1. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51485 by edge100 on June 23, 2007 at 5:30 am

Wow, what garbage.

My favourite bit of all:

I also have begun to understand why The God Delusion caused such ire. Logically religion is, of course, nonsense. Attacking it with logic, especially if you are as bright as Dawkins, causes its arguments to disintegrate so quickly that it can seem like bullying, like breaking a butterfly on a wheel. Except that this isn't a butterfly – it's a vast and powerful superstructure. You have to keep on reminding yourself of this when you read the book, because, within its confines, Dawkins seems (and is, intellectually) the high status one.

Bringing back the "butterfly on a wheel" phrase is horrid enough, but the rest of this is utter crap.

Attacking religion with logic causes it to disintegrate, but not really because religion is a "vast and powerful superstructure"? If your buildings collapsed as easily as religion, we'd all be in for it. But then again, buildings do tend to collapse (and take 3000 lives with them) when religion gets involved...

Also, it seems he hasn't finished the book. I usually enjoy actually reading the book before providing a criticism, but that's just me.

We look at it long past the point where we are straightforwardly governed by our selfish genes, and what drives us are not the basic positives any more but the basic negatives: anxiety, fear, incomprehension, the desperate need to think that we know, to be "right"all the time, and, above all, to be parented – and there you have him, God.

But the thing is, we ARE driven by our selfish genes. Which is not to say that we cannot escape the influence of our genes, but the pull is powerful.

What I'm getting from the argument here is not so much that god exists, but that it's convenient and useful to us that we pretend that he is. Yes, a fat lot of good that has done us to this point...

I prefer to live here in the real world, where this is all there is.

2. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51070 by edge100 on June 21, 2007 at 10:55 am

Great satire. Where is it from, the Onion?

If only...if only.

3. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51068 by edge100 on June 21, 2007 at 10:47 am

Thanks Kervinator for telling everyone a little more about Preston Manning; I was about to when I saw your post.

We are indeed fortunate that Preston always showed his true colours, unlike our current bozo PM who will keep it all locked inside until the fateful day he wins a majority (thank Zeus for the Liberal-dominated Senate).

Unfortunately, it would appear that while we Canadians like to think of ourselves as more in tune with reality than our neighbours to the south, things might not be as rosy as one might think (blatent plug alert):

http://propterhoc.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/stupidityclose-to-home/

4. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45552 by edge100 on May 28, 2007 at 6:13 am

While Ms. Somerville is well-respected in the bioethics community, she is also in outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage, which culminated in testimony to a House of Commons committee a few years ago during the FIRST of our national debates on this issue (SSM has now been affirmed TWICE by two different HoCs in Canada). I have also heard her go on and on about the importance of the "traditional family".

While I could live with this if it were just her "opinion", the real issue is that she gets BIG media time here in Canada; anytime a bioethics issue arises, she is front and centre.

All in all, I am ashamed to say that teaches at my alma mater (McGill University).

5. God grief

Comment #41873 by edge100 on May 17, 2007 at 8:26 am

This review is, I think, almost spot on. I find that while CH's arguments are all valid, he, unlike either RD or SH, fails to focus on the one real reason that one's life shouldn't revolve around what god wants: namely, that god doesn't exist.

It cannot be denied that religion has been responsible for immeasurable calamity throughout the ages, and I disgree with the reviewer in that I think the removal of religion would have enormously benficial outcomes ("that simply because we understand what is going on during an earthquake or when a person is dying of cancer, these events cease to be terrifying"...no one is saying this, I hope).

But I think the point is better made from the Dawkins/Harris (and even Dennett) standpoint; do religious beliefs stand up to the cold light of reason and evidence? If not, they should be discarded; we don't need something to "cling to", as some have put it. What we need is to appreciate our truly insignificant place in this universe, to recognize the absolutely astoundingly low probability that any one of us actually exists, and to bask in the beauty of the world around us and in the joy of life for the sake of life. Science doesn't cheapen this experience; it makes it far more vibrant.

