1. The Great Mutator

Comment #49636 by Tukka on June 12, 2007 at 4:43 pm

This page has been bookmarked. What a beautifully devastating and readable deconstruction of Intelligent Design.

As Neil Tyson once put it, "science is a philosophy of discovery while intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance." There is nothing to be gained in science by looking to God for explanations and this has been proven time and time again throughout the history of science (and religion). God is just a roadblock to human understanding and enlightenment.

2. Gamma-Ray Wipe-Out

Comment #47212 by Tukka on June 3, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Is it worth worrying about? No. Gamma-ray bursts hit without warning. We can't predict when or where they come from. And we can't do a thing to stop them.

Thanks for that. I feel more relaxed already!

3. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46571 by Tukka on May 31, 2007 at 5:08 pm

What a load of rubbish. The NYTimes should be ashamed to allow this to be published. Would they publish a similar article questioning chemistry versus alchemy, astronomy versus astrology?

They might if a believer in alchemy or astrology were running for President. One could say that the New York Times is doing a public service by allowing this man's clearly irrational, ignorant, anti-scientific point of view to be expressed so that people could see him for the small-minded man that he is, and know to vote accordingly.

It is an unfortunate testament to the scientific illiteracy and irrationality of the general public that we would think that this article could end up having anything but a thoroughly negative impact on his campaign efforts, and that we must worry about people taking this man's words as serious and authoritative.

At every turn in this article, the man betrays an ignorance of what science is about, and what scientific theories of evolution actually say.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

Evolutionary theory doesn't SEEK to undermine anyone's religious convictions about the place of human beings in the universe. Theories don't have motives. Theories don't care if what they state confirms or contradicts your belief that humans and other lifeforms are not commonly descended. He continues:

Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Oh, right. So the accumulated body of empirical evidence in support of common descent and any theory of evolution that does not explicitly include provision for the divine, guiding hand of God is "atheist theology posing as science."

Notably, the anthropomorphization of the theory of evolution continues -- it is now trying to convert people the atheism! Of course, what he is really implying here is that scientists researching evolution have an agenda, an ulterior motive that is not merely a good faith pursuit of science -- essentially, what he is saying is that evolution is part of a treacherous plan concocted by atheists to make people stop believing in God.

To me, this provides us with an interesting insight into the mind of the man we're talking about here. He's not only deluded, he's not only irrational, he's not only intolerant of any belief that contradicts his arbitrary world-view, it seems he's also a paranoid conspiracy theorist!

4. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45752 by Tukka on May 29, 2007 at 5:44 am

That I can agree with.

5. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45735 by Tukka on May 29, 2007 at 5:18 am

Chamber, if this story is indeed true, though I doubt it, then the kid's father is simply thick. He is trying to score non-existent points at the expense of his sons education, not something a true atheist would do.

I don't see why this is something that a "true atheist" wouldn't necessarily do. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're a rationalist, or a good person, or a smart person who comprehends science. Being a "true atheist" just means you don't believe in God/gods. Granted, this means at least one aspect of your world-view is more sensible than that of any theist, but it doesn't prevent you from believing in other nonsense (or misunderstanding a sensible concept in such a way that makes it nonsense).

That said, I also doubt the veracity of the anecdote and even if true, it says nothing of substance about atheism ... and nothing of substance at all, for that matter.

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

Comment #41328 by Tukka on May 15, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Please, let me read one religious person admitting the subjective nature of religious belief.

Bill O'Reilly: ... I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman-Catholicism because it helps me, as a person.
Richard Dawkins: Ah, that's different. If it helps you, that's great, it doesn't mean it's true.
BO: Well, it's true for me. You see, I believe --
RD: You mean true for you is different from true for anybody else? How can something be --
BO: Yes, because I can't --
RD: Something has either got to be true or not.
BO: I can't -- no, no -- I can't prove to you that Jesus is God, so that truth is mine and mine alone ... but you can't prove to me that Jesus is not, so you have to stay in your little --
RD: You can't prove that Zeus is not, you can't prove that Apollo is not --
BO: I saw Apollo man, he was down there and he's not lookin' good.

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #38505 by Tukka on May 8, 2007 at 11:57 am

I'm glad for the continued exposure to the concept of atheism, but each time I watch these interviews, I'm amazed at the use of terms (by the journalists or hosts) like: "controversial", or "provocative".
...
Can anyone suggest methods by which, during such interviews, Prof. Dawkins and other public defenders of atheism can somehow turn this around?

I think the way Dawkins handled it in this interview works pretty well. Point out the reason why it sounds so "provocative" and "strident" is that we're used to treating faith with kid gloves, when there is really no good reason for us to do so. He uses the same language to criticize faith as he would to criticize any other potentially dangerous ideology that is unsupported by evidence (one could bring up fascism or Nazism here, but that offers too much ammunition to anybody who would take the argument out of context -- so he uses politics and football as his examples).

Dawkins could give a fifteen minute lecture on why there's nothing wrong with or unusual about the "tone" he takes towards religion, or why it is helpful or necessary to take that tone (and in fact, has as much as done so), but if he went on about it at too much length on a brief television interview, he'd come off as seeming overly defensive (or overly aggressive, just reinforcing the criticisms against him).

