Rabbi Boteach tries to school Hitchens on religion...

[specious_reasons]

....and fails, pretty miserably.

It is cute how he writes "G-d!"

However, here's my point of outrage:

[Stephen Hawkings] is a very incapacitated man, and many evolutionary biologists maintain that a life like his should never have been preserved in the first place.

...and...

Thankfully, for Prof. Hawking, the society he lived in embraced biblical morality and rejected the evolutionary idea of the survival of the fittest. Prof. Hawking is not the fittest, but that does not mean that he should not have been given the medical care by which he survives and continues to enrich humanity with his genius.

Yes, he's conflating "social darwinism" with evolution - and that's the bulk of his argument. *sigh*

[Jay Hoover]

....and fails, pretty miserably.

It is cute how he writes "G-d!"

However, here's my point of outrage:

[Stephen Hawkings] is a very incapacitated man, and many evolutionary biologists maintain that a life like his should never have been preserved in the first place.

...and...

Thankfully, for Prof. Hawking, the society he lived in embraced biblical morality and rejected the evolutionary idea of the survival of the fittest. Prof. Hawking is not the fittest, but that does not mean that he should not have been given the medical care by which he survives and continues to enrich humanity with his genius.

Yes, he's conflating "social darwinism" with evolution - and that's the bulk of his argument. *sigh*

Invariably theistic arguments fail miserably, because they are specious by definition.  Boteach's essay is a shining example of that axiom.

[NeroXIV]

...Prof. Hawking is not the fittest, ...

Yes, he's conflating "social darwinism" with evolution - and that's the bulk of his argument. *sigh*

And who said "fit" didn't include "mentally fit?" Even social Darwinists emphasized intellectual, not physical strength.

[specious_reasons]

...Prof. Hawking is not the fittest, ...

Yes, he's conflating "social darwinism" with evolution - and that's the bulk of his argument. *sigh*

And who said "fit" didn't include "mentally fit?" Even social Darwinists emphasized intellectual, not physical strength.

When I read it, that's about what I thought, too.  Hawking's life was already considered "valuable" from a social darwinist point of view before he was hampered by his disease. Boteach picked a horrible example to buoy his specious argument.

[Articulett]

...Prof. Hawking is not the fittest, ...

Yes, he's conflating "social darwinism" with evolution - and that's the bulk of his argument. *sigh*

And who said "fit" didn't include "mentally fit?" Even social Darwinists emphasized intellectual, not physical strength.

When I read it, that's about what I thought, too.  Hawking's life was already considered "valuable" from a social darwinist point of view before he was hampered by his disease. Boteach picked a horrible example to buoy his specious argument.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution, which even Hawking accepts.  He doesn't make up imaginary stories about living happily ever after in heaven either.  Plus, we aren't the only animals who take care of the sick and weak.  It's not religion that taught us that.  It's religion that forces us to to keep people alive in situations where we would kindly put our pets to sleep and jails the likes of Jack Kevorkian who would allow everyone the opportunity to end their life even if they were not physically able to do so.  Life is more precious when you have a choice about living it.  
Shame on the rabbi and more lies in the name of some invisible god.

Invisible gods get credit for everything and evolution that endowed us with the caring of our species and science which gave us medicine that allows many to live who could not have in the past gets demonized at every turn.

BAh.

[Abdul Alhazred]

The "G-d" thing is common Orthodox Jewish practise and not a Shmuley special.

Shmuley is the Oprah wannabee of Orthodox rabbis.

...

The Lubavitchers wouldn't have him after he published that sex manual.

He was one of Michael Jackson's spiritual advisors for a while.

He also had that road show with Deepak Chopra.

...

Also.

It just occurred to me that some of you may not realize that Shmuley is parroting specifically the latest fashionable goyische anti-evolution crapola rather than the crapola he learned in yeshiva.

Little does he know that he's setting himself up for "but how do you Jews avoid going to Hell?"

I thought Zsa Zsa's blog was supposed to be LIBBERUL YOU PEOPLE  

But she's already got Deepak, so I suppose she had to make it a quinella and get Shmuley as well.