I like CH's book, and I will read it again once I've finished it (which I do with most books), but it comes in a distant second to Harris/Dawkins/Dennett.

6. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41550 by edge100 on May 16, 2007 at 9:40 am

konquererz, I agree. This is clearly a movement that has been noticed by many religious people. I've never seen so many media reports about atheism and challenging faith. This is truly fantastic.

I disagree that Hitchens is more than a piggy-backer here, however. I find Hitchens book to be a significantly weaker attack on religion than either TGD or Harris' two books. CH does point out some important issues, and everything he's saying is true. But I feel that RD and SH have hit the central theme with more force; namely, that there is no good reason to believe in god, and not simply that belief in god is bad for us, which seems to be, in the main, CH's tact.

7. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41480 by edge100 on May 16, 2007 at 7:11 am

The National Post is generally pretty bad anyway, but this article is right up there with some of the worst. Lines like,

Hitchens writes as though he has read deeply in the history of religious thought, but if so he managed to do it without engaging what he has found there. He breezily dismisses the long examination of the great questions of divine power and human freedom, divine foreknowledge and human uncertainty, divine inspiration and human agency, human nature and the natural law, as insuperable problems that must either be ignored or shielded from the penetrating reason of clever people like Christopher Hitchens.

...I find to be terribly amusing. Whether or not CH is fluent in, for example, the "long examination of the great questions of divine power and human freedom", is irrelvant. God doesn't exist, and it makes absolutely no difference what anyone has said about "divine power". This article is, amongst other things, yet another example of the criticism of RD/SH/CH/others based on their supposed ignorance of theology. But what difference does theology make if God doesn't exist? It becomes scatterbrained philosophy, at best.

I also liked,

Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence? Hitchens is so fascinated with what he can see in the skies or in the laboratory that he is blind to the world in which men actually live. Perhaps he thinks that without religion there would be more peace, wisdom and beauty in a world dominated by politics, science, entertainment and industry. There is no evidence for that claim whatsoever, and good reason to believe that such a flat world would be more brutal to live in.

I'm reminded of Sam Harris' musings about not wanting to live in a world in which he was not 6 feet tall (I'm 6'2", so I must be one of the 'chosen ones'.

Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? These are surely relevant questions, but we must admit the possibility that we simply "are", for no good reason at all. And besides, these are questions that can be examined without deference to a non-existant god.

Whether god exists or not makes no difference to us; if he exists (ahh, but in what form?), then we are here because god wants us to be; if he does not exist, the fact still remains that we are here, perhaps for no good reason. Either way, I love the way the air smells after a rain storm; why must I invent a god to help "explain" why this should be so?

I would add, however, that one of the faults I find with CH's book is that he spends too much time focused on the evil-doings of religion, and doesn't deal sufficiently (as RD and SH have done) with the fact that there is no evidence for god. Someone needs to point all of this out, to be sure, but it seems CH has chosen to look at the "morality" of religion vs. the fact that none of it is actually true. Both valid points, but I find the latter to be the far superior argument. Until such time that evidence is proffered in support of god's existence, there is no good reason to practice any particular religion, no matter how good it makes one feel.

8. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41469 by edge100 on May 16, 2007 at 6:50 am

Religion serves two functions. It explains the mysteries of life.

I stopped reading after the first line...same as the others.

9. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe

Comment #40958 by edge100 on May 15, 2007 at 8:48 am

"Prepare to leave your brain at the door..."

10. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #40928 by edge100 on May 15, 2007 at 8:07 am

Hitchens knows this, and he has the decency to acknowledge the mind-bending atrocities committed by atheist governments such as existed in Stalin's Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia. There's a reason why people need salvation.

Same old, same old...nothing new to see here.

11. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34795 by edge100 on April 25, 2007 at 9:01 am

I am, once again, late in joining this thread, but...

