Probably the most incoherant speech ever given, IMHO

[WinePusher]

First of all, let me say that whoever created the term "flying spagetthi monster" has an interesting thought process. How one could take a delicious entree and morph it into a monster capable of flying in order to combat theists is beyond me.

But the entire thing Dawkins said was committing the genetic fallacy.

1) Does the origin of a belief have anything to do with the veracity of its claims?

2) Does it matter that your religion/beliefs are often determined by geographic locations? I contend that a person brought up in third world haiti would not believe in evolution then a person brought up in Oxford, England.

3) Does this show that Dawkins really doesn't have a firm graspy on philosophy/logic, and should stick only to his microscopes?

[Crazy Ivan]

No, as I do not consider the luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity to be the savior of man kind.

What you consider true isn't relevant to the point made. A universal creator-entity in the form of a "luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity" makes as much sense today as a "flying spaghetti monster". For the notion to stop being "beyond" you, as you put it, you just need to acknowledge the possibility that "Christ" also evolved from something relatively simple today, but completely "beyond" Humanity thousands of years ago.

[NoisForm]

First of all, let me say that whoever created the term "flying spagetthi monster"...

While not my favorite argument ('Flying Spaghetti Monster' is just gaudy), one should understand that the particular variable one inserts into this form isn't terribly relevant, be it the FSM, Russel's Teapot, the invisible pink unicorn or a god. The argument only asks one to consider the unfalsifiable nature of each of them - as they are all equally so. In this way, it succeeds.

But the entire thing Dawkins said was committing the genetic fallacy.

Well no, he didn't, though I can understand why one might come away with that impression if they don't have a firm grasp on the nature of that fallacy.

The genetic fallacy deals with dismissing an idea based on the origin of the idea in question, or dismissing of an idea based on the person's origin who holds it. An example of the second type (from a link posted below);

'Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes.'

He is not doing the former. I think that much is clear (he isn't rejecting Christian belief because of its origins).

The latter is more subtle, but if you consider it I believe you'll see the distinction. He is not questioning the validity of a belief due to some stereotyped view of the person's birthplace here, but rather stating that they believe what they do largely because of their birthplace. That's a very important difference.
In essence he's saying the particular belief religious belief one holds is largely arbitrary, being determined by geography.

1) Does the origin of a belief have anything to do with the veracity of its claims?

I certainly wouldn't base the validity of a claim on it entirely, no. That said, it is wise to consider it as a factor. I would be less likely to accept as truth a statement made by a raving lunatic at the bus stop, than I would say, my brother. It does hold some weight.

I would also not dismiss it out of hand because of the source either, obviously. If that same lunatic told me the earth revolved around the sun, I'm apt to go right on accepting it anyway! But again, this isn't the claim he has made so its a bit of a moot point.

2) Does it matter that your religion/beliefs are often determined by geographic locations? I contend that a person brought up in third world haiti would not believe in evolution then a person brought up in Oxford, England.

Actually in this case, yes, I'll go a bit further than R.D. here. It matters to some degree precisely because of the nature of the claims involved. 'Belief', as you say, in evolution, to my knowledge, has never been claimed to be revelatory in nature. You would therefor only expect to find it where one has access to the relevant information so that one could learn about it.

Belief in Christ on the other hand (and much religion in general) often has made this claim. It has been said to be profoundly revelatory in nature. This is why some, including myself, find it a bit suspect that Christianity is found throughout history, only precisely where one man could have informed another of the beliefs. It is a very geographical phenomenon it seems. Not quite what one might expect if it is truly revelatory and Christ/a god talks to people and such.

I'm unaware of a single account of someone being informed of Christ by Christ himself, or the god of that religion, without having prior knowledge of it/them. I think of the question, 'How many Native Americans do you suppose had knowledge of Christ just before we arrived here?'.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that this is actually what Dawkins was expressing here. Most have the religion they do by chance...because they were born into it. In and of it self, this disproves nothing, but it certainly casts doubt on the revelatory nature of the religion IMO.