I mean, as a LIBBERUL Zsa Zsa couldn't very well get someone like Charles Colson to denounce evil-you-shine as Nazi (or Dennis Prager if she needed a Jew).

[specious_reasons]

The "G-d" thing is common Orthodox Jewish practise and not a Shmuley special.

I know, I just find it funny - like there's some sort of power in the name.

I thought Zsa Zsa's blog was supposed to be LIBBERUL YOU PEOPLE  

But she's already got Deepak, so I suppose she had to make it a quinella and get Shmuley as well.

I mean, as a LIBBERUL Zsa Zsa couldn't very well get someone like Charles Colson to denounce evil-you-shine as Nazi (or Dennis Prager if she needed a Jew).

Lots of LIBBERUL people are dyed-in-the-wool religious conservatives.  Shmuley probably couldn't cut it on conservative blogs, considering he does family counciling, he's practically a socialist.

[Abdul Alhazred]

... he's practically a socialist.

[Martin Brock]

Boteach makes some valid points about 20th century history, but "the only basis for a belief that all human life is both equal and of infinite value is the Bible" is clearly false.  The Bible doesn't say it, and insofar as the Bible says something similar, it's not unique.  Still, the Bible does influence particular cultures this way.  Denying this influence is as nonsensical as denying the Bible's more pernicious influences or denying the influence of "survival of the fittest" and similar secular ideas.  Secular ideas inspired Hitler's genocidal madness as a matter of fact.  The ideas were sick and twisted, but they were secular ideas regardless.  Ditto for twisted ideas of Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot and countless others.

[NeroXIV]

... denying the influence of "survival of the fittest" and similar secular ideas.  Secular ideas inspired Hitler's genocidal madness as a matter of fact.  The ideas were sick and twisted, but they were secular ideas regardless.  Ditto for twisted ideas of Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot and countless others.

Biological evolution is not a "secular idea" in that sense. It's a scientific fact. You're talking about political ideas of how to run a society. There is a fundamental difference between Darwinism and social Darwinism.

[Chachacha]

See this is the circular problem I encounter with this type of hate-spewing, stupid talking, idiot theist:  they make me wish there is a hell waiting for them when they die.  

[Articulett]

Boteach makes some valid points about 20th century history, but "the only basis for a belief that all human life is both equal and of infinite value is the Bible" is clearly false.  The Bible doesn't say it, and insofar as the Bible says something similar, it's not unique.  Still, the Bible does influence particular cultures this way.  Denying this influence is as nonsensical as denying the Bible's more pernicious influences or denying the influence of "survival of the fittest" and similar secular ideas.  Secular ideas inspired Hitler's genocidal madness as a matter of fact.  The ideas were sick and twisted, but they were secular ideas regardless.  Ditto for twisted ideas of Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot and countless others.

"Survival of the fittest" was not a term coined by Darwin.  In genetics, fittest is just the strands of DNA that insert themselves into the most vectors.  Fitness only has to do with survivability and reproduction--nothing to do with what humans find fit.  It's a description of a theory--Just like the description of gravity.  It's also a fact; just like gravity.  It has nothing to do with politics just like gravity.  

Hitler's policies against Jews (who were not just an ethnicity, but a religion) was founded and supported at least in part on biblical principles and he considered himself to be Catholic until his dying day.  Moreover, the Christian church was long and slow in repudiating Hitler's crimes against humanity.  Blaming scientific facts for Hitler's atrocities rather than dogma, authoritarianism, and religious bigotry is one of the worst dishonesties of the the faithful.  

Everything done in the name of god or religion is given a special deference and all good is attributed to it--everything that can possibly be construed to have anything to do with Darwin and evolution is extrapolated and twisted to make it sound like evolution is the cause of all that is bad--and faith is the cause of all that is good.  Although it's vastly oversimplified, I'd say the reverse is true.  Humans evolved compassion because it allowed in-group amity ensures the survival and passing on of more genes in that group.  Duh.  Monkeys and Elephants do it to.