Yes - I thought it might. Another man thought Nietzsche was spot on in his analysis of Christianity and he was prepared to take advice about using any expedient to get rid of it. First of all he went for the Jews - his name was Hitler. If you really think there is nothing wrong with Neitzsche's opinion then you have just proved my view point that fundamentalist atheism is not only intolerant but dangerous.

...virtually screams "Godwin's Law". What nonsense. Hitler loved sugar in his coffee too! Besides, everyone knows Stalin is a much better straw-man for these kinds of things.

"Since the evidence actually is wholly on the side of atheism"

No there's a fundamentalist statement if ever I heard one. How sweet and reassuring for the believers.

How on Earth is it "fundamentalist" to adhere to what the evidence suggests is true? This whole "atheists are as bad as us" argument is not only self-defeating, it is simply false. The evidence simply IS on the side of the atheists; not because there is direct evidence that god does not exist (celestial tea, anyone?), but because the evidence that god DOES exist is missing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except when evidence SHOULD be there. What evidence should one expect from a non-existent god?

12. The Empty Wager

Comment #32943 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 7:20 pm

It boggles my little mind how often Pascal's Wager has to be explained and re-explained.

I've done my part...http://propterhoc.wordpress.com

That such madness could actually convince anyone is what is truly scary!

13. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32721 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 5:12 am

With the same logic, how come you don't believe that computer like organism, thousands of creatures, animals plants, and human beings have no builder/creator?

Because there is no evidence that such a creator exists, and has the ability to create life. You cannot presuppose the existence of X to prove that X exists.

I can't see something that does not mean that it does not exist.

Quite right; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Say, I feel like having some tea. Anyone know of a good celestial teapot I could use?

Of course, if something WERE absent, we would expect to see no evidence of its existence. Perhaps we should be looking for things that SHOULD exist, if god were real; perhaps for evidence of, say, the success of intercessory prayer?

14. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32716 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 4:59 am

So we are allowing ourselves to get drown in the swamp of illogical assumptions and questions.

Ok, chamber. You win. I've been wrong all along. Personal incredulity and circular reasoning IS a valid reason to believe in something. Simply defining god as outside of time and space is good enough for me; doing so with the physical universe, despite being based on the same standards, is just silly. How could I have missed it? Of course god exists outside of creation; we've just declared it.

Now, with all that in mind (and thank you for freeing me from the shackles of logical discourse), can you please direct me to the correct god to worship? It seems they all pretty much fit our (now mutual, it would seem) understanding of what a god has to be. How to choose? How...to...choose?

Should I be a Christian? A Muslim? A Jew? Perhaps I should worship Ra, or Zeus? The Flying Spaghetti Monster scares me (plus I hate meatballs), so that one's out. I've heard there are some really wicked-cool gods on some of those South Pacific islands. Maybe I should take a trip? I could use the tan. I really like Indian food; perhaps Hinduism or Sikhism would suit me?

Just point me in the right direction, and I'll be on my way. I'm sure you have some data suggesting that your particular god is the true god, and suggesting that everyone else is mistaken, right?

15. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32490 by edge100 on April 17, 2007 at 6:50 am

Information never develops apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information. I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals.

One could take two approaches on this one.

First, this is the Watchmaker Argument yet again. I think I (and others) have done enough to show the logical fallacy at work, so I'm going to leave this approach alone and direct you to my other posts.

For my second argument, I'm going to do something unheard of: I'm going to assume you are correct (I would ask you to do likewise; perspective may help). So let's ignore the circular arguments, and assume that life (or language, or whatever you'd like) is too complex to have arisen by chance, and must have been created. I will also ignore the blatently obvious point that "complexity" is entirely relative, and that we have no idea how "complex" we really are. We'll also ignore the "ultimate 747" argument that a god capable of creating such a complex universe must be exponentially more complex in-turn (thus simply delaying the inevitable acceptance that "complexity" can simply arise de novo). Yes, I will ignore all of this and just
assume you are right.

