Richard Dawkins has managed to go through his life bamboozling scientists into thinking he’s a great philosopher, and everybody else into thinking he’s a great scientist. In reality, he is neither.
As someone who was long fooled by Dawkins–back when I was an Atheist, I really thought he was at least a reputable scientist–I am sickened when I see a man who uses his science credentials to promote pseudoscience.
To my delight however, I was handed a prime opportunity to help publicly educate people on one of the most thoroughly noxious pseudo-scientists, pseudo-historians, and pseudo-philosophers on Planet Earth when I was presented by one of his followers with this hilarious paper:
“Peer reviewed papers” are so respected by Scientism fanatics they obviously don’t bother to read them. I, on the other hand, make a point of reading such papers before I trust them–after all, it’s an open secret you can’t trust the peer review system anymore.
Anyway, I read it. The paper clearly illustrates the fallacy of Memetic Theory with 30 pages or so of handwaving and smoke-blowing that attempts–and admittedly fails–to provide some sort of empirical framework for Memetics. This is fascinating on multiple levels. Read it yourself if you don’t believe me.
But first, notice the publisher: Journal of Bioeconomics. That journal is an obscure publication that “Encourages creative dialogue between biologists and economists.” Change that to “biologists and feminist academics” and tell me how it would read to you.
Second, I happen to know that the only peer reviewed journal that ever tried to make the case for Memetics as a real science, known simply as “Journal of Memetics,” ceased publication in 2005 due to lack of interest or much in the way of results. These researchers had been working on trying to make something real of Memetics since 1976–that’s right, 1976. They eventually gave up, having produced almost nothing coherent to back up the incoherent Memetic Theory.
So now fancy this: four years after the only journal to ever really take Memetics Theory seriously threw in the towel, some obscure Memetics advocates manage to get a tentative paper published in 2009. A paper where they admit clearly that Memetics is “empirically under-developed” and finally, after 30 pages of meandering handwaving, conclude with this devastating line:
Ours is a tentative first empirical move in organizational research toward the micro/macro resolution we see in biology.
That’s right kids. More than 40 years after Richard Dawkins first proposed Memetic Theory, two researchers published a “tentative first empirical move.” They don’t even claim they showed anything empirical, just that they may be close to having something that might be empirical someday. There’s been no followup that I can find.
Memetic Theory is busted. So, by the way, is Selfish Gene Theory.
If you doubt Selfish Gene is busted, you should see the way Dawkins’ fellow Atheist and far more accomplished Evolutionary Biologist, Lynn Margulis, demolished him at Oxford University just a few years ago: Margulis-Dawkins Debate, 2012.
Margulis, an Atheist, an accomplished Evolutionary Biologist, and a member of both the American AND Russian Academy of Sciences (a rare honor and distinction) showed that most life on Earth doesn’t even use nuclear DNA and freely swaps what genetic material it has with other organisms–and the human body has more such organisms in it than it has cells. This leads to the obvious question of what cells and organisms really use DNA for, and what the limits of DNA might be. While admitting to “liking” Selfish Gene as a crude way to describe large animals, Margulis utterly demolished the NeoDarwinist paradigm that ‘Selfish Gene’ is based on for an audience of some of the world’s foremost Evolutionary Biologists and other scholars.
This was a long time coming. Many biologists, especially young ones, knew it would happen because Margulis and quite a few others had been showing for decades already that NeoDarwinism (the basis of Selfish Gene) was bunk.
Even now, while there are some old grayhairs holding out for it, almost no one who studies evolution or genetics believes there’s anything to Selfish Gene or NeoDarwinism. As scientists say of incoherent gibberish, Selfish Gene is so bad it’s not even wrong. Only the dying remnants of Dawkins’ Celebrity Scientist cult still really hold out for it.
And by the way, Memetic Theory was specifically Dawkins’ effort to mesh Ideas and mental processes to Selfish Gene theory. In other words, Selfish Gene is the debunked “science” that Memetic Theory is based on.
You can’t get more pseudo-sciencey than one debunked theory on top of another debunked theory. Except maybe with “Feminist Theory” or “Social Justice Theory”.
What does all this mean? It means all the big things Richard Dawkins is known for–Selfish Gene, Memetic Theory, and the God Delusion–are all either pseudoscience, or not science at all. But it’s worse than that: They all run up against demonstrable science that proves them wrong.
