Sackcloth And Ashes

[_Richard Dawkins]

Recently, I wrote a book called The God Delusion, in which I viciously and unfairly attacked Christianity and Christians, of whatever kind, in a manner completely inconsistent with both the mature, civil, and intellectually serious demeanor expected f an intelligent, educated man. My arguments there, unlike my reputation and standing in the academic world would suggest, were anti-intellectual, strained, ignorant of basic historical facts and complexities, and bigoted.

I say all this because, recently, two young men knocked on my door, just as I was finishing Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, and introduced themselves as missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Now, being a very militant and intolerant secularist, My first instinct was to turn loose my trained Galapagos guard Finches on these two right wing fascist pigs and watch the flesh stripped from their faces as they begged me for little deserved mercy.

But, being in a feisty mood that day, I let them in with the intention of debating them into the ground and sending them back to their mission President bruised and battered.

But something strange begin to happen as they spoke. I begin to feel, as they told me of the restoration of the original Gospel of Jesus Christ, a being, the very though of which, had at all times in the past sent me into lengthy fits of chortling condescension, a warm, good feeling that spread, in stages, throughout my consciousness and feelings until I was almost as a child, listening raptly as they spoke of The Book of Mormon, the Plan of Salvation, and how family can be forever. Whatever the ultimate truth about evolution is, and I'm still convinced that it is, in all its particulars, the correct view of how life arose on this planet biologically, the Lord revealed to me later that day, that what these two young men had taught me was true.

After several weeks of heavy drinking, severe bouts of bipolar manic depression, and a serious episode of OCD, I finally came to the realization that my entire worldview had changed. I knew it, I knew God knew it, and I could not deny it. Then one night, after I had roasted all my trained Finches over my Coleman and fed them to my pet Komodo Dragon Renfro, the Spirit of Carl Sagan appeared to me while reading the book of Moroni in my study, and told me that the LDS church was true, that there was a God, and that just saying "I'm sorry Sir, I was wrong" didn't quite hack it once one had left his body and gone into the spirit world. He said Stephan Gould tried that but ended up teaching basic biology to some of Genghis's Khan's infantrymen, who apparently needed this knowledge to progress to the next stage, which was teaching 20th century liberal biologists the first discussion.

I say all this because I see so many here who are like I was only weeks before: an egoistic, self satisfied, liberal intellectual snob who though he knew quite a bit but has come to understand how really little he does know.

I plead for humility here on this board, and ask all of those who have not taken Moroni's challenge to do so, and do so sincerely and with real intent, as the scriptures teach.

Because believe me, you don't want Carl Sagan appearing to you to make this stuff sink in. He has billions and billions of years in which to make his point, and he's not in any hurry. I haven't been able to get rid of him yet, and he isn't, you know, Mr. personality.

RD

[_marg]

After several weeks of heavy drinking,

Couldn't you make it a little less obvious Coggins?

[_Coggins7]

No, absolutely not. Richard is now my alter ego here (the full moon brings this on, there's really nothing I can do about it...). We already have someone here channeling Bednar and BKP, so I thought a little "fair and balanced" literary lycanthropy was in order.

I'll channel, you decide...

[_marg]

No, absolutely not. Richard is now my alter ego here (the full moon brings this on, there's really nothing I can do about it...). We already have someone here channeling Bednar and BKP, so I thought a little "fair and balanced" literary lycanthropy was in order.

I'll channel, you decide...

We are supposed to find it funny that Richard has now become an irrational thinker, like Mormonism expects of its followers? All you've done is presented Mormonism as an extremely irrational religion, which it is. So you got that part right. At least Bednar attempts to represent the real deal, hence that's what makes it humorous. You aren't even close to thinking like an atheist.

[_Richard Dawkins]

My dear marg, you've got this all wrong. The Gospel is unimpeachably rational, in the sense of being internally consistent with itself. The problem arises, as it arose for me all these years, when we believe that rationality is something more than a tool or structured form of thought through which we can better understand the phenomena of the world around us and analyze the evidential content of the arguments others present to us. This obtains when we come to believe that rational thought gives us powers of insight into things beyond the inherent limitations of its own methodological structure, or when we assume that the limits of perception imposed by rational intellection somehow define the limits of perception per se.

I've based my entire life on such claims, and now I see that I didn't know what on earth I was talking about. Really marg, I should have named my book, not The God Delusion, but The God Complex, and this would have then been an autobiography.

RD

[_Coggins7]

My dear marg, you've got this all wrong. The Gospel is unimpeachably rational, in the sense of being internally consistent with itself. The problem arises, as it arose for me all these years, when we believe that rationality is something more than a tool or structured form of thought through which we can better understand the phenomena of the world around us and analyze the evidential content of the arguments others present to us. This obtains when we come to believe that rational thought gives us powers of insight into things beyond the inherent limitations of its own methodological structure, or when we assume that the limits of perception imposed by rational intellection somehow define the limits of perception per se.

I've based my entire life on such claims, and now I see that I didn't know what on earth I was talking about. Really marg, I should have named my book, not The God Delusion, but The God Complex, and this would have then been an autobiography.

RD

I'm with you all the way Richard. I've spoken to marg on this subject before, as have others, but we have not made an impression. I hope with your background and stature in the academic world, you can make a difference here among those for whom rationality and logic are not a methodology but an oracle.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Cogs,

When you start talking to your sockpuppets, you know you have a problem. Where's Wade England? We need a pseudo mental health specialist stat!

[Guest]

Coggins, here's a little tip. When attempting to parody someone it's only funny if you exaggerate their real personality, or at least their perceived personality. For example, George W. Bush impersonators mispronounce words and talk with a Texas accent. Al Gore impersonators talk in a wooden tone. It's humorous because there's some truth to those characteristics. What is funny about Dawkins converting to Mormonism? there is nothing in his personality to suggest he ever would do this. This would be like a Bush impersonator strapping on a suicide bomb and joining Al Queada. It makes no sense, and therefore is not funny. Maybe have Dawkins find Kolob in his telescope. That would be ironic and funny.

[_marg]

My dear marg, you've got this all wrong. The Gospel is unimpeachably rational, in the sense of being internally consistent with itself. The problem arises, as it arose for me all these years, when we believe that rationality is something more than a tool or structured form of thought through which we can better understand the phenomena of the world around us and analyze the evidential content of the arguments others present to us. This obtains when we come to believe that rational thought gives us powers of insight into things beyond the inherent limitations of its own methodological structure, or when we assume that the limits of perception imposed by rational intellection somehow define the limits of perception per se.

I've based my entire life on such claims, and now I see that I didn't know what on earth I was talking about. Really marg, I should have named my book, not The God Delusion, but The God Complex, and this would have then been an autobiography.

RD

My dear Coggins, the perspective you are giving is that of Mormonism. Mormonism promotes the notion that one can know beyond limitations of the senses. As I said what you are doing is making fun of Mormonism.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins, here's a little tip. When attempting to parody someone it's only funny if you exaggerate their real personality, or at least their perceived personality. For example, George W. Bush impersonators mispronounce words and talk with a Texas accent. Al Gore impersonators talk in a wooden tone. It's humorous because there's some truth to those characteristics. What is funny about Dawkins converting to Mormonism? there is nothing in his personality to suggest he ever would do this. This would be like a Bush impersonator strapping on a suicide bomb and joining Al Queada. It makes no sense, and therefore is not funny. Maybe have Dawkins find Kolob in his telescope. That would be ironic and funny.

Isn't Jackass on MTV right about now?