1. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235871 by shaunfletcher on August 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm

It is perhaps relevant to ask what kind of rights and responsibilities do we extend to humans with severe mental injury or disability. I would think that that would present the nearest to a useful parallel from a lawmaking point of view.

The fact is, to our modern mores there isnt even a question over protective rights regarding disabled people, and no sensible reason to question whether apes should have protective rights, but there is an area of discussion with regard to freedom and decision making for such people with limited cognitive capacities, and such there would also be for apes. There is also a problem for society with regard to responsibility, specifically criminal responsibility in both mental disability cases and also in cases involving children.

We are well able to handle this complexity in human cases, why should we not be able to in cases of other ape species?

2. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221658 by shaunfletcher on July 30, 2008 at 1:08 am

That is possibly the dumbest attempt to link two things through an unsupportable reverse-of-reality linkage that I have ever heard in my life.

Does it genuinely not occur to these people that there are other linkages and explanations that are so very much more plausible? I mean asking why regions with dense jungle terrain have more isolated groups (and a, one would think, obvious trend to more diverse cultures) than regions with open terrain would be a fine starting point, as would looking into the incidences of disease vectors and the like in hot humid regions compared to cold arid regions.

But thats just me. Im sure they have thought about all that stuff and just didnt find it made any difference.......

3. Council ban on atheist websites

Comment #221461 by shaunfletcher on July 29, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Me and councils do not get along (pitchforks and torches should be involved), but I might almost defend this one here for a moment.

I would suggest the order of events to be something like this:

1: Council buys (american for what thats worth) filtering software called Bluecoat without really understanding what they are doing. This isnt a very smart move as filtering software is all rubbish but its normal enough.
2: Council puts out some press release or document saying they are doing this in an effort to look proactive.
3: Journo reads it in an idle moment, looks up Bluecoat software online and finds the list of things it filters out. This turns out to include some very stupid things as usual.
4: Journo thinks ohoh nice story here, Ill email my mate at the Secular society and get a response.
5: profit.

Given the level of PC in operation at councils in the UK, its just inconcievable that an actual policy decision was made to block wicca, spiritualism, atheism etc while allowing religious content. Someone just wasnt thinking. Which is all too concievable.

Shaun

4. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212107 by shaunfletcher on July 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I think the article is interesting and thought-provoking.

However I believe that most use of the term 'Darwinian natural selection' by people such as Professor Dawkins is simply an attempt at ensuring clarity under some circumstances, by making it clear what form of natural selection is being discussed.

5. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209564 by shaunfletcher on July 12, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I have no doubt there are some wired aspects to behaviours such as these.. its a practically inevitable result of the evolution of social organisms. However, seven year olds are NOT young and certainly not 'raw' as cartomancer points out.

6. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #209147 by shaunfletcher on July 11, 2008 at 4:25 pm

My objection to 'addressing issues' is not based on grammar but on substance. I object to weasel worded rubbish that says nothing at all. To say that one will address an issue is a way to avoid saying that one will do anything about it.

7. An Original Confession

Comment #207591 by shaunfletcher on July 10, 2008 at 3:26 am

To be an artist doesnt REQUIRE one to have a knowledge of the history of art, or to have visited any of the worlds great galleries, but it doesnt hurt, and it is much better to go read something you know to be important in the development of your field.

On 'Almost like a whale' I read to the end (no small task!) and enjoyed it, but coming off the back of a phase of reading an awful lot of other evolutionary and biological books and papers, I found some of his ideas somewhat unconvincing, though now a couple of years later I would struggle to say what they were in any further detail

Shaun

8. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207483 by shaunfletcher on July 9, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Everything always has to be a 'war' with some people doesnt it?

9. McDonald's Makes Jesus Cry

Comment #206719 by shaunfletcher on July 8, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I pretty much never ever eat maccas, but stuff it, tonight Ill tolerate their shit burgers and enjoy their fries.

10. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204824 by shaunfletcher on July 5, 2008 at 9:20 pm

*waves to goldy* I also live in Glenfield, probably a couple of Ks away right this second. spooky eh?

I notice a lot of churches, but they are almost 100% asian (far east asian for our english readers) or islander. The euro community is very secular indeed.

11. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204370 by shaunfletcher on July 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm

I plan to start a letter campaign to school heads in the Auckland region, seeking assurance from them that this material will see the inside of a wastepaper bin on arrival, as it must.

Actually I shall enlist a relative (mother of 3) as the nominal letter writer, as being a parent of children in the system she stands much more chance of being responded to.

Hopefully the response will be sufficient to quell my concerns.

12. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203847 by shaunfletcher on July 3, 2008 at 8:18 pm

I also incline to the view that both Obama AND Mccain are atheists or at least agnostic, but both (like all the other hundreds of atheist politicians in the US senate/congress etc) are willing to flat-out lie about that (even to the extent of running these kind of faith based things, which they perceive as popular but harmless) because they believe that not doing so will result in them being booed off the stage.

The perception is that its not enough to fool people you are a bit religious.. you have to be MORE religious than the other guy.

Insanity I know, but it really looks that way.

13. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203837 by shaunfletcher on July 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Anecdotal evidence would indicate that the stats people need to update their methodology, as a straw poll of relatives/colleagues indicates that those who would answer 'christian' (either non dem, anglican or catholic) are mostly not religious at all, but following the old english practice of 'nominal CofE', basically your parents religion even if you dont believe or follow it yourself.

People who will say