Sorry Richard Dawkins Fans, but there’s no more substance to Dawkins and his work than the average ‘Famous Astrologer’ found at “Top Ten Astrologers.”
In reality, Mr. Dawkins just doesn’t like God as an idea, even though countless perfectly sane, non-delusional people know God is, at minimum, a perfectly rational and coherent concept based on evidence. (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a rational analysis of the idea.)
I continue to double, triple dare any member of the “Online Skeptic Community” or their followers to read The Last Superstition. By the way, I hope any or all of them one day have the guts to finally start talking to theists who are at least as smart as they are.
*Update*: A check on the principle author of the 2009 (Jill Shepherd · Bill McKelvey) paper that attempted–and failed–to find a scientific basis for Meme theory was an obscure researcher with mostly a business management background, with a secondary author whose background is also primarily business management.
That’s a real cutting-edge research team right there. And neither seems to have published anything since 2009 on this or other major topics besides business management. No surprise. There’s no “there” there when it comes to “Memetic Theory.” Memetic Theory isn’t science and never has been.
*Update 2*: A former Dawkinsite, Sue Blackmore of The Guardian attended the “Explaining religion” conference in September of 2010. She spoke first, presenting the view from memetics that religions begin as by-products but then evolve and spread, like viruses, using humans to propagate themselves for their own benefit and to the detriment of the people they infect. By the end, though, she acknowledged that, while religions can be ‘memeplexes’ to an outside observer, they are not viruses, “unless we twist the concept of a “virus” to include something helpful and adaptive to its host as well as something harmful, it simply does not apply.” The article is online at the following location; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/16/why-no-longer-believe-religion-virus-mind.
Joe Brewer, wrote a fawning adulation of Dawkins’ Memetic Theory (https://evolution-institute.org/blog/a-forty-year-update-on-meme-theory/), focusing on how societal knowledge and developments are “translated into slogans, political speeches, editorial commentaries, and dinner table debates more times than can be counted.” He continues in this vein, stating that this body of tools and techniques can be applied to meme theory, demonstrating that “researchers across many fields have found value in the perspective that culture can be studied as information patterns that arise in a variety of social settings routinely and with modular elements that are readily discernible in each new instance. The claim that information patterns do not replicate is contradicted by the evidence for image-schematic structures (like the metaphor for taxes above with its distinctive inferential logic and recognizable use cases.”
Greg Downey of neuroanthropology.net wrote a scathing indictment of memetics at Neoruanthropology.net. In the blog, he openly states “I think ‘memetics’ is one of the bigger crocks hatched in recent decades, hiding in the shadow of respectable evolutionary theory, suggesting that anyone who doesn’t immediately concede to the ‘awesome-ness’ of meme-ness is somehow afraid of evolutionary theory. Let me just make this perfectly clear: I teach about evolutionary theory. I like Charles Darwin. I have casts of hominid skulls in my office. I still think ‘memetics’ is nonsense on stilts on skates on thin ice on borrowed time (apologies to Bentham), as deserving of the designation ‘science’ as astrology, phrenology, or economic forecasting.” ).
In his critique of memetics he begins with a declaration that “memetics sucks the air out of the room for a serious consideration of the ways that culture, knowledge, technology, and human evolution might be interrelated. That is, like a theory of humours and vapors in illness, it provides pseudo-explanations in place of just getting the hell out of the way of serious thought.” He continues by adding that he hates “the concept of ‘ideas replicating from brain to brain”. He states that he works in physical education and imitative learning; shouldn’t he be happy that memetic theory places such a premium on imitative learning? He lists Ten Problems with Memeticsto keep it manageable. I have copied his problems and summarized the issues for the sake of brevity.
1) Reifying the activity of brains: ‘Culture’ is already a bit of a reification (treating a complex of heterogeneous behaviors or concepts as a ‘thing’). Therefore, a ‘meme’ is a kind of super-reification of any human idea or concept. When a memeticist claims that ‘ideas replicate from brain to brain,’ we consider the potential meanings of what they are saying. To argue that ‘ideas’ are any form of self-serving agent that can replicate demands several layers of reification that are profoundly crippling to memetic theory.
2) Attributing personality to the reification of ideas: It’s one thing to reify a concept, it’s another thing to start attributing it a whole complex personality, drives, desires, and levels of different reification. This line of theororizing rapidly tumbles down the trail of ‘ideas have us’ rather than the reverse.