Hawking doesn't need to thank faith for the fact that he's alive--he rightly thanks medicine and enjoys the gifts offered to him by science such as his recent flight in zero gravity.  What does religion promise him--an eternally happy floating soul with no verification anywhere and a god who brought him into this world so that he could suffer from a devastating illness?  Shame on the rabbi and the twisted twisted thinking inherent in people of faith.  IL am glad Hitchens and others of eloquence have come out to slay the dishonest arguments and flummery of those who spread such obfuscating memes.  

Martin, you are as incoherent as the rabbi whom you think is advancing a valid point.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Before entering any disputation about evolution, it's important to define your terms to avoid getting sidetracked.

Most of you will know these things, but I'm trying to lay it all out in convenient form. Nor can such a list be complete, but I'll try.

The theory of evolution purports to explain the development of the variety of life. No more no less. As with any scientific theory, it can be examined and disputed. But you need to stay on track.

It does not cover everything in science that may contradict something in Genesis.

Evolution does NOT:

1) Explain the ultimate origin of life. The science for that is still very speculative at best. And not part of the theory of evolution.

2) Prove the earth is billions of years old. That's geology not evolution.
2a) Disproof of Noah's flood is also geology not evolution.

3) Explain the origin of the universe. No the "Big Bang" is not part of evil-you-shine Doctor    Hovind.

4) Explain the meaning of life, provide a moral philosophy, replace religion, save your soul, nor require atheism. Nor socialism or whatever. No more than other theories such as Ohm's law or universal gravitation.



Once you've got that down and are really focusing on the theory of evolution -- Evolution does NOT say:

1) That it all came about by "random happenstance". So disproofs based on the improbability of  "random happenstance" are irrelevant. Random mutation is just part of the raw material. Natural selection is not random at all.

2) That we're "nothing but" animals. The "nothing but" animal does not exist. It's not just religious folks who make this particular mistake about evolution.

3) That we're monkeys. That negroes are closer to monkeys than white folks. Or anything like that.



Moving right along. If you want to keep on track about evolution and not go into a rant about religion in general, it's necessary also to bear in mind some things about the "intelligent design" movement that may not be well understood by many intelligent people who are beguiled by it. But you should not bring these points into the argument unless something specific is said that brings it up.

So-called "intelligent design" is NOT the same as the position that God intelligently designed the laws of nature. The whole "irreducible complexity" line of reasoning has God making explicit exceptions to the laws of nature wherever there's no scientific explanation handy (and sometimes when there really is one).

The whole business of "getting people to acknowledge that there is a God" is a strawman. Like it or not, most people do (at least in the USA), so that's not why they are making a big deal. And even fundies are apt to be non-literal about unscientific scriptures. For example, no stupid nonsense about "the firmamant" (usually).

It's about preserving the Adam and Eve story against all reason because that one (in the traditional Christian interpretation) is the "historical" basis for why Jesus had to die for our sins.

If you want to argue evolution, keep all that in mind but see if you can't get the other guy to stick to evolution. But you'll have to do the same.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I stir the {!#%@}.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5873931 ... track.html

[Jay Hoover]

I stir the {!#%@}.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5873931 ... track.html

You have 0 blessings there.  Don't they like you?

[Abdul Alhazred]

I stir the {!#%@}.

http://www.christianforums.com/t5873931 ... track.html

You have 0 blessings there.  Don't they like you?

You get one blessing for each post, and can gamble for them on quizzes and arcade games. You can also spend them on various goodies, for example 200 to upload a custom avatar.

This is separate from the more conventional "reputation points" which they also have.

I was up to 50 or so, spent 20 on the privilege of having a signature line, then gave the rest away (you can do that).

The recipient was a poster I felt sorry for in a thread I started about Hell.

[Martin Brock]

... denying the influence of "survival of the fittest" and similar secular ideas.  Secular ideas inspired Hitler's genocidal madness as a matter of fact.  The ideas were sick and twisted, but they were secular ideas regardless.  Ditto for twisted ideas of Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot and countless others.

Biological evolution is not a "secular idea" in that sense. It's a scientific fact. You're talking about political ideas of how to run a society. There is a fundamental difference between Darwinism and social Darwinism.

