The Not Ready-Dawkins Symposium

[David Sklansky]

The following is just a figment of my imagination. Not a true story. But it just might happen someday.

Rutgers University decides to conduct a symposium entitled Does God Exist. All their students are invited. The speakers/debaters are, on the atheistic side, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and because of his twoplustwo fame, Phil 153. The theists are the Catholic cardinal for the northeast, a prominent rabbi from Brandeis University and Not Ready. When the three hour symposium ends, the theists get a standing ovation. Only polite applause for the atheists.

Afterwards Not Ready and a friend sit down at a booth in a nearby restaurant to enjoy a post debate dinner. In the booth behind them is Rabbi Nathan who participated in the debate and his friend Izzy. They are deep in conversation so they don't notice that Not Ready is sitting behind them with his back to them. But Not Ready can hear everything they say. The conversation goes something like this:

Nathan: Izzy do you believe how well that went? And we owe it all to Not Ready. Those ideas about how chance is not ultimate. How morals can not be something for man to decide for himself. How life without God is clearly meaningless and basically a big joke. The ridiculousness of something popping out of nothing. He hit a complete home run with those things. Really connected with the people. And certainly changed a few minds. God is very happy tonight. And Not Ready should be proud he had something to do with that.

Izzy: But Nathan, you had some good ideas yourself.

Nathan: Yes, but neither I, nor the cardinal had anywhere near the impact of Not Ready. Clearly this is a man who has thought deeply about God and understands him well.

Izzy: You do realize Nathan that he is a Christian, a fundamentalist Protestant?

Nathan: Yes, of course. So what. We Jews understand that he is a little bit confused about the exact nature of the Hebrew prophet Jesus. So are a lot of people. But it is no big deal. Not Ready's place in heaven is assured. If it wasn't before today, it is now. When we meet him there we will have all the time in the world to talk about this glorious day.

Izzy: So you are not bothered by all those beliefs we don't share with him?

Nathan. Not really. Although his beliefs mean I must pray for him every day. Especially now.

Izzy: So you do admit that he has blasphemous beliefs and that you must pray to try to rid him of them?

Nathan: No not at all. His technical errors are of no consequence. I already said that his place in heaven is assured. I only pray for him because I know he is tormented. And I pray that this torment goes away.

Izzy: Tormented by what?

Nathan: Tormented by the thought that WE aren't going to heaven. Sure he will find out one day that he was wrong. But until then I know it will eat at him. And it bothers me that this man of God should suffer needlessly while he is alive. So I pray for him.

At this point they get up and start to leave. And notice Not Ready. Not Ready begins to speak to them. But at now my imagination becomes cloudy. What do you think he will say?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think he will say?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you so much for including me in your prayers.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think he will say?

[/ QUOTE ]

"I did have some great ideas, huh? Too bad you don't think they're good enough to change your ideas about God -- otherwise you might have a chance to not burn in Hell forever. Have a nice day."

[Subfallen]

Is <font color="red">David Sklansky</font> a gimmick account created to help NotReady sleep at night? It's just weird, because every <font color="red">DS</font> post inexplicably assumes that NotReady is a beatific, wise soul who just happens to be burdened with a few incidental bigotries.

WHERE HAS THIS ASSUMPTION EVER BEEN JUSTIFIED?

NR is a Calvinist. As in, John Calvin. You know, the guy who burned people over a slow fire because they disagreed with his theology? The guy who wrote The Institutes of Christian Religion, a grotesque arrogation of apostolic authority that qualifies for "Most Egomaniacal Treatise of All Time?" The guy who started a sect featuring modern marvels like RC Sproul who CONDEMN ecumenical efforts between Catholics and Protestants?

How on earth would an allegedly compassionate soul buy into the Calvinist dogma with such complete fervor? Why would an allegedly wise thinker conclude people as gifted as Dawkins are "vocal apes?" Or that Nietzsche can be adequately treated by saying, "Everything is relative?"

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
How on earth would an allegedly compassionate soul buy into the Calvinist dogma with such complete fervor?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think NR is sold on Calvinism because he sees it as being so "logical". He goes where he thinks the logic takes him. If the result assaults his sense of compassion, he adapts his sense of compassion to accomodate the so called logic. Thus DS and NR are kindred spirits, both overestimating their ability to determine what is and is not rational. And both subject to the lunacies of their "logic" leading them by the nose.

PairTheBoard

[Zeno]

The scenario is not farfetched at all and the imagined conversation, although subjective, is realistic enough and reveling. I found this imagined statement a real stinger (as I have heard myself in real life similar statements from Christians and others):


[ QUOTE ]
.... God is very happy tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sums up very nicely not only a plethora of conceptual errors but also thousands of years of tradition and mythology – And, as I have stated, and many others in perhaps different ways and/or terms; Mythology Trumps All.

As an aside, I attend a debate long ago between a Dr. Brown (I think IIRC) and some Geology professor about origins and intelligent design, evolution, etc. As far as the audience was concerned Dr. Brown won. In fact it was a forgone conclusion that he would win as far as the audience was concerned as they where about as partisan as a convention put on by Mayor Daly. A Kiwi (a New Zealander) grad student also attended with us and he could not believe that this debate was still going on in America in any serious manner. His reaction was rather quizzical. The rules of the debate sort of collapsed at the end and the questions and discussion at the end of the talk where most reveling and of great interest. They started discussing how Noah got so many animals into the ark and if dinosaurs were involved, etc. Most amusing - I don’t think Gilgamesh had this problem however.

-Zeno

[carlo]

Don't know what NotReady would say but I do find your post impressive.

[bills217]

Here is what I don't understand about David.

He always goes out of his way to be sympathetic to the Jews, and it seems to me like it is because he sees their views as more compassionate regarding eternity.

And yet, all his arguments against Christianity/religion in general are along the lines of, "I consider that a big underdog to have actually occurred."

So who cares whose views are more compassionate? (Your perception of what is compassionate is quite subjective anyway.)

Personally, I am only concerned with what is true.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready begins to speak to them. But at now my imagination becomes cloudy. What do you think he will say?

[/ QUOTE ]

"What are your objections to Jesus as the Messiah?"

[tolbiny]

Sounds like Notready's freerollin the hell out of the Rabbi.