3) Doesn’t ‘self-replicating’ mean replicating by one’s self? There are problems with defining even a gene as a ‘self-replicating’ structure, like, if DNA is so self-replicating, why is it so chemically inert? (Hit to Selfish Gene theory) Self-replicating’ means, by definition, replicating by itself. Has anyone, ever, anywhere, seen an idea ‘replicate’ itSELF?
4) The term ‘meme’ applied to divergent phenomena. Calling an idea a ‘meme’ gets around the enormous problem of incommensurate phenomena in the same category. Memeticists refer to single ideas, strings of idea, melodies, and a host of other things as ‘memes.’ Even the most cursory glance reveals serious problems of scale; is a meme a single idea, a chain of ideas, a system of ideas, or an entire worldview?
5) Could memes transfer stably? Any tranfer of information is fraught with ‘transcription’ errors (try the game of telephone). Though the term ‘transcription’ risks dignifying the whole ‘meme=DNA’ metaphor which memeticists are abusing like a borrowed mule. Even teaching might demonstrate how utterly improbable it is that ANYTHING gets copied accurately
6) A host will not evolve traits in order for parasite to benefit: That is, unless a trait is beneficial in natural selection to the host, the parasite is not going to get evolution to create a better host for its own benefit. If the meme is truly a parasite, then there’s no way that the human brain is going to grow for the good of the meme.
7) Trivial examples as analogy to ideological change: A recurring problem in memetics theory is triviality being used to explain serious issues. These simplistic examples are then argued to be analogous to something like Christian conversion or the spread of capitalism, as if getting a jingle stuck in your head is like undergoing a major religio-ideological or political-economic social transformation.
8) Gradual cultural transmission not like infection: The metaphor of ‘infection’ is another one that gets used in memes, as it is clear that memes must have some sort of insidious dimenion. They argue that ideas are infectious. Are they saying that annoying commercials or insipid songs really take over our brains and is force us to do their bidding?
9) Objective ‘science’ inconsistent with normative judgments about memes: There’s this strong stream of judgment in most memeticists that’s inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Some argue that ‘toxic ideas’ are like the pathogens brought by explorers to the New World. They state that Western memes are wiping out indigenous ideas around the world in much the same way that European diseases obliterated native populations in the New World..
10) Resistance to memetics is not ‘anti-Darwinism; Darwinism not a religion: It’s not ‘Darwinism’ that Greg says he supports, like it’s a cult or a form of thought that he must follow religiously; adding that ‘Darwinism’ is only useful in that it is a theory that provides hypotheses to be tested, a powerful explanatory framework that explains some (though not all) phenomena
This was a long time coming. Many biologists, especially young ones, knew it would happen because Margulis and quite a few others had been showing for decades already that NeoDarwinism (the basis of Selfish Gene) was bunk.
Even now, while there are some old grayhairs holding out for it, almost no one who studies evolution or genetics believes there’s anything to Selfish Gene or NeoDarwinism. As scientists say of incoherent gibberish, Selfish Gene is so bad it’s not even wrong. Only the dying remnants of Dawkins’s Celebrity Scientist cult still really hold out for it.
And by the way, Memetic Theory was specifically Dawkins’s effort to mesh Ideas and mental processes to Selfish Gene theory. In other words, Selfish Gene is the debunked “science” that Memetic Theory is based on.
You can’t get more pseudosciencey than one debunked theory on top of another debunked theory. Except maybe with “Feminist Theory” or “Social Justice Theory.”
Finally, the notion of God as a delusion, which Dawkins is fond of asserting, has no empirical basis in psychological or psychiatric research, either. God As Delusion is unscientific poppycock. See my Proof from Evolutionary Psychology for references on that.
What does all this mean? It means all the big “scientific” things Richard Dawkins is known for–Selfish Gene, Memetic Theory, and the God Delusion–are all either pseudoscience, or not science at all. But it’s worse than that: They all run up against demonstrable science that proves them wrong.
In reality, Mr. Dawkins just doesn’t like God as an idea, even though countless perfectly sane non-delusional people know God is, at minimum, a perfectly rational and coherent concept based on evidence. (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a rational analysis of the idea.)
Two ex-atheists, one philosopher and one not, talk about the weirdness that is “Skepticism” and “Rationalism” and “Modern Atheism.” Support John C. Wright and his family by visiting his blog here: http://www.scifiwright.com/
When this author left off last week, I had just finished examined each of the approximately 12 people Dan Barker had listed as prominent atheists who had made great contributions to the world. Of those twelve, no more than four met the actual criterion set by Dan Barker/Richard Dawkins for atheists.