So, assuming that (a) life is "complex" (as measured on some imaginary scale of absolute complexity) and (b) the only possible explanation for this complexity is the existence of an even more complex creator (to which, it would appear, your doctrine that complex things must have been 'created' does not apply), there is, it would appear, only one question left to answer:

Which creator?

16. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32482 by edge100 on April 17, 2007 at 6:39 am

Quotation#1
•If you think of DNA as the cell's library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein.
•The amino acids are then linked together by a "molecular machine" made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines.
Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator.

No, no, and again no. This is the centuries-old Watchmaker Argument, and it is (still) invalid. Here's why (for the second time in this thread):

You know that all machines (let's say, the computer on which I'm typing this) were created by humans. Why is this a rational statement? Because you know (a) humans exist and (b) humans are capable of making computers.

Now, let's rexamine this using your example.

1. "If you think of DNA as the cell's library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein."

- This is a decent analogy, although not perfect. But the details are not important here.

2. "The amino acids are then linked together by a "molecular machine" made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines."

- Amino acids are linked together through the formation of peptide bonds, which occurs at the ribosome. This process requires (a) the mRNA transcript, (b) ribosomal proteins, (c) transfer RNAs (tRNAs), which bind to free amino acids and facilitate their assembly into larger proteins.

To this point, I'm in total agreement with you. The ribosome is very much a "machine".

3. "Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator."

- Unfortunately, the argument falls apart right here. Let's look at the analogy with my original example (the computer).

We know that humans exist and that they can create computers. Thus, it is logical to conclude that a given computer is likely a human creation, although we cannot exclude the possibility that the computer may have formed spontaneously. But, given the proven existence of a creator, it is far more likely that the computer was manually created.

We cannot make the same statement about the ribosome, because we are missing BOTH pieces of critical information. First, we have not yet established that a putative creator exists. Second, even if we accept that such a creator exists, we have not established that it is ABLE to make ribosomes.

We certainly cannot use the 'Watchmaker Argument' to prove the existence of a creator, because in making the argument, we have presupposed that such a creator exists. It is a circular argument, par excellence.

17. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32231 by edge100 on April 16, 2007 at 8:47 am

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about."

Wow. I would love to know what goes through the mind of someone who cannot see such fantastic irony. This is beautiful stuff.

18. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32210 by edge100 on April 16, 2007 at 7:34 am

First-time poster, long-time lurker.

Okay I will be frank. What I am asking is how the first gene came out? If I see a glass of hot water on my dining table, I would figure out that somebody put it there. This is what my reason and intelligence makes me think.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I just can't help.

Two things:

First, the question of how the first gene came about is valid. We don't know yet, in the same way that, at one point, we didn't know how the sun worked. Now we know about the conversion of mass into energy, and that explains the energy gained from nuclear fusion. The first 'gene' was certainly not in the form of DNA, and most likely not a nucleic acid at all. Any scientist worthy of the title will openly admit that we don't know the answer. But the extent to which we don't know the answer to something is not equivalent to the extent to which god explains that something; this is The God of the Gaps, plain and simple. And let's recall, in the "Gaps" battle, science is undefeated. God has explained exactly zero. Science doesn't have all the answers, but every answer we have is thanks to science. The 'first gene' question is an excellent one; suffice to say, we have people working on it. Watch this space.

Second, I agree that if you saw a glass of water sitting on a table, you'd think someone put it there; this is an entirely reasonable statement. But WHY is it reasonable? Because you know that human beings exist and are capable of filling a glass with hot water.

This is a reiteration of the 'Watchmaker Argument', which is invalid, in part, because it presupposes the existence of a 'watchmaker' (or glass-filler, if you'd prefer). Human beings exist and can fill glasses (or make watches); 'design' of life cannot be inferred by the same logic because whether a 'designer' exists has not be established. Circular logic is never valid, no matter how hard you try!