions, thanks.
@3. Steve R :
By giving a speech that made one of the Republican 2012 nominee wannabes (Santorum?) want to vomit if memory serves?
Could be worse? Yeah, scientologist or heaven’s gater or Westborough baptist I ‘spose you can always find a worse religion. But Moronism is a really bad one worse than most. And so transparently ridiculous and probably wrong.
Richard Dawkin’s is quite right.
PS. To clarify – I am NOT the same person as Steve R. Common enough name I guess. But potentially confusing here.
And Oh Brother you might want to check out another one of the Eeevil FTBullies’ current blog post on Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/tokenskeptic/2012/09/13/ayaan-hirsi-ali-a-secular-spring-or-an-islamist-winter-global-atheist-convention-2012/
Tpyos strikes again that’s :
@Oh brother : By Jove your name is apt! In the exasperated sighing expression sense.
I’m a fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Richard Dawkins – and also PZ Myers, Greta Christina, Ophelia Benson and many others. Just because I (or anyone else) criticises one thing any of these people say or disagree with them on subject X does NOT mean we’re “throwing them under the bus” or anything like that. Good people can – and do disagree on things sometimes very passionately.
Is that really something you fail to comprehend?
Oh brother, don’t bother, these lines I write for you.
Do read some and learn some and you probably will understand what the people here do
maureenbrian: Yep, I can confirm at least half of the “four line of descent from Muhammad” bit given that the Royal family and mine share st least two (thanks, I believe, to some Hanoverian monarch or other)
Did Scented Nectar also store the bit where Ophelia came back and said that her Nazi Germany comparison was a bad one? Or would that not serve the desired purpose?
I always feel that one of the things that marks out a decent human being is the ability to recognize and admit your own mistakes. Not to mention the ability to let it go when someone else recognizes and admits their own mistakes.
Interesting thing… Token Skeptic said she wasn’t going along with the whole A+ stuff, and I have not found her going along with the year long fest of po’ lil’ me that’s been going on. Why she still hangs out here is beyond me, and it also hasn’t escaped my notice that her posts get only a few comments, compared with the dozens and hundreds of maudlin ones gotten the sulky ones.
On the other hand Myers has been very eager to join in the smearing. Probably something about genuinely tough, accomplished women that makes men like him deeply, deeply uncomfortable.
“When it comes to absurdity, most extant forms of Christianity have a great advantage over every other religion I know of, in that they are necessarily false: false in all logically possible worlds. Even Mormonism and Scientology fail to achieve this height of silliness. I refer to those forms of Christianity that accept the doctrine of the hypostatic union, according to which Jesus was “wholly God and wholly man” or “true God and true man”. Since “God”, as defined in Christian theology, and “man”, have incompatible attributes (e.g. “God” is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, while a man is none of these things), the doctrine, along with all forms of Christianity that accept it, is necessarily false.”
Exactly!. Thank FSM you said that. It’s like I’ve always said about Quantum Physics:
When it comes to absurdity, most extant forms of Quantum Physics have a great advantage over every other theory I know of, in that they are necessarily false: false in all logically possible worlds. Even Mormonism and Scientology fail to achieve this height of silliness. I refer to those forms of Quantum Physics that accept the doctrine of the superposition, according to which a particle can be “Spin-Up and Spin-Down” or “true God and true man”. Since “Spin-Up”, as defined in Quantum Physics and “Spin Down”, have incompatible attributes (e.g. “Spin-Up” is Spinning “up”, while “Spin-Down” is none of these things), the doctrine, along with all forms of Physics that accept it, is necessarily false.
…
…
…
Someone call the whaaaambulance for Oh brother!
Seriously, though, since I haven’t commented on the post yet, I think Dawkins made as good of a case as possible for why Mormonism is even worse than the average Christianity, but I still don’t think it is right. They are equally ridiculous; neither has any evidence and both are based on the rantings of mad men. Mormonism is just newer and that makes its flaws look more hideous. If Dawkins had compared Mormonism to Judaism, then I think the conclusion would have been more apt.
Because Mormonism is newer (and much smaller) than Christianity, the ridiculousness of the average Mormon hasn’t been fully integrated into society like the average Christian’s has. Society, too, hasn’t quite had the moderating effect on Mormonism that it has had on Christianity, but give it time. Even if Mitt Romney loses the election, which I desperately hope for, the #2 man in the USA, a Democrat, is still Mormon: Harry Reid.
@Oh Brother
“Token Skeptic said she wasn’t going along with the whole A+ stuff”
Neither to my knowledge has Ophelia, whose blog you are commenting on. You’ve got to check your facts, hon. And you are aware that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are friends, right?
@Aratina Cage
In his book “Under The Banner of Heaven,” Jon Krakauer does a great job of asking these questions. Why is one considered more irrational than the other?
“…if Ron Lafferty [who murdered his wife and daughter] were deemed mentally ill because he obeyed the voice of his God, isn’t everyone who believes in God and seeks guidance through prayer mentally ill as well? In a democratic republic that aspires to protect religious freedom, who should have the right to declare that one person’s irrational beliefs are legitimate and commendable, while another person’s are crazy? How can a society actively promote religious faith on one hand and condemn a man for zealously adhering to his faith on the other?”
I highly recommend it, it’s a fascinating look at both the beginnings of the LDS faith and the Lafferty case.
Dairy says:
Quantum Mechanics is consistent in the sense that, assuming classical mathematics is consistent, you will not be able to derive a contradiction within it. The problem seems to be that we have been unable to draw a coherent picture, as it were, of what is going on and feel we can’t understand it. However, why do we think that the fact that we do seem to be able to draw a picture of Newtonian Mechanics means that we do understand it? If the theory conflicts with our picture, it is always the mathematics that takes precedence. Reasoning with pictures of physical phenomena works most of the time but is always fraught with danger, especially when we are dealing with things outside our immediate experience – think of how 9/11 truthers and moon landing deniers tend to argue.
Perhaps I should add that the formulation modal semantics in terms of “logically possible worlds” is something I think makes no clear sense, but this is not the place to start discussing philosophical logic.
Thank you for the book recommendation, callistacat. There have been so many times I have witnessed believers in one religion make fun of those in another while being unable to recognize the ludicrousness of their own. It also seems to me that being a practicing Catholic is much more harmful to other people than being a practicing Mormon is given how much political power and wealth the Catholic Church enjoys and its inhumane dogma and activities.