1. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181791 by Jin on May 18, 2008 at 9:18 am

It's not so much Göd but his fan club that's disturbing, to be honest, both in practice and to the mind.

Here's a summary of the article:
"Look, people with credentials are stupid so you can be stupid, too!"

2. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181202 by Jin on May 16, 2008 at 3:50 pm

The interview part was outstanding. And as expected, the subsequent panel was a series of facepalm moments. I don't know why but I'm always just a little bit optimistic that perhaps some of the apologists or theists will present a reasonable new argument to consider, but disappointment inevitably follows. The more I expose myself to these discussions the more I feel frustrated by every bad argument that someone gets away with.

3. Investigating Atheism

Comment #166845 by Jin on April 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Interesting. This may serve as a good resource. I have to say that some of the criticism seems a bit unfair, such as:

Against the background of more cautious and historically informed judgements of the relationship between atheism and violence such as that of Martin and others, the more recent pronouncements of the New Atheists generally appear by contrast to recall the optimism of atheistic materialists of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, for whom atheism seemed to offer the promise of bringing about a more violence free world. However, both the history of atheism and the political history of the West suggests that the optimism of eighteenth century atheists as the Baron d'Holbach was misplaced, a point that authors like Martin seem ready to concede but which New Atheists like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens have generally preferred to underplay.

The defenders of an autonomous naturalistic morality can claim on the basis of richer empirical evidence than ever before that humans are naturally altruistic and cooperative. On the other hand, the atheist amoralists can point out that the commitment of 'virtuous atheists' such as Richard Dawkins to biological reductionism makes it difficult for them to say why humans should not follow their aggressive and xenophobic instincts rather than their cooperative and altruistic ones. They appear to be able to offer only an evolutionary explanation of the altruistic moral instincts, not a reason why they should be followed.

Moreover, amoralists can argue that 'virtuous atheists' fail to provide any real justification for their moral stance. What can they say against De Sade's, Max Stirner's, or Nietzsche's decision to follow their darker instincts? It is striking that the trio of New Atheists - Dawkins, Dennett and Harris - have not so far addressed in any systematic way this 'other' tradition of atheism.

4. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162899 by Jin on April 17, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Brilliant! Thanks for a teary-eyed laugh!

5. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127245 by Jin on February 15, 2008 at 5:12 am

I always flinch at the word "truth".

Henri Bergson, if I interpret you correctly, your stance is that human interest is an end to which scientific pursuit of knowledge is only a means along with less reliable accounts of the state of wordly affairs (or: delusion). In other words, it may be in our best interest to lie to ourselves and maintain ignorance.

But the problem arises from determining our interest, and comparing these different means. The only reliable way, ironically, is to increase the reliability of our knowledge. It is the only means by which we can transcend pure subjectivity.

You also say: "Another related question: is falsity not sometimes preferable? For example, is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of religion to keep society in order? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of morality for the same purpose? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of equality? Of 'human rights' (they have no inherent truth)?"

My answer to the example questions is no. The claim that societal order requires religion or that morality, equality and human rights depend on ignorance lacks good reasons.

We can admit that no objective 'human rights' exist and still acknowledge that the social construct is vital to our functioning and that rules of thumb are useful despite not being absolute or objective*.

* the idea that religious morals are objective is also one worth questioning: God™ is but a subject with more power. Even if I believed in him, I would disagree on many a point. God only has the authoritarian "because I say so" reply to give.

6. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111357 by Jin on January 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Thank you, Mr. Scales for supporting the cause of reason with an exemplary resolution. Your accomplishments are admirable as is your unyielding will. I can only hope that your operation is without complications.