And let's face it, Dawkins does lay down some barbed comments now and then, as well he should. However, when someone calls him on it (as the interviewer did here, re: educated, intelligent, ostensibly theistic congressmen) he can just calmly explain the logic of his statement in a way that can't really be refuted. It's good for us to be provocative if what we're saying is rational and thought-provoking ... all the better if it is emotionally provocative as well, as it will just give our arguments that much more impact and make them more difficult to ignore and forget.

8. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38230 by Tukka on May 7, 2007 at 9:23 am

What's clear is that this wave of New Atheism is deeply political - and against some of its targets even a devout churchgoer might cheer them on. What they all have in common is a loathing of an increasing religiosity in US politics, which has contributed to a disastrous presidency and undermined scientific understanding. Dennett excoriates the madness of a faith that looks forward to the end of the world and the return of the messiah. What Dawkins hates is that most Americans still haven't accepted evolution and support the teaching of intelligent design; according to one poll, 50% of the US electorate believe the story of Noah.

...

Scientists have argued that faith was a byproduct of our development of the imagination or a way of increasing the social bonding mechanisms. Does that make religion an important evolutionary step but now no longer needed - the equivalent of the appendix? Or a crucial part of the explanation for successful human evolution to date? Does religion still have an important role in human wellbeing? In recent years, research has thrown up some remarkable benefits - the faithful live longer, recover from surgery quicker, are happier, less prone to mental illness and so the list goes on. If religion declines, what gaps does it leave in the functioning of individuals and social groups?

This isn't the kind of debate that the New Atheists are interested in (with the possible exception of Dennett, who in an interview last year was far more open to discussion than his book would indicate); theirs is a political battle, not an attempt to advance human understanding.

Blatant deception and self-contradiction here.

First of all, anybody who has read Breaking the Spell knows that the first few chapters of the book are anything but a damning indictment of religious faith, but rather simply seek to establish why it is worthwhile to ask questions about religious faith, and why and how it might have developed, and what possible benefits it might have had, in our evolutionary past (and by extension, the present). To act surprised that Dennett is willing to have an open dialog on these subjects because of the content of his book is utterly ridiculous -- it indicates a motivation to either mis-characterize Dennett's work or the fact that Bunting hasn't actually read it (both possibilities seem plausible.)

Then she makes much of pointing out that the "New Atheist" movement is a political one, and even goes so far as point out that figures like Dawkins loathe religion, in part because of the impediment it has been to the adoption of acceptance and understanding of the theory of evolution ... then she turns around and says that this political movement has no interest in improving the public understanding. I guess science isn't an important element of human understanding, in Bunting's mind.

She mentions research that indicate supposed benefits of having religious faith, indicating that us the "New Atheists" (with the possible exception of Dennett) are uninterested in discussing them. Maybe if she actually cited the research she's talking about we could see why -- I've read about some of this research and often the methodology is flawed, causation (rather than correlation) is never firmly established and the conclusions reached are outright deceptive.

Also, there is the point that's been made time and time again, that though religion may in fact be beneficial in some respects, this does not, in any way, count as proof that religion is true, which admittedly may be the focus of books such as The God Delusion. There is nothing wrong with focusing on one claim "God exists," and hammering away at it with an assault of logic and science, disregarding superfluous (in this context) claims such as "religion helps people."

Now, I am just a "foot soldier" in the New Atheist movement, but I am interested in studies that suggests benefits of religious faith because I want to know why faith is beneficial in cases where it actually is beneficial. If we can figure that out, by taking a scientific, rational approach, perhaps we can figure out secular means of duplicating the positive effects of religion -- perhaps even surpassing the efficacy of religion itself in these areas.

If it turns out that in some cases that is impossible, that you can't separate the delusion from some of its benefits, well, that's unfortunate, but we have heaps of evidence that religion is really profoundly dangerous and damaging in some ways, and the slim benefits of religious faith do not in any way appear to stack up against its massively detrimental influence on humanity.

9. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37593 by Tukka on May 5, 2007 at 9:49 am

John McCain's Judeo-Christian philosophy:

Sun go up, sun go down.

10. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35355 by Tukka on April 27, 2007 at 1:24 am

I like Bill Maher and think he is anything but a hateful, mean-spirited hack. He may not always be right (who of us are?) and he will go over the top at times, and maybe his form of comedy doesn't appeal to some of you (he's given me some hearty laughs) but he is out there fighting the good fight, making excellent points in support of atheism (whether he identifies himself as an atheist or not) and banging away at religion and what we all hate about it. His political commentary on this issue in particular is spot on.

He may not be an intellectual of the caliber of a Dawkins or Chomsky -- he is after all, only a political commentator and comedian, not world-renowned scholar ... but we are going to need support from high-profile individuals outside the intellectual elite if our "consciousness raising" efforts are to be successful.

Scarborough did at a couple points seem to put Bill a bit off balance, which you figure Bill would be prepared for given the nature of his own program on HBO, but he still, I feel, very effectively communicated several core points.

Kudos to Bill.