3) Does this show that Dawkins really doesn't have a firm graspy on philosophy/logic, and should stick only to his microscopes?

As he hasn't actually committed the fallacy in question, I'm prepared to let him go on. Though I would agree, biology is his strong suit and I prefer him in that field. That said, I'm grateful for the awareness and renewed vigor which he's brought to the 'skeptical thought table'.



just a few definitions of the fallacy in question;

"The Genetic Fallacy...involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past" (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html)

"The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit." (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/)

"The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin. "That car can't possibly be any good! It was made in Japan!" Or, "Why should I listen to her argument? She comes from California, and we all know those people are flakes." (http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html)

[Darkenfire]

First of all, let me say that whoever created the term "flying spagetthi monster" has an interesting thought process. How one could take a delicious entree and morph it into a monster capable of flying in order to combat theists is beyond me.

But the entire thing Dawkins said was committing the genetic fallacy.

1) Does the origin of a belief have anything to do with the veracity of its claims?

2) Does it matter that your religion/beliefs are often determined by geographic locations? I contend that a person brought up in third world haiti would not believe in evolution then a person brought up in Oxford, England.

3) Does this show that Dawkins really doesn't have a firm graspy on philosophy/logic, and should stick only to his microscopes?

The flying spaghetti monster was created as a way for someone to come back at the argument that results from someone asking a Christian if they can prove if God exists. Generally they say, "Well, you can't prove he doesn't." To which you can retort, "Well can you prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?" To make them (hopefully) think about how ridiculous they're being. Apparently, it worked. Atheists have the same same disdain for an all powerful, omnipresent, and omnipotent being as you have for the "interesting thought process" it took to create the flying spaghetti monster. You can see how ridiculous it is for a flying entree to create the universe, but not a formless energy/being/thing?

1) Depending on the situation, yes. If I make a claim about something after observing something completely unrelated. For example, seeing someone getting stung by a bee at noon, swelling up until asphyxiation occurs then claiming that everyday at 12:00 someone spontaneously suffocates. The origin of that belief proves it false. The claim originated from him discounting the degree of significance of that bee. But that's answering your question literally without taking your meaning behind it into account. For your purposes, no Christianity is not untrue solely because you only believe it only because you were born into it. But you are being hypocritical, because the only reason you don't believe in Ju-Ju of the mountain and doubt the veracity of the Muslim claims is because of the origin of your Christian beliefs.

2) I'm not entirely sure what you mean because you seem to be missing a word or two.

If you meant : I contend that a person brought up in third world haiti would not believe in evolution more then a person brought up in Oxford, England. Than yes, I agree because the degree of which someone believes in it would not be determined geographically.

If you meant : I contend that a person brought up in third world haiti would not believe in evolution faster then a person brought up in Oxford, England. I would also agree because the time it would take to educate a person from haiti to the level of someone in oxford would add time to the process.

If you meant : I contend that a person brought up in third world haiti is not more likely to believe in evolution then a person brought up in Oxford, England. I would have to admit I don't know enough about the local Haitian religion. But, if someone is born into an area with no established religion whatsoever, then they are more likely to believe in evolution than someone born into a predominately Christian Oxford. So I would have to disagree.

If you meant something different than one of those 3, please let me know!

3) Dawkins retort was directed to someone who asked him "What if you are wrong?" He was simply pointing out that she has just as vastly numerous ways to be wrong as he does, but he has one more. He did not say, "I am right because you were born into Christianity while others were born into other religions." He was trying to make her realize that she should also be asking herself if she is wrong about the other religions. He was basically saying, "I am sure I am right, in the same way you are sure you are right about Ju-Ju of the mountain." Which is a perfectly valid answer to her question, IMO. And not demonstrable of his inadequate philosophy skills. On the contrary, his philosophy skills are impressive IMO and you should try one of his books: the God Delusion being my favorite if you are looking for a recommendation. And in the future, maybe not judge a person's philosophy skills on a minute and a half video, but on a larger body of work.