Dr John Harrison on ABC Radio Queensland

[davo]

Get ready to wince.

http://t.co/3SDqwEI (http://bit.ly/liBMgN)

or simply play the relevant section here (http://hw.libsyn.com/p/f/1/a/f1acab38a89ffa26/Hiddenpersuaders_atheistcon.mp3):

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/f/1/a/f1acab38a89ffa26/Hiddenpersuaders_atheistcon.mp3

My response to the 612 ABC QLD facebook page article on this show was :

I heard this on the radio and came here as I found it to be quite upsetting and biased toward a large proportion of our community and presented with very incorrect information as though it was fact. I tried to post this on your website comment area for the show, but it came back with an error on submit.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods, nothing more. The same way you probably don't believe in Vishnu, Thor or Xenu is how I don't believe in your god. I just believe in one less god than you, as I have not found a convincing reason to believe. I can't 'make' myself believe in a god, anymore than you can make yourself believe in leprechauns.

Agnosticism is not the middle ground between atheism and theism in concerns knowledge, not belief. It is the opposite of gnosticism, which is strong concept that one can know about a god or not existing. So you have agnostic atheists (don't believe in a god, and think you cannot know if their is a god or not) and gnostic atheists (don't believe in a god, and think you can know there is not one). There are agnostic theists (believe in a god, but do not think you can know that god .. many people fit in this area that are not fundamentalist) and gnostic theists, that believe in a god, and think you can know that god does exist, often personally.

To say agnosticism is a intellectually superior option shows a profound lack of knowledge over the topic at all. Agnostic/gnostic is a different sphere of logic than atheism/theism. Either you believe in a god or you don't. I may be gnostic atheist toward the christian or islamic god based on their claimed properties, but agnostic atheist with regard a deistic god.

To further say these four have been 'discredited' is a flat out lie against the philosophical arguments they have presented that are the combined basis of thousands of years of thought not just their own take on arguments, and to then say 'the view amongst intelligent people is they are blowhards' is simply a snide attack with no basis in reality. Very dissapointed someone can say this as a sideswipe attack 1 in 5 Australians based on their lack of faith, An astoundingly arrogant comment.

Then to drop the science argument as an appeal to authority, as if having a prediliction to belief in a god somehow validates the god argument is ridiculous, it is Ad Verecundiam an error of reasoning called a logical fallacy. To think that this in someway validates the god hypothesis is completely without basis, persuasive maybe to those that believe, but is like saying 'humans have a predeliction to fairy stories, therefore fairies exist'.

[Logic]

Noice! Watch the fundies scramble out of the woodwork to argue with you.....

....actually, that was a pretty smart comment, they might just go...huh? ;)

[gruber]

Atheisim is a outdated 20th century idea..... I didnt know atheists were invented in the 20th century....... the wanker

[gruber]

Can you please make sure that this Dr John Harrison actually knows the meaning of the word atheist - which is extremely simple, a disbelief in god/s, nothing more or less. Also can his source of Atheists being invented in the 20th centory that would be great. If no such infomation exists you should probably inform him to keep his mouth shut on topics he knows nothing about before he makes himself seem like a bigger idiot


I wonder if ill get a response

[Xeno]

Shit a brick. Bad definitions of the key terms; plenty of assertions without offering support ("discredited", "cult" etc); gigantic non sequitur (predisposition to believe crap instantiates a specific god). I gave up around the half way point.

[djarm67]

Comments have started to trickle through. Mine made it. :eek:

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/05/the-hidden-persuaders-170511.html

[riddlemethis]

Is the intellectual bar for a PhD really this fucking low? What a dick.

[gord]

My comment on the site :


Harrisons comments on Atheism are completely inaccurate. He must be totally blind to not see the large groundswell of public opinion towards Atheism over the last decade.

Mild mannered non-religious people from all walks of life have finally had enough of priest pedophiles, creationist nonsense in schools and chaplains being funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by the taxpayer to illegally proselytize in state schools - they have finally decided to stand up, say they are Atheists without apology, and put an end to the madness.

Keep your head in the sand mate - while the rest of the population gathers into a political movement which will guarantee separation of church and state in Australia.

The 'new creationists' are the ones being laughed at - just take a look at the audience response to the Family Fist member on the recent QnA show. Thinking the earth is less than 10,000 years old is truly an April first joke.

[AUSloth]

I can see where the Oxford study confirming humanities "predispostion to believe crap" (nicely put Xeno) is entirely accurate. It is after all the mechanism that allows twats like Harrison to spruik his illogical horseshit and out right lies on a public forum to the nods of the daft and has allowed theism to dominate humanity for so long. Fortunately that hold is being shaken by the supposedly "discredited" public intellectuals such as Hitchens.

[RealityRules]

Who is John Harrison and why is he so simplistic?

