1. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200173 by John Desclin on June 27, 2008 at 2:48 am

Philip1978,
did you deliberately make up the spoonerism in your post? I think it is very appropriate for this thread!
LOL ;^)

2. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191830 by John Desclin on June 12, 2008 at 12:31 am

What's the point of such discussion? Quite obviously (at least to me), this is a very clear case of severe delusion. As the german writer and poet Friedrich Schiller already very aptly said long ago:
"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain" (The Maid of Orleans)
and all this goes much further than mere stupidity. Might it be due, at least in part, to too much poring over the torah?
What would Dr Benway think of it?

3. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191010 by John Desclin on June 10, 2008 at 5:22 am

Although Barry Pearson already mentioned part of what he found on Wikipedia, I also looked up what I could find there on this Yomin Potelnik person. I read that he lives now in Florida, that he has a "rabbinic degree" from the Rabbinic College of Canada. WTF is the meaning -let alone the value - of such a "degree", what does it qualify its holder for? (except to rant his torah delusions "childishly" acquired through too much studying it) while being completely ignorant of the rules of logic?
Such retarded buffoon certainly doesn't deserve the interest people on this site seem to grant him.
Just my two cents...

4. Altruism in social insects is a family affair

Comment #186320 by John Desclin on May 30, 2008 at 6:33 am

"...showing that they do so to increase to increase the chances that their genes will be passed on." to me, seems to imply that individual insects knowingly have an agenda for their genes. (I am always very wary of teleological explanations which are a characteristic of religious people).
Sorry if this may look as nit-picking at words, but wouldn't it be better to say : "showing that, by doing so, they increase the chances that their genes will be passed on."? (possibly my bad habit of translating from french in english ;-) )

5. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174315 by John Desclin on May 2, 2008 at 5:44 am

Yes, religions (all!) hamper progress, of psychiatry, among other common everyday examples, because they all claim the afterlife, which per se implies the separate existence of the "soul" which would be independent of the physical body.

6. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #174305 by John Desclin on May 2, 2008 at 4:51 am

to 248 my previous post:
I should have said: "too lazy to think by and for themselves" :) That's the result of my poor english. Sorry!

7. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #174285 by John Desclin on May 2, 2008 at 2:11 am

to 246 #174115 by sane 1
The dichotomy is between what we know today - acquired through science - and what we believe. This distinction is, IMHO, most important and far from silly. Moreover, "Reasons" and "causes" should not be confused with each other (which I think you do).
Some people feel strongly the need to answer "WHY" questions, they need to believe in a lot of things scientists don't bother about. Religions and religionists take advantage of that. Other people don't feel that need so strongly and prefer to say "I don't know", and they find, on their own, their answers to whatever their own personal "WHY" questions may be.
Anyway, your beliefs are your own, your are entitled to them but religion should not force its beliefs upon you by pretending it is the "truth". These are ready-made beliefs for those who are too lazy to think for themselves :^)
Cheers!

8. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #173690 by John Desclin on May 1, 2008 at 6:00 am

to 236 (# 172446) by sane 1

you said "...we are here to live and procreate and die".
If you had said "we are here, we live, we procreate and we die", I would agree with you, because that's a statement of fact, and one could say that's in the realm of science. But you said "we are here to live.., etc., which is quite different: it's the answer - teological - you give to the WHY question of "why are we here?", which supposes purpose, a goal, or intentionality (possibly emanating from a "higher agency"). That's your belief, and of course you are welcome to it, but that's not an answer which can be validated by scientific means. Do you actually think that's silly?

9. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #172728 by John Desclin on April 30, 2008 at 2:20 am

to 234 above # 172434
phil rimmer said "The how/why divide between science and religion is totally false".
Let me disagree, please. I probably was'nt clear enough. I just said that science only asks HOW questions, WHY questions make no sense in science.
(and BTW, the point here was about science, wasn't it?)
You further said: "Many categories of human endeavor other than religion offer Why answers".

I fully agree, but these categories of endeavor are not science: they offer answers about values, which science definitely does not because it can't and shouln't pretend it is able to do (whereas our monotheistic religions claim they have all answers to all questions.)

10. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172103 by John Desclin on April 29, 2008 at 8:36 am

Children are taught religion while they are not yet able to defend themselves against it. This almost permanently damages their skills at critical thinking and favors their unquestioning respect for the argument of authority. It is very difficult to completely get rid of this conditioning when they become adults. What always has amazed me is the fact that they are much more able to loose their faith in Santa...

11. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #172071 by John Desclin on April 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

I think one of my previous post got lost in cyberspace... On this lost post, I reminded that science endeavors answering HOW questions, whereas belief in god(s) is a WHY question. Both type of questions are said to be "BIG" questions by the Templeton Foundation members, but they should not be mixed. Beliefs may be answered by asking WHY questions, but they are a personal matter and should stay personal. These personal "answers" are not arrived at through science, nor should science be mixed up with them. The Templeton Foundation phrasing of the question also leads to confusing deism à la Voltaire, which does not entail moral consequences nor any religious consequences, with theism (a personal god that was created by man in his human image), which leads to religions and arbitrary rules of morals. Putting the question in such way is the sure means to muddy the issue. Answers given in the PDF files accompanying the post on the Templeton website are testimony to that.

12. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #172015 by John Desclin on April 29, 2008 at 6:22 am

BTW, could somebody more familiar with modern physics (than I am, me a poor biologist) tell me what this (theologian) Keith Ward refers to when he mentions "non-physical entities" that are not ruled out by modern physics? Never heard a physicist talk of them :-(

13. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170766 by John Desclin on April 28, 2008 at 1:27 am

to 65 - comment #170132 by Steve Zara

Steve, if by "obsolete" you mean "not necessary", then I fully agree. I should also add that, at least IMHO, it never was necessary because the fuzzy concept of god never was neither a satisfactory explanation of/for (?) anything, nor was it necessarily credible (compelling). As somebody else already said before in this thread, in this sense the belief in god(s) has been "obsolete" at the onset, so to speak.
Of course, that's how I see things nowadays, not as the Neanderthals possibly saw them in their own time ;^)
(I am sorry for both my wanting philosophical education and my poor mastering of the english language, but I am afraid that at my respectable age, I won't be able to improve much either one)...

14. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170118 by John Desclin on April 27, 2008 at 12:04 pm

To 2 #170012 By Steve Zara,
Sorry Steve, Probably my poor knowledge of english does not enable me to reconcile your meaning of the word obsolete and mine. To me, a belief can be obsolete for some people, although other people go on clinging to it, science has not much to do with that (except for atheist scientists - and I am one).I should have said what infidel_michael very nicely said in comment 28 (#170069), with which I fully agree. I also think that the question has been intentionally poorly phrased by the Templeton Institute, obviously in order to confuse the issue

15. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170010 by John Desclin on April 27, 2008 at 9:03 am

As it is worded, this question makes no sense to me. I shall first take the time to read the answers of those who feel there is some sense to it.
Why should a belief based on no evidence at all be obsolete or not?

16. Investigating Atheism

Comment #169518 by John Desclin on April 26, 2008 at 8:22 am

to 102 comment #168343

Epeeist, I would appreciate if you could tell me what part of Rabelais's work all those words you cited come from (I have the book in its original french version). My language is French, and I would like to be able to "back-translate" them in order to enjoy this fully (I am not sure I understand those words in English :( )
Thank you in anticipation

17. Investigating Atheism

Comment #169393 by John Desclin on April 26, 2008 at 1:00 am

To Comment 8 # 166828 by MrPickwick: You are absolutely right. Everybody can download, from the library of the Gutenberg Project the text of the Abbé Meslier's will translated in english by Anna Knoop. I think this is a very enlightening reading which I would recommend to all on the present website
see:http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17607

18. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167534 by John Desclin on April 24, 2008 at 6:36 am

MeIM said it very well before, and I fully agree with him, and I am wary of these people. What's a "Faculty of Divinity", how does "religious cognition" make any sense?

19. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166336 by John Desclin on April 23, 2008 at 6:48 am

"Science itself is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and logical and not absurd"

That's nonsense! The universe is neither logical nor absurd, it simply is!
Scientists try to describe it and to understand it. They are those who decide what is rational and logical, because they are.

20. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166330 by John Desclin on April 23, 2008 at 6:36 am

To 80 above (comment # 166300) by Steve Zara:
I share your feelings. So the med teacher and biologist I was before retiring probably also has become way off-base as well? ;^)

21. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165066 by John Desclin on April 21, 2008 at 2:36 am

Although Richard Dawkins has already answered (in 138, # 164996 above)the question from RedPen (102, #164933) I would like to add the following, which seems important IMHO:
Artificial selection is of course a process which nature allows, but is done by humans with a purpose (which may sometimes be questionable), whereas spontaneous natural selection has no purpose.

22. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160329 by John Desclin on April 14, 2008 at 12:49 am

This was a rather both ludicrous and sorry piece of drivel. Does it deserve such publicity and concern from all reasonable people here?
I would think it just should be forgotten.

23. The books that inspire me

Comment #157482 by John Desclin on April 9, 2008 at 6:50 am

And, if my memory serves me well, I think that the essay on Darwin's illness was by 1960 Nobel prize holder Peter Medawar

24. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #157371 by John Desclin on April 9, 2008 at 2:13 am

to #19 (156944) by Americangodless

these sentences of yours are among the most to the point I have ever read on this thread and on this subject elsewhere (anywhere)! I think it deserves a large publicity. Congratulations for such clarity!

25. The atheist delusion

Comment #144209 by John Desclin on March 15, 2008 at 10:35 am

To Mixmastergaz's comment 21 #144085
Obviously, Onfrays is an admirer of Freud (he says so in his book which I have read in french, since it is my language), and Freud is the perfect example of a new prophet who didn't care about scientific truth!

26. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142675 by John Desclin on March 13, 2008 at 2:15 am

to comment 21 by Natheist (#142599):
You certainly are not the only one: I would never have thought of taking money from them (although I was a poorly funded scientist)!
In matters of science, there can be no compromise!

27. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122402 by John Desclin on February 5, 2008 at 8:31 am

To Michael (comment 210 #121947)
you said "medics are not taught the really deep issues of biology..."; how true!
I am a retired MD and a retired teacher of histology (Faculty of Medicine of the Free University of Brussels, Belgium). When I was a first year med student, we had classes of zoology (a smattering of it), which I believe were especially intended to familiarize the prospective physicians with the theory of evolution. That's quite a time ago (1952!) and I fear that nowadays, in order to trim the courses which were now felt as a burden (they had become too bulky for today's standards), this has been given up.
As both a researcher and teacher myself for the entirety of my student years and academical career (first endocrinology and physiology of reproduction, then neuroanatomy), I could appreciate the importance for a physician of what should be called comparative biology and physiology, and the importance of realizing how tightly they are related to and explained by evolution: to bear this in mind is an invaluable help for an M.D., at least IMHO (its importance of and for embryology is paramount, among many other possible examples).
Unfortunately, I am afraid I have to confirm what has already said earlier on this forum: most med. teachers don't any more emphasize the importance of critical thinking: they usually don't bother (they don't take the time) to tell our students how our present knowledge was arrived at: they have realized that most students are not interested in the ways of science, what they are interested in are its conclusions: what the teacher teaches is dogma which they don't ever think they should question. When I was teaching, this always infuriated me, because I feel that's the best way to teach unthinking parrots.
(Once again, sorry for the awkward english!)

28. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120659 by John Desclin on February 2, 2008 at 8:46 am

To comment 67 (#120503) by nogodsever: Neither would I!
To comment 75 (#120530) by righton: I would like to elaborate on this, by saying that in order to be a good and competent MD, you also need to be at least somewhat of a biologist.
I was flabbergasted at the ignorance of this Simmons person, and I wondered what medical school delivered him his MD?
As an MD myself and a teacher, I never would have let pass such a student!

29. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96995 by John Desclin on December 11, 2007 at 8:26 am

Atticus_of_Amber!
Well said! I concur

30. Mind Over Manual

Comment #83507 by John Desclin on October 30, 2007 at 9:13 am

Hi, oxytocin!
I would like to recommend reading from
http://www.FuturePsychiatry.com : although there are some errors (I think), I believe this would enforce your opinions. The book is rather unusual from a psychiatrist.
Best regards

31. Searching for God in the Brain

Comment #79400 by John Desclin on October 17, 2007 at 7:12 am

What amazes me is that none of the journalists who enthusiastically report these observations seem able to realize that the experiments on nuns and monks could as well (and, in my opinion much better!) be interpreted as evidence against the "existence of god", by showing that a simple manipulation of some areas of the brain (either
experimentally or as a consequence of trauma, or of lesions due to disease, mere anoxia or dreaming while awake) may result in delusions and hallucinations which don't owe anything to any god. These are thus products of the brain, they are not evidence of the existence of god. The same reasoning also obviously applies to so-called "after death experiences" and to the more recent "out of the body experiences" induced by virtual reality tricks.
This once again demonstrates how aptly the title of Richard Dawkins' book was coined: the God Delusion !

32. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77392 by John Desclin on October 9, 2007 at 7:41 am

The author, I didn't read all books of Richard Dawkins. Nonetheless, in those that I read, I couldn't find that he said "everything in evolution has a purpose". To me, that sentence sounds like pure teleology.
Would you mind explaining what you were driving at?

33. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77020 by John Desclin on October 8, 2007 at 7:47 am

I now realize that I had not typed the link correctly.It should be:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/opiniao/llinas_i.html#daniel

sorry!

34. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77013 by John Desclin on October 8, 2007 at 7:11 am

Thanks, bluebird, I forgot to put a dot between the i and the last h in the address.
the link to english text should read:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/opiniao/llinas_ihtml#daniel

35. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77002 by John Desclin on October 8, 2007 at 6:17 am

I just tried to post a comment which was rejected as spam, but I am not familiar enough with the present site, so I do not understand the reason of the rejection. I suspect it might have been due to the fact that the address I referred to in my text was in the form of a link. I thus try again, and I give the address in "normal" format, so I would not be suspected of spamming! I apologise for unwittingly causing trouble.
In the rejected post, I mentioned the interesting opinion about the book "Consciousness Explained" by Dan Dennett., which was expressed in an interview of reknown neurophysiologist Rodolfo Llinas. Dr Llinas whom I admire is the author of a beautiful book entitled "I of the Vortex. From Neurons to self" (MIT Press) which I find
highly enlightening and not enough advertised. It is also the book of an empiricist and monist (atheist).
The link which I mentioned is: http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/opiniao/llinas_ihtml#daniel
I don't see any reason why the post in its present form should be rejected. Should it be rejected however, I would greatly appreciate if someone could explain things to me, poor ignoramus that I am! ;^)

36. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76994 by John Desclin on October 8, 2007 at 5:10 am

An interesting opinion about "Consciousness explained" can be found on
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/opiniao/llinas_i.html Prof. LLinas is a prominent neuroscientist whom I admire very much. He is the author of "I of the Vortex. From neurons to self " MIT Press 2001-2002. This book deserves reading.

37. Mind Over Manual

Comment #76768 by John Desclin on October 7, 2007 at 7:11 am

Still another thought of mine elicited by 33. Comment # 70514 by Dr Benway on september 15,2007.
Dr Benway, you said: "When patients translate their subjective feelings into words, those words become objective phenomena others can observe and study".
Perhaps that may be so - arguably - when listening to healthy individuals: you may assume that they use the same language as you do (words have the same meanings for them and for you). Moreover, you may assume that their neuronal circuitry probably is rather comparable to yours as far as its lay out and its functioning are concerned. So, when listening to mentally healthy people, you are usually able to "put yourself in their place" to decide whether what you then think "in their place" makes some sense for you. Moreover, if it does not, you can further ask the person who is talking to you to elaborate - i.e. to paraphrase - and to explain with other words what was the meaning of his/her sentences. That's one of the ways we all communicate with each other.
However, even in such quite common and "normal" circumstances, you don't know anything about the chains of neural mechanisms responsible for the words you eventually hear. These are indeed phenomena you may observe, and you may also describe them, but I would not call such description an actual study. This so-called study doesn't tell you anything about the chain of neuronal events that led to the phenomena you eventually witnessed. You may decide you "understand" these words and the "feelings" which are expressed by your patients if (because) you can compare them with your own words and your own "inner feelings", i.e. your own (previous) experience. But let me ask you: can you be absolutely sure of your "understanding"? Can you be sure that the feelings (yours and those of your patient) are comparable indeed and were arrived at through the same neuronal ways?
What now when the patient is a mentally ill psychotic person? Do you still claim to be able to understand the feelings and the words of such patient, without knowing where in the first place the chain of neuronal circuits in his/her brain became faulty, without having at your disposal reliable methods to find that out?
That's the reason why I usually tend to agree with people who think that most of psychiatry is at best poor or even bad science: it is still too much, too often and too readily based on unsupported speculation.
I am convinced that psychiatrists engaged in scientific research are way too few, which does'nt help.
Jean (John) Desclin (Brussels).