As a partial counterpoint, atheists figure prominently in the annals of the greatest mass killings and atrocities of the twentieth century. Communist Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Cuba all are (or were) Communist Regimes that commit(ed) massive atrocities on their own citizens. An atheist is not necessarily a Communist. Communists must be atheistic because the state must supplant God as the supreme entity.
% in List
Chinese traditional religion/Confucianism
The web page http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html. Lists the names, religions and achievements of the top 100 most influential people in world history and given by Michael H. Hart’s book ‘The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.’ The top eight religious (non)affiliations are seen in the box to the right. The atheists in that Top 100 list were: Karl Marx Simon Bolivar Joseph Stalin Sigmund Freud Vladimir Illych Lenin and Mao Zedong. Considering the legacy of these people, it seems that there is something common in their ideology that leads to slaughter.
Dan states that “Most religions have consistently resisted progress–including the abolition of slavery; women’s right to vote and choose contraception and abortion; medical developments such as the use of anesthesia; scientific understanding of the heliocentric solar system and evolution, and the American principle of state/church separation.”
In the words of Ronald Reagan, “There you go again…” Dan paints ALL RELIGIONS EVERYWHERE AT ALL TIMES with the same brush. Is he judging the society of the Pharos, Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar by today’s standards? Does he judge the regimes of Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Kim Jung Il and Pol Pot by those same standards?
The practice of slavery is as old as time, likely dating back to the Stone Age (as the Stone Age civilizations found in the Americas did). The practice of slavery was global as every society (at one time or another) practiced slavery
The ‘enlightened’ (and often atheistic) ‘elite progressives’ such as Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson (resurrected the dying KKK) of the first half of the twentieth century, judged themselves as the torchbearers and arbiters of human progress. They alone had the intellect and wisdom necessary to guide and make all the ‘tough calls’ for the ignorant masses they would rule over. They were the source of the eugenics movement which was used in turn to support many of the Jim Crow and segregation laws as well as the ‘Cleansing’ of undesirables in/by the Third Reich. Today, the eugenics movement is almost universally condemned now as evil, unfounded and pseudoscience. Do we hold the progressives to today’s standards?
The standards for morals, public or private behavior, just as everything else changes as time goes by. Christ did not explicitly condemn slavery, but the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” makes it rather clear what He wanted people to do. Hebrew law ordered Jews to treat slaves as family and the Jew who killed a slave was to die, just as they would for killing a fellow Jew. The Muslim Religion not only allows, but prescribes enslavement of non-believers. Christianity and Judaism both demand humane treatment of others. Christianity demands it regardless of race, class, sex, etc. The abolitionist movements in Europe in America came from Christianity. Bahá’u’lláh, founder of the Baha’i faith, officially condemned slavery in 1874. In Hinduism, the vedas of about 600+ BC taught that slavery was contrary to their goals. Over time, the teachings of the leaders in the religion went back and forth. Buddhism has a long history of generally condemning slavery, though debt slavery could still occur. Finally, Buddhist Emperor Ashoka banned slavery and renounced war. This list does not contain any pagan religions, Confucianism, Shinto or innumerable others that have existed throughout time. Do these marked difference in beliefs not illustrate that lumping religions all together is like lumping all political parties, all Germans, Japanese (or any other nationality) or atheists into a single unit? Five of the six most influential atheists were dictators of the most tyrannical, bloody regimes of history. The sixth was their political inspiration. Can we therefore judge all atheists to be just like them?
All humans from any time and any place are hypocrites to one extent or another. A person can behave devoutly in church and public places and become a veritable demon in their home or in a neighborhood where they are not known. Yes some rulers in the past have used religion to justify war, subjugation, enslavement and many other evils. Many atheists have done the same or worse with no excuses or cover whatsoever beyond ‘The Dialectic Demands It’. The atheist has no standard for behavior. By rejecting all religions and their teachings, the only available guide will be expediency. Most religions seek to elevate the self to a higher level of purity or holiness. Any theist who takes their faith seriously finds themselves held to a supposedly unchanging standard of ‘Good.’ A theistic person (if they are entirely honest) is aware of how far they fall below the goal of their faith and must therefore strive to improve themselves to become closer to the Creator, and finally reach Enlightenment/Nirvana/Heaven/Paradise.