[ponde]

One thing that gets me with Doctor’s of Science. (Not doctors of theology)
To get a doctorate you need to write a paper called a thesis.
The topic is decided upon by consultation with your professor and yourself.
It usually involves an originally piece of research.
Now if believer was to be placed in this situation in all good conscience must answer "God did it" to spend years in research proving that "God did not do it" would prove that the doctorate was given under false pretences
and that it would not be worth the paper it is written on. Or he wrote a thesis and did not believe in what he was proving and as such received his doctorate under false pretences and should in all conscience be handed back.
I just wonder which category Dr John Harrison falls under.

[Logic please]

Shit a brick. Bad definitions of the key terms; plenty of assertions without offering support ("discredited", "cult" etc); gigantic non sequitur (predisposition to believe crap instantiates a specific god). I gave up around the half way point.
Yep, a conga-line of logical fallacies (especially strawmanning) on both sides. Particularly from Harrison, who stands on his academic credentials, while barely asserting (to the effect)... "It's arrogant because they [atheists] state "There is no god". "Agnosticism is a much more intellectually honest position"... FFS. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that academic background in marketing and media, indeed qualifies him to opine on all sorts of things. Or perhaps a basis for his opinions, can be found in his extra-curricular writing interests, which he *didn't* share with the audience, IIRC - LINK (http://ceit.uq.edu.au/users/uqjharr4):

Books:
1986. Harrison, J. Baptism of Fire. Uniting Church Press: Melbourne.
Articles and Book Chapters:
2004. Harrison, J. "Splits and quits: a news frame analysis of the 2003 gay clergy in the Uniting Church debate". Uniting Church Studies 10(2) 66-75
2003. Harrison, J. & Harrison D.J. "Heritors of Calvin, Knox, Cromwell and Wesley." In William Emilsen (ed) The Uniting Church in Australia 1977-2002. Melbourne Publishing Group: Melbourne.
1988. Harrison, J. "The religious media in Australia." Australian Journalism Review, 10, pp. 52-57.
Given the subject matter of the interview, an interest that should have been clearly disclosed, no? The kicker is that, from the link, this bloke has also written books and articles on marketing and media ethics...!!! I wonder which sections of his writings cover "non-disclosure of material bias and interests"??? :eek:

I can see where the Oxford study confirming humanities "predispostion to believe crap" (nicely put Xeno) is entirely accurate. It is after all the mechanism that allows twats like Harrison to spruik his illogical horseshit and out right lies on a public forum to the nods of the daft and has allowed theism to dominate humanity for so long. Fortunately that hold is being shaken by the supposedly "discredited" public intellectuals such as Hitchens.
Oh yeah, the Oxford study, eagerly cited as an authorative empirical refutation of atheism, Dawkins, Hitchens and the whole shebang. ;) Another thing that Dr Harrison *neglected* to disclose - LINK (http://www.cam.ox.ac.uk/research/cognition-religion-and-theology/):

...a new £1.9 million project on the natural foundations of religion. The Cognition, Religion, and Theology project is funded by the John Templeton Foundation and aims to develop the cognitive science of religion field - a rapidly developing area of interdisciplinary research - by providing training, web resources, and research funding for scholars wanting to become involved in cognitive science of religion research. The project seeks to support scientific projects that promise to yield new evidence regarding how the structures of human minds inform and constrain religious expression including ideas about gods and spirits, the afterlife, spirit possession, prayer, ritual, religious expertise, and connections between religious thought and morality and pro-social behavior. (my emphasis)
...the same people who brought the world the failed "Great Prayer Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer)". Well, they're persistent, I'll give 'em that. :rolleyes: And it gets better, if working backwards from pre-determined conclusions is your thing - LINK (http://www.cam.ox.ac.uk/research/cognition-religion-and-theology/project-summary/):

But do such explanations for religion mean we that shouldn’t be religious (as the New Atheists have suggested)? That we should? Twelve philosophers from across the world over three years weighed in on these sorts of questions, both working separately, and coming together in Oxford for intensive conferences, and other discussions. They agreed that new empirical research is demonstrating that impulses to religion are part of the most basic ways the human mind works. Religion has always been a basic feature of human life and is always likely to be. Atheism is as sophisticated a response to this fact as any theology. Which is right cannot be settled by empirical discovery, but religion cannot be dismissed as the private preoccupation of a few. Religious responses to the world, right or wrong, are part of what it is to be human. (my emphasis)
See where this is going? NOMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria), with a good dash of "atheism is just a faith/belief like any other religion, no better, worse or more/less valid..." thrown in. :rolleyes:

Additional Information
In 2007, the John Templeton Foundation made an award of £1.87 million to the University of Oxford for the Cognition, Religion, & Theology Project (CRT Project). The principal aims of the CRT Project were to: (1) shore up the empirical foundations of cognitive science of religion area through data collection and training new researchers in the scientific study of religion; and (2) increase the philosophical rigour of the cognitive science of religion by increasing the number of philosophers and theologians engaged with the potential implications of the area, and to better refine the scientific questions needing answers. Both missions were accomplished with goals exceeded. (my emphasis)
Oh, really? Missions accomplished, goals exceeded? Whose, I wonder? :rolleyes: