1. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179875 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 11:08 pm

FYI to people out here.

Daniel Dennett believes in a human soul that is made up of millions of tiny mindless activities (tiny robots) in the cellular level of the human body. Obviously this is a material soul that does not survive death.

He said so in the atheism tapes with Jonathan Miller and some other places too I think.

2. A natural selection

Comment #179869 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm

A Darwin exhibit sponsored by a church. I would call this is a miracle had I believed in miracles. More events like these would help Christians contain the toxic versions of their faith themselves. But one must be careful, lest they not try to distort Darwin's message to suit their theological agenda.

3. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179868 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Seems to me like some sort of advertisement because their product (Catholicism) is losing popularity.

4. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178437 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

DalaiDrivel

Intelligence does NOT result from non-intelligence, at least not immediately. To find non-intelligence I'm not sure if you would have to rewind back to our origins in bacteria or not. The non-inteligent, abstract idea of evolution is the means, the cause, but not a precursor. Human intelligence evolved, result from, less sophisticated ape intelligence. All animals possess a degree of intelligence, so to say we resulted from non-intelligence in strictly true, but only in a specific, limited and distant sense. :)

I agree. Intelligence does not result from non-intelligence immediately. Evolution is an extremely slow process. Which is why it is so difficult to see within the time scales we are accustomed to. A fact that the creationists try to take advantage of. 'All animals possess a degree of intelligence' and we evolved from them. Although I would call animal intelligence as proto-intelligence.

What I understand from Dennett is that we can track the evolution of the phenomenon called intelligence beginning with species that are non-intelligent all the way up to us, the most intelligent species on the planet. Which is where things stand now. Perhaps in the distant (or not so distant future) if we go extinct and another intelligent specie may emerge or it may not. Evolution has no foresight. Besides even in evolutionary terms intelligent life seems complicated enough so as not to emerge too often compared to say single cellular life.

5. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178432 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm

DalaiDrivel

The world, filled with wonder, does indeed not need any real magic- nor conjuring tricks.

There are conjuring tricks all over the place and a really good magician can invoke a sense of wonder. But when I used the word 'trick' here it had multiple meanings. And in any case my statement stands.

Trick can be a good deception, but not necessarily. For people of say the fifteenth century lot of technology today will seem magical. They are all good tricks, instruments that tap in to the knowledge of how the world is. They testify to our developed sense of understanding of our world, in the same fashion a magician has a developed understanding of the human mind. Neat tricks but not real magic. Even if we can appreciate how the trick is done we may still be able to enjoy it, if it is a neat trick.

Creationists used to point out that the beauty of nature testifies to the greatness of god. Understanding evolution helps us to appreciate the beauty of nature without invoking a great god. Evolution is one of those neat tricks - complicated phenomena that tap into the fixed laws of nature. Something what magicians do all the time. Understanding it does not take away from the beauty of nature, in fact it enhances it.

Now there is another way the word 'trick' is used. As a synonym for deception. Which is what you have mentioned. Although I submit creationism was not deception for the longest time in human history. It was reduced to one only when better ideas (neater tricks, may I say) came along. So their propaganda piece is a trick intended to deceive (as opposed to a trick for survival (evolution) or a trick for entertainment (a magic show)). Well even in that case I would still say knowing the trick is still important. I think you will agree.

6. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178413 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 11:22 am

Dawkins seemed to be a bit lost. If a non-intelligent purposeless process, without foresight called evolution can create an intelligent purposeful creature with foresight (humans). Then you needed not compartmentalize your mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. The natural world driven by darwinian evolution in itself can provide explanation for the uniqueness of human beings. Which is what Daniel Dennett claims by the way.

Intelligence can result from non-intelligence. A process without foresight can create a creature with foresight (all be it rarely). Pretty much any human endeavor can be understood as an outcome of micro processes that by them selves have no capacity to appreciate these endeavors or understand their significance.

The world filled with wonder would not need any real magic. Conjuring tricks are enough. If the trick is good enough we will appreciate it even after we find out how the trick is done.

7. Justice In The Brain: Equity And Efficiency Are Encoded Differently

Comment #178051 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

This research study seems to have as its basis an assumption that one person makes a decision impacting the basic necessities for a whole other number of persons.

We do not do that these days. We try not to let one person monopolize essential resources for the rest of us. We will be too depend on the whims and fancies and dilemmas of that one particular individual. We try to spread the risk so as to speak.

One person does not decide what every body else needs. Which begs the question - why was this research even attempted? To show central planning doesn't work? We already have one natural experiment to prove that. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union.

8. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178047 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 10:53 am

This article is poorly written, by someone who thinks a bit too highly about himself and is perhaps a bit jealous of Richard Dawkins. As many here have recognized already.

9. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178042 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 10:38 am

I suspect the real reason is is the price rise in beef from £2,500 a tonne to more than £4,000 a tonne. The religiosity is just a convenient excuse.

10. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177664 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Since RD brought it up, I feel I can comfortably claim that there is one atheistic regime that is currently ruled by reason - "The People's Republic of China". It shed its Maoist dogmas when Deng Xiaoping came to power. He kept the Maoist image though (like secular England having a state religion). Here are some of his quotes that I find extremely interesting:

Seek truth from facts.
Deng Xiaoping

It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.
Deng Xiaoping

11. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177551 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 9:31 am

Carl Sagan best understood the nature of the Catholic church, and its obsession with worldly power. I found this video on You Tube and posted it on my channel. It seemed appropriate. This meme, I like to spread.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1BSzr43Edk

12. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177546 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 9:24 am

I live in California and am mighty damn proud it, for now.

13. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175353 by 82abhilash on May 5, 2008 at 9:46 am

Sam may have trouble getting Christians to respond. They would most probably feel that by doing so they are fraternizing with the enemy.

The fundamentalists for sure. Even the moderates would be less willing, I would think.

14. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172633 by 82abhilash on April 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm

I bet the people in the Anti-defamation League never expected to see the day when one of their own would stab them on the back.

15. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171527 by 82abhilash on April 28, 2008 at 2:34 pm

4. Comment #171460 by Mitchell Gilks on April 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I think that zoologists would fervently disagree that we are the only animals with imaginations, ethical codes, or a sense of fairness.

So you think it is written language that makes the difference. It could be. It might be that all animals have a sense of proto-morality from which our sense of morality emerged. Shaped by natural selection of course.

It is even possible that we share common brain structures with our primate relatives. It might be only a small difference in our brain structure that makes us able to develop civilizations and them incapable.

Knowing how animals are different from us is as important as knowing how they are similar to us. I hope they can zero in on where exactly the differences began.

16. Investigating Atheism

Comment #166958 by 82abhilash on April 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

The faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and Oxford must be worried that RD's growing popularity coupled with the strength of his well reasoned arguments will shut them down for good.

I bet this place will become the front for religious morderates, apologists and crypto-fundamentalists.

I agree with MelM. There should be an "Investigating Theism" site. But not simply a counter current. But as an academic institution dedicated to understanding religion as a natural phenomenon.

17. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #166599 by 82abhilash on April 23, 2008 at 10:29 am

wtf? Why can't these people give away their free bibles to those who come looking for it? In a church, perhaps. Or a religious retreat. It is as if they can't get any sleep, unless they disturb or intimidate someone else.

18. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166164 by 82abhilash on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 pm

2. Comment #166154 by Spinoza on April 22, 2008 at 9:50 pm

With all due respect (which, intellectually, doesn't seem very much due at all), my grandfather survived a Nazi camp without any spirituality whatsoever.

In fact, the experience solidified his lack of faith.

That is an interesting story Spinoza. Perhaps you can urge your grand father to write it up and perhaps RD website can put it up. Another dent in the 'Hitler and Stalin' argument and 'we need god for hope' argument as well.

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

Comment #165909 by 82abhilash on April 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I guess the la times where being 'fair and balanced' in their response section.

20. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165611 by 82abhilash on April 21, 2008 at 9:14 pm

There is no need for a new monoculture to replace religion. Any useful function of this fiction can (or already has been) taken over by other institutions. The rest is all bunk that needs to be put in a museum, to remind us how stupid we where.

21. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162703 by 82abhilash on April 17, 2008 at 10:11 am

Santi Tafarella,

I agree with you that the law as it is written for intellectual property abridges free speech, especially in the artistic arena. But things have improved. I mean there is creative commons, copy left and many other methods by which an artist can manage usage of his/her work.

We live in a world where people are generally respectful of the artist's right to manage their works. Respect that these people have chosen not to show. They already have stolen stuff from Harvard and now the Beatles. And for what? To aid their campaign of misinformation.

The artist has recourse and that is good. Unless you hold a radical libertarian perspective that denies the existence of intellectual property, you should see no problem in that either.

22. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160779 by 82abhilash on April 14, 2008 at 11:39 am

The only thing I find wrong with this picture is that the most of the girls have not yet attained majority. If they had I would have said their body, their choice and left it at that.

23. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #159036 by 82abhilash on April 11, 2008 at 11:13 am

Their body, their life. All I care is if you want to call yourself a scientist, do good science. That is all.

24. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157307 by 82abhilash on April 8, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Why not just utterly and completely privatize schooling. Then the nut jobs will be forced to teach their nonsense in their own schools with their own money. I would like to see how many people will willingly send their kids there.

25. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155959 by 82abhilash on April 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm

This article seems to be written purposefully to sound vague and beautiful, like a verse from the bible. Usually if someone understood something well, they will try to express what they understood properly. Perhaps Wired magazine felt what was really important was not whether the article makes sense (it makes some sense), but that it appeals to their readers.

26. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153020 by 82abhilash on March 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I was initially alarmed, but now, not that much, when had the UN the power to do anything? Their peace keeping missions are a joke, they have little or no mechanism to enforce their resolutions and they where not able to stop the war in Iraq. And anyway which muslim country felt compelled to treat their citizens better because of the UN Declaration on Human Rights? If a UN declaration could not stop them, it need not stop us either.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson

27. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149258 by 82abhilash on March 25, 2008 at 10:46 am

Steve Zara you seem to have no problem telling people what they should believe as long as you call it 'education'.

I am not sure how far we see eye to eye on this issue, but let me tell you where I stand and you can decide.

We cannot protect people from themselves. If an adult makes the conscious decision to keep himself ignorant, we cannot stop him from doing so. Of course if he tries to keep his children in ignorance then we can. But I want to stick just to adults for now.

As far as adults are concerned, the best we can do is provide people with ample opportunities to keep themselves well informed. We cannot force anyone to keep themselves well informed.

Consider the case of warnings on a cigarette packet. It gives the potential smoker an obvious opportunity to take the harmful consequences of smoking into consideration before smoking. It does not force them not to smoke, unless of course their own sense of prudence presents them with no other option.

28. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148893 by 82abhilash on March 24, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Dr. David Sloan Wilson seems to cling on to 'Group Selection' the same way Dr. Michael Behe seems to cling on to 'Irreducible Complexity' and they seem to conveniently ignore any explanations that do not fit with their discredited pet theories.

29. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146595 by 82abhilash on March 19, 2008 at 8:03 am

Christopher Hitchens always quotes Karl Marx on religion, it is very poetic, profound and compelling:

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which religion is.....Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man will wear the chain without fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower."

I am not a Marxian, but I find that statement to be profound. It forces one to ask all sorts of questions.

Do most people cling on to religion and its illusionary happiness because politicians (and all those in power) are not dealing with real issues that we are facing?

When we criticize religion are we really criticizing the shortcomings of our society to provide for the happiness of its members?

Are people clinging on to religion because they have given up on finding real happiness and settled for the illusionary happiness in religion?

If that is so and I feel that is so, it makes sense why people loath us. We are revealing to them the chains they are wearing. We are denying the the pleasure of deluding them selves in the for the sake of happiness.

As for me Happiness without truth is fools paradise. I won't lie to make people feel better.

30. Jesus saves

Comment #146545 by 82abhilash on March 19, 2008 at 7:24 am

4. Comment #146526 by Animavore on March 19, 2008 at 7:00 am

Maybe they should do a study on why atheists DONT believe. I know it seems obvious to you or me but I'm just calling for a balance.

That would be a very interesting academic exercise. And just like studying identical twins can help us learn about ordinary people, so too learning about unbelief could shed light on the nature of belief.

31. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146304 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Is is a poorly written article. Relies mostly on argument from authority, misguides our sense of intuition. Uses ill defined or vaguely defined terms, gives one no indication of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion. Scant on detail. Mostly opinion going back and forth.

'linked to happy life' in quotes, wonder why they did that. Makes no sense of the fact that irreligion is fast growing in the developed world. (Perhaps people do not want to be happy any more?). Gives no indication of how the data was accumulated.

Transparency in process is essential to build ones reputation when dealing with a complex issue. This article has none of it.

Makes for a dubious article, perhaps planted by those with vested interests. If there was real truth in this, the theocrats would be trumpeting it around, instead we find vague statements just enough to consolidate your flock and disarm your opponents. I am mega suspicious.

But how did it make it to the BBC?

32. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146287 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm

neilcreek,

Perhaps the problem is religious people feel more obliged to declare publicly that they are happy while non-religious people being more reflective will not give simple answers to loaded questions like 'Are You Happy?'

Happiness is an abstract concept with no well understood definition. You do not need to be a psychologist to know that. I think religion commits you to its creed so tightly that the default knee jerk answer to that question is 'yes'. Especially if the previous question is 'Are you religious?'

Non-religious people will probably think for themselves, ask more questions and will give non-exaggerated answers that will make them appear less happier on such crudely done surveys.

Religious people cannot after all honestly express their lack of life satisfaction at any given moment without feeling a sense of betrayal to their faith. Can they say, it seemed like a good idea them, but I wonder now. It takes a brave person to come out that way.

33. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146278 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I am going out on a limb here, but I personally do not mind it if a private company discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender. I would not mind as long as there is a free market in which there are other private companies that also compete that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender.

What makes me think there will be? Private firms rely on talented individuals and are mostly indifferent to things that has no bearing on the talent of the individual. Which these kinds of discrimination truly are. Those that do will find themselves fighting for a smaller piece of a large talent pie and will struggle to keep up.

I will have a big problem if the government does that. But not private companies, unless of course the government is actively or passively endorsing such an activity.

I would rather that such private companies be out competed in a free market and boycotted by responsible citizens and driven to bankruptcy. That would be my ideal.

34. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146236 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I am amazed and impressed with my atheist peers. I bet if this was a Christian forum, everyone would be crying foul in unison.

35. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143240 by 82abhilash on March 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

By continually telling people what to do in a world where freedom is being valued, almost universally, are they not digging themselves in a deeper hole than they in already in?

36. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143237 by 82abhilash on March 13, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Bishop O'Donoghue shame on you, using a flase dichotomy to restrict free speech. Fucktard is a word that I will use on you today.

37. Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Comment #137633 by 82abhilash on March 3, 2008 at 9:22 am

Well Johnny O it takes guts to live a religion free life and even more guts to be open about it. Even in this forum, I am sure many people are more open because of the cloak of invisibility that is provided by cyber space. To what extent they are open in their regular life is anyone's guess.

38. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134359 by 82abhilash on February 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm

35. Comment #134354 by Steve Zara on February 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I believe the degree to which religion motivates behaviour is overestimated. What religion does is enable and support behaviour. People have natural inclinations and they pick the bits of their religion that support those.

The reality is a bit more complicated. In a free country what you say is true. But in a Theo centric state, it is not that simple.

And besides, the people who want to put creationism in class rooms, their beliefs are motivated by religion, although I am reasonably sure that their leaders are charlatans. I would think nurture has a domiant role here, you know to shape those natural inclinations.

39. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134347 by 82abhilash on February 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm

To a simple observer, it may appear that Richard Dawkins was contradicting himself when he first said that religion is harmful and then later said that religious people are capable of doing good things, sometimes only because of their religion. If that is the case religion cannot be inherently harmful.

Unless of course that harm does not always come from the behaviors that religion motivate, but rather from their tendencies (of all religions) to distort truth and discourage intellectually honest conversation. Perhaps someone will catch Dawkins on that and he will clarify.

40. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #132872 by 82abhilash on February 25, 2008 at 10:52 am

If the influence of the Catholic church is waning, maybe there is a chance for enduring peace in Ireland. Who knows maybe a secular Northern Ireland and a Secular Republic of Ireland will have too much in common that they might as well integrate.

41. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132239 by 82abhilash on February 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm

1. Comment #132217 by Ian Bamlett on February 24, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I see science and religion as being two completely different things. I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God.

Shame on Turok for buying into the terrible idea of non-overlapping magisteria. As RD points out time and time again, a universe in which there is a god as opposed to one in which there is not is very much a scientific question. All evidence points to the latter, Turok knows that, and should have the guts to say so.

Good article otherwise though!

Ian, for the longest time science never made claims on religion, it was in fact religion trespassed on science. That was the root of the problem and still is today. The theocrats trying to destroy science by introducing creation and so on.

Science as a field makes no comment on the supernatural.So Turok is right when he says, "I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God." Although the other statement, "I see science and religion as being two completely different things." I kind of disagree. Because the truth value of the claims made by the religious can be evaluated scientifically.

Even RD has never claimed there is no God, just that it is very less likely there is one. Richard Feynman once said something that very well sums it up for me, although he was talking about UFOs, "I think it is more likely from my knowledge of the universe that this phenomenon is the result of known irrational behavior of terrestrial intelligence rather than unknown rational behavior of extra-terrestrial (read here super-natural) intelligence.

42. Moral thinking

Comment #131360 by 82abhilash on February 22, 2008 at 10:32 am

I think David Sloan Wilson is bringing back in the group selection ideology through the back door. Besides terms like Liberal and Conservative can have different meanings depending on what part of the world you live in, so their meanings are not anchored in reality, but interpretation of subjective human experience. And that can compromise the integrity of the experiment.

Let me try to make sense of it in terms of Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) proposed by John Maynard Smith. We find other animal species in groups because it is an ESS and helps them survive, more precisely but help their genes to survive. It is gene survival that it is all about.

Humans may have lived in groups precisely for the same reason. It is ESS. But humans have the capacity to understand why living in groups contribute to their fitness, how to enhance the benefits that comes from living in groups and so on. We are capable of representing a level of sophistication that other grouping animals cannot.

And in this environment of sophisticated brains, memes (whatever they are) start to spread and influence behavior. Of course one meme (or meme pool) that spreads is the virtue of living in groups (including the idea of group selection). This meme has the capacity to spread because we are sort of hard wired for living in groups anyway. and we are hardwired because to our ancestors it has a survival mechanism that was ESS. So those with such genes passed them on.

So there I have explained, genes, memes and the relationship between them and even why David Sloan Wilson finds the idea of Group selection appealing, in terms of genes and memes. Also note that the capacity of a meme to spread or even be appealing has no bearing on the how much the information in the meme is anchored in reality. That can explain religion too.

Makes the notion very useful and compelling. I wish there was some way to accumulate evidence for it though.

43. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131350 by 82abhilash on February 22, 2008 at 9:53 am

Asma Jahangir has been a highly respected woman's rights activist in Pakistan for a long time now and has been instrumental in making abuse against women, part of a public debate in Pakistani society. But even she would never admit that the root of abuse against women in Islam is the doctrines of Islam itself. And that is why we hear ambiguous statements like this one from her.

She argues that religion should not have a lower ranking when competing rights are being balanced.