To judge all religious people by a single incident or period of a single sect is patently ridiculous. For every Salem Witch Trial there are civilians who hide friends, neighbors and strangers in their home because their faith tells them to. Pope Pious XII sheltered 3000-4000 Jews in the papal summer palace outside Rome. Allied airmen and Jews were sheltered inside the Vatican or other church and private properties. If the Germans had chosen to search those locations, the SS would have likely looted the entire Vatican complex within Rome, all properties or accounts owned by the Holy See and the private homes then kill or imprison everyone within.
Women’s suffrage is yet another case of judging the past by today’s standards. The pursuit of equality with men in political and other arenas amounted to the overthrow of 1,400 or more years of both tradition and laws based on those same traditions. To claim that religions opposed women’s suffrage is equivalent to saying politics opposed women’s suffrage. Religion is an ideology. People are born into or choose to join one religion or another. Western culture (particularly American) has chosen to divide the political and religious portions of our lives. It is their choice whether they follow the dogma and traditions of the faith. No one can or will force them. If a preacher gives a sermon about a political issue, they are not serving a deity. They are substituting politics for faith. That being said, how can Dan, sitting in the nosebleed section of the bleachers, be in a position to criticize those who are actually trying to finish the race?
Next, we shall address the charges that Dan brings about religion slowing medical research, scientific advancement, hindering acceptance of evolution or interfering with the separation of church and state.
To the charges of interfering with medicine and science: This author shakes his head slowly and repeats the Ronald Reagan quote from earlier. The Catholic Church was the cradle of modern western science. James Hannam refutes these accusations in his article found at: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages. Dr. Hannam points out where in history the charge of suppressing science originated and who exactly created the charges. Even Stefan Molyneux, an atheist Canadian YouTube vlogger and host on Freedomain Radio has created episodes acknowledged that the Catholic Curch built western civilization.
When it comes to evolution, Dan may have a solid case. Yes, some religions reject the theory because they read the bible in a literalist manner. Others reject the theory because it seems to be a tool to eliminate God. Many religious people embraced it enthusiastically and still do. This writer believes it may simply be that God used evolution as a mechanism of creation. Whenever belief systems are seen to collide, it will create tension and disagreement whether the two are actually contradicting each other or not.
The separation of church and state was never under the control of religion. The truth is that in the Western Hemisphere, the church was never in control of the state. The church often served as advisor or attempted to rein in rulers with threats of excommunication. The union of church and state was done through political leaders declaring a religion the ‘official’ religion of the nation, then imprisoning, executing or exiling all who refused to follow the new official religion. The American Experiment with the separation of church and state was never hindered by religion or religious leaders because no one wanted to wind up on the receiving end of state power used to suppress them.
The atheist initiative to drive religion out of any and every public or government space is in direct conflict with the portion of the First Amendment that states: “Congress Shall Make No Law Regarding Religion or the Free Exercise Thereof.” Dan seems to be simultaneously claiming suppression by religion while attempting suppression of religion.
Dan Barker claims that freethought is a philosophical, not a political, position, that embraces adherents of virtually all political persuasions, including capitalists, libertarians, socialists, communists, Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives. There a great deal of literature to negate his claim that there is no philosophical connection between atheism and communism. The atheism in Communist regimes has been and continues to be a form of militant atheism which led to various acts of repression, including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.
The persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union was the result of the violently atheist Soviet government. In the first five years after the October Revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were murdered, many on the orders of Leon Trotsky. When Joseph Stalin came to power in 1927, he ordered his secret police, under Genrikh Yagoda to intensify persecution of Christians. In the next few years, 50,000 clergy were murdered, many were tortured, including crucifixion. “Russia turned red with the blood of martyrs”, said Father Gleb Yakunin of the Russian Orthodox Church. According to Orthodox Church sources, as many as fifty million Orthodox believers may have died in the twentieth century, mainly from persecution by Communists.
Dan claims that Adam Smith and Ayn Rand were freethinkers and staunch capitalists though he provides no proof to indicate that they had heard of, never mind joined, the ‘Freethinker’ movement. Ayn Rand claimed to be an objectivist, though, not a freethinker. If he is claiming those two simply because they are atheists, then he must also accept Timothy McVeigh, Jeffery Dahmer and every other atheistic criminal in modern history. Though the early Christian Church did have a somewhat communistic organization (see Acts of the Apostles) the experiment was quite short-lived because communism is a system that kills the human spirit and is actually contrary to Jesus’ teaching.