38. Mind Over Manual

Comment #76247 by John Desclin on October 5, 2007 at 8:10 am

Another comment of mine about the exchange between oxytocin (38, #70642, september 16, 2007) and robotaholic)
It seems to me that you both have a point. From what I gather from my readings of the english spoken (written) literature, I have to acknowledge that many psychologists and psychiatrists try to honestly apply scientific methods. The trouble is that, quite frequently, these methods are applied on data which were not reliably collected, or even worse on data which should not be considered as data but, indeed, as unproved opinions, as mere assumptions which were in fact never reliably tested but are widely accepted as common knowledge.
Psychiatrists are people as are all of us; many of them were religiously educated and still believe in the cartesian distinction between mind and brain. This represents quite a handicap when you have to take a scientific stance in psychiatry. In french-speaking countries (as well as in most of Europe), the "philosophical" approach to psychiatry and psychiatric therapy is prominent. Although a large part of this situation obviously stems from deeply ingrained freudian theories still lingering, I am afraid it also results from some revival of irrationality and superstition (along with relativism).
I am a retired histologist, neuro-histologist and neuroanatomist researcher (empiricist and atheist) and, as the father of a son ill with schizophrenia since 18 years now, I can tell you that I know firsthand that most of psychiatry, at least in our country, is very poor "science" indeed, if it is science at all, mainly because most psychiatrists in our french speaking countries don't know much about neurosciences, and what they know, most of them actually don't understand it. Perhaps I should acknowledge that neurosciences are poorly taught in our universities and don't attract too many students because these studies last too many years...
End of the rant; once more sorry for the awkward english.
Jean (John) Desclin

39. Mind Over Manual

Comment #74334 by John Desclin on September 28, 2007 at 7:14 am

As a reaction to comment #70052 by robotaholic on September 13, 2007 at 11:38 pm
The brain cannot be treated as the other organs because it is too heterogeneous: it should be viewed as a single organism made of quite a lot smaller organs mutually interacting in very precise and intricate ways. Whereas all other organs are made of cells which are interchangeable (most of them), one may think of neurons in the CNS that each one is unique as a consequence of its location and of its connections with other neurons. You cannot treat "invasively" what you call "malformed areas of the brain", because these do not exist as such. Connections between neurons distant from each other are misdirected, which you cannot correct; surgery as is presently available would only create havoc. What you call "chemical imbalance" are very small focal areas where the
postsynaptic cell machinery is disturbed, which you cannot specifically correct either, because it is intracellular and more or less regrouped in too localized clusters of cerebral tissue. Moreover, most of the SNC map of these microscopical "malformed" brain areas is still unknown. Talking of "invasive surgery" makes me think of repairing a defective television set with a shovel.
(Sorry for my poor english: french is my mother language)
Jean (John) Desclin, MD PhD (Brussels)

40. Scientist Build a 'Brain' From Rat Cells

Comment #53748 by John Desclin on July 3, 2007 at 2:38 am

In order to know whether this is serious research rather than some hoax, I would like to know where this was published (no reference given of a peer reviewed scientific journal...)

41. Scientist Build a 'Brain' From Rat Cells

Comment #53746 by John Desclin on July 3, 2007 at 2:35 am

Before taking this seriously, rather than as a hoax, I just wonder why there was no reference of where this "research" was published (peer reviewed scientific journal)?

42. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?

Comment #30470 by John Desclin on April 8, 2007 at 6:25 am

What's the meaning of a "leading" eye? Both retinas have a right and a left half:both left halves project to targets present in the left brain, whereas the right halves project to targets present in the opposite half of the brain. It seems obvious to me that if you use your left hand to point to something, you would use your left eye for the "line of sight". This is not a question of "leading eye", so it seems "in my eyes"...