I didn't write "biological evolution".  I wrote "survival of the fittest", the term Boteach uses in the sense in which he uses it.  I'm not attributing this sense of the phrase to Darwin.

[Martin Brock]

Boteach makes some valid points about 20th century history, but "the only basis for a belief that all human life is both equal and of infinite value is the Bible" is clearly false.  The Bible doesn't say it, and insofar as the Bible says something similar, it's not unique.  Still, the Bible does influence particular cultures this way.  Denying this influence is as nonsensical as denying the Bible's more pernicious influences or denying the influence of "survival of the fittest" and similar secular ideas.  Secular ideas inspired Hitler's genocidal madness as a matter of fact.  The ideas were sick and twisted, but they were secular ideas regardless.  Ditto for twisted ideas of Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot and countless others.

"Survival of the fittest" was not a term coined by Darwin.  In genetics, fittest is just the strands of DNA that insert themselves into the most vectors.  Fitness only has to do with survivability and reproduction--nothing to do with what humans find fit.  It's a description of a theory--Just like the description of gravity.  It's also a fact; just like gravity.  It has nothing to do with politics just like gravity.

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory.  "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase Boteach uses.  I haven't confused the two.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm

Hitler's policies against Jews (who were not just an ethnicity, but a religion) was founded and supported at least in part on biblical principles and he considered himself to be Catholic until his dying day.  Moreover, the Christian church was long and slow in repudiating Hitler's crimes against humanity.  Blaming scientific facts for Hitler's atrocities rather than dogma, authoritarianism, and religious bigotry is one of the worst dishonesties of the the faithful.

Hitler describes his racism, including his antisemitism, in quasi-scientific terms in Mein Kampf.  I've quoted it on this point before.  His science is laughable, but that's another story.  I nowhere blame scientific facts for any atrocities, but Hitler had plenty of support within the German scientific community.  Eugenics was indisputably respectable within a broad scientific community, and Darwin played a role in its respectability.  If Hitler hadn't perverted the idea and taken it to such an extreme, it might still be respectable.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.  We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Aborting a fetus with ALS is still respectable for many people, so the odds of another Stephen Hawking are probably diminishing.

Everything done in the name of god or religion is given a special deference and all good is attributed to it--everything that can possibly be construed to have anything to do with Darwin and evolution is extrapolated and twisted to make it sound like evolution is the cause of all that is bad--and faith is the cause of all that is good.

This generalization is nonsense.  I've toured museums on the inquisitions, and we practically worship Darwin these days.

Although it's vastly oversimplified, I'd say the reverse is true.  Humans evolved compassion because it allowed in-group amity ensures the survival and passing on of more genes in that group.  Duh.  Monkeys and Elephants do it to.

According to Dawkins, group selection doesn't explain compassion.  Selfish genes and selfish memes explain compassion.  A religion is a meme complex.

Hawking doesn't need to thank faith for the fact that he's alive--he rightly thanks medicine and enjoys the gifts offered to him by science such as his recent flight in zero gravity.

He can thank ideological systems that value support of the disabled, and various religions fall into this category.

What does religion promise him--an eternally happy floating soul with no verification anywhere and a god who brought him into this world so that he could suffer from a devastating illness?

Various religions promises other people an eternally happy soul if they'll selflessly aid the disabled now.  If people accept this faith and selflessly aid Hawking because they accept it, the faith serves its purpose.  Eternal bliss is not its purpose at all.

In the state of nature, animals will abandon or kill disabled kin, because they require more energy than other kin with greater reproductive potential.  Meme systems also evolve, but they evolve differently, because they are subject to different selection effects.

Shame on the rabbi and the twisted twisted thinking inherent in people of faith.  IL am glad Hitchens and others of eloquence have come out to slay the dishonest arguments and flummery of those who spread such obfuscating memes.

He does confuse evolution by natural selection with an idea that doesn't follow from the biological theory.

Martin, you are as incoherent as the rabbi whom you think is advancing a valid point.

I nowhere ever claim that his point about evolution by natural selection is valid.  I say he makes some valid points about recent history and then I start disagreeing with him.  Construing my statements as validation is incredible.