Dan says that North American freethinkers agree in their support of state/church separation. This is quite an extraordinary claim. It is almost unheard of for an organization to have 100% agreement on anything.
To answer the following question: Is atheism/humanism a religion? Dan Barton states, “No. Atheism is not a belief. It is the “lack of belief” in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is indeed based on a commitment to rationality, but that hardly qualifies it as a religion. Freethinkers apply the term religion to belief systems which include a supernatural realm, deity, faith in “holy” writings and conformity to an absolute creed.”
Claiming the definition of atheism to be merely ‘lack of belief’ is obfuscation as the definition has traditionally been belief that no God or gods exist/active denial of God’s existence To hang onto a new redefinition in one dictionary out of all the brands available, is begging the question. Further, to state lack of faith requires no faith is patently false. To even make this statement requires faith. There is no research or empirical data to support that allegation. Dan Barker has to have faith in his logic or reasoning to even make that statement.
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/non-religious-beliefs/ The Humanists UK website features the following definitions for Atheist, Freethinker and Humanist
Atheist” includes those who reject a belief in the existence of God or gods and those who simply choose to live without God or gods. Along with this often, but not always, go disbelief in the soul, an afterlife, and other beliefs arising from god-based religions.
“Freethinker” is an old-fashioned term, popular in the nineteenth century, used of those whoreject authority in matters of belief, especially political and religious beliefs. It was a very popular term in the 19th century and is still used in different languages in some European countries by non-religious organisations to describe themselves.
“Humanist” is used today to mean those who seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs. A humanist may embrace all or most of the other approaches introduced here, and in addition humanists believe that moral values follow on from human nature and experience in some way. Humanists base their moral principles on reason (which leads them to reject the idea of any supernatural agency), on shared human values and respect for others. They believe that people should work together to improve the quality of life for all and make it more equitable. Humanism is a full philosophy, “life stance” or worldview, rather than being about one aspect of religion, knowledge, or politics
Secular humanism has no god, bible or savior. It is based on natural rational principles. It is flexible and relativistic–it is not a religion.
The claim that ‘Freethinkers/Humanists/Atheists are not religions because they do not rely on “ a supernatural realm, deity, faith in “holy” writings and conformity to an absolute creed” is completely false. As Dan Barker describes ‘free thought’ it does in fact have a god (atheistic reason), bible (the writings of Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Denning, et al), saviors (the atheistic apostles who wrote their bibles) the natural, rational principles, that freethinkers claim to base their philosophy on deliberately and consistently ignores all logical/physical/rational/medical evidence for a creator, the soul and anything else related to religion.
The flexibility and relativism Dan Barker claims for the freethinkers exists only for those who adhere completely to the doctrines he prescribes. In the first installment of this series, I examined the cognitive dissonance that is involved with that description of ‘freethinking’ and how it demands absolute adherence to a set doctrine.
Mr. Barker finished his essay with the question, “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?
He answers his question by stating the following, “Freethought is reasonable. Freethought allows you to do your own thinking. A plurality of individuals thinking, free from restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded or adopted. Freethinkers see no pride in the blind maintenance of ancient superstitions or self-effacing prostration before divine tyrants known only through primitive “revelations.” Freethought is respectable. Freethought is truly free.”
I ask again, Mr. Barker, “How can you state that any of those statements be true when you have laid out absolute demands for private beliefs to adhere to. Nothing can be said to have freedom when there are boundaries placed on inquiry or pre-set answers to those possible questions. I refer again to the first essay I wrote on this topic.
Stating a false claim repeated times Mr. Barker, does not make you any more correct. You claim again and again that religions are ancient superstitions that blind people and prevent ideas from being tried and tested when the very science and scientific methods you espouse were developed in Medieval Monasteries. You decry blind adherence to ancient superstitions when there are growing proofs for the existence of a Creator in every field of scientific inquiry. I respectfully suggest, Mr Barker,that you take a long, hard look in the proverbial mirror and honestly analyze the question of who is adhering blindly to a bankrupt ideology.
Claiming he wanted a friendly conversation, an Atheist called “Escaping Biased Christians” (he claims now to be a Secular Buddhist) tried to get us suspended again. We had to re-upload the stream to get rid of porn he was flashing, which he showed and then had friends Report us for. When we say not to trust Atheists, we have reasons don’t we?