However, she does acknowledge concern about "informal matrimonial courts operating within the Muslim community based on sharia law." Ms Jahangir, a mother of three children, says the argument by some religious leaders that their traditions should override the rights of women is "unacceptable".

Hence her inability to appreciate the fact that freedom of religion must never infringe on the fundamental right of a citizen to be free. Freedom of religion does not include the freedom to force your religion on others, through violence at that.

Sam Harris is right the people who suffer most under Islam are Muslims themselves.

44. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131072 by 82abhilash on February 21, 2008 at 9:48 pm

He is missing the point. If it was not for Islam, things would not have been so messed up as it is now, the root of the problem lies in Islamic doctrine and the manner in American policy makers underestimated its toxicity .

Unless the problem of Islam is properly addressed, there will be no means left to legitimately address real issues and find lasting solutions to problems in the Middle East. There is nothing like religion to cloud the facts and distort the issue. And there are no one better than apologists to make excuses for them.

So I agree with all the facts he presented and yet claim that the general conclusion he made from it is false. If anyone asks me I can give more details, but I am too tired and too busy for now.

45. Whale Evolution

Comment #131060 by 82abhilash on February 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm

4. Comment #130933 by ADePSP on February 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm
ooo, i'm confused... I thought the latest information on Whale evolution suggested they'd evolved from Hippo like mammals not wolf like mammals (the old idea)... Dawkins "Ancestor's Tale" says as much...

This clip clearly suggests a cyanine ancestor... Could someone clear this up as this is confusing and ammunition to the parties of God...

ADePSP this is the same misunderstanding that creationists fall into when they say man evolved from monkeys. Man did not evolve from monkeys, man and monkeys had a common ape like ancestor.

Likewise whales did not evolve from Hippos. What RD claimed as that whales and hippos are closely related. Which means whales and hippos had a common ancestor in the distant past, maybe that ancestor was canine like as suggested here.

46. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129738 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Bonzai you have many questions and many challenges based on Mphil's limited explanation of Heterophenomenology.

What Mphil (originally Dennett) claimed is not that first person accounts are patently false, just that they are less reliable than third person account. At this point I would very strongly reccomend you read Dennet's papers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/JCSarticle.pdf
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/hreconsidered.pdf

A rational theory of what is beneath our irrational or "arational" impulses may be interesting, but it doesn't address the question of whether science (or the arts and indeed civilization itself) is possible without these impulses, It addresses entirely different questions at other levels.

Is science possible without rational impulses? Well the laws of physics and chemistry would exist whether there are creatures with the capacity to understand them or not. But that question has a simple answer. The discipline of science and its methods of enquiry cannot exist unless there are rational creatures involved in that discipline. So the answer is simply no.

47. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129604 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 11:12 am

66. Comment #129585 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:50 am

82abhilash.

You offer rational explanations to why people do things which to their minds cannot be captured in logic, this is not the same as arguing people are motivated by rationality. What you give is a third person account of an observer, not what people actually experience when they go about living their lives, doing science etc. I am interested in what actually motivates people to do what they do.

Indeed what I have given is a third person account of an observer. Daniel Dennett has even coined a fancy word for it heterophenomenology. He has argued (rather effectively in my opinion) that a third person account is the best way to understand what motivates people - advantage is that it is the least error prone, disadvantage is that it is more time consuming. Check out the links below for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/JCSarticle.pdf
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/hreconsidered.pdf

But be warned. The first time I read it I felt that my brain was being deep fried cooled and then deep fried all over again, the pain was excruciating, but the knowledge was worth it.

I think a civilization of DATAs is impossible because all of arts and sciences would be pointless, I don't disagree that we can manage our primitive urge and should. The point is that there is no "cure" and that a "cure" is not desirable if that means eliminating all our propensities that would lead to religion,-- broadly the "irrational" urges.That is what the word "cure" is commonly understood, you don't "cure" diabetes by putting someone on a daily regime of insulin treatment. That is management.

DATA does not manage his primitive irrational urges, he has none. He is "cured".

Incidentally, "curing" irrationality by turning people into drones also smell of the brave new world and social engineering gone mad, But I won't get into that.

We may be very similar to the civilization of DATAS but not exactly. All those emotions that make life worth living happiness, joy, suffering, love and kindness still exist and can continue to exist and as long as there are those that see value in them, I am sure we will not engineer them out. What I foresee, what I hope rather is that our sense of rational will act as a sort of check and balance and prevent those emotions from running amok. Consequently we will be able to maintain a sense of calmness that helps us deal effectively with real problems. In other words we will be like DATA, but only superficially.

So rather than trying to 'cure' ourselves, instead we can focus on healthy living which will prevent us from getting sick in the first place.

48. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129579 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 10:36 am

47. Comment #129544 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

Science is a rational enterprise in terms of its methodology, but rationality alone doesn't explain why people do science.

Daniel Dennett has taken a stab at this issue. Here is my understanding of what he says. We are creatures of the natural world and are subject to selection pressure. For selection pressure to be effective it must act upon something that we can do (without any reason). Rational enterprise was something that some humans where capable of engaging in and in some societies they had a distinctive advantage. Eventually their effectiveness contributed to creating societies where their influences where dominant. There is no need to stipulate a rational beginning for beings that are rational. Just like there is no need to stipulate an intelligent being for beings that are intelligent. But once they arrive on the scene they can assign various levels of rationality to the actions of their fellow creatures.

Richard talks of awe and beauty and describes science in a language which is almost poetic. These are all subjective and appeal to the emotion. Passion and aesthetics cannot be reduced to rationality and logic, neither are the creativity and the compulsive obsessiveness that are necessary for great science.

This is a very popular argument. While I agree that a sense for the aesthetics do appeal to emotion, they are not necessarily subjective. There are several aspects of aesthetics that have universal appeal that transcend cultural and sometimes even religious boundaries. Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran as proposed certain interesting explanations as to why this maybe the case. He has even come up with a list of aesthetic universals. Who is he? He is currently the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, Professor in the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego.

You may want to check out his lecture on Neurology and the Passion for Art

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7067409350096475500

I think civilization would be impossible if we are "cured" of our "irrationality" and all become like DATA in Star-Trek. He is just a glorified information processor.

There is a possibility that we might become like DATA, but why would that make civilization impossible? If we understand our primitive urges we can manage them better. I would say it would make civilization more possible not less. And one could argue that it can make life more meaningful not less.

Here are Dr. Ramachandran's own words:

..if you reduce everything to neurons, like falling in love, or ambition, or pride, or joy, or the self - my God does that mean there's no love? And that's a fallacy because you know explaining something doesn't mean you explain it away. So for example; supposing two people are making love and a crazy scientist comes along and says "look, this is just neurons in the septum and neurons in the hypothalamic nuclei, these are all the neurons that are firing away, that's all there is to it". And then the lover turns to his girlfriend and says "you mean that's it, it's just chemicals, it's neurons firing away, you're not really in love?" She could then argue "no, on the contrary this proves it's all real, that I'm not faking it". "Look, look at the pattern of activity, it shows it's real."

49. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129560 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 10:01 am

If done correctly this could be an important first step in understanding the natural phenomenon of religion. Whether God exists or not can be treated as separate issue pending further evidence (not sure they will). But given that the Templeton Foundation is sponsoring that study, my expectations are not very high.

50. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129555 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 9:53 am

92. Comment #129274 by Mitchell Gilks on February 19, 2008 at 12:18 am

If you honestly want to work on not being condescending and patronizing then work on not prescribing what people should do, and instead make a case, and don't assume they can't think for themselves, or need to be reminded not to be close minded and unyielding.

The best thing to do is to not address the person at all, but instead only worry about the case you are making, and responding to the things they say. Merely a suggestion.

That is an excellent suggestion and most likely to work in this crowd I am sure. I will remember that. But I would like to state for the record that, my experience has taught me not all people have the good sense to objectively judge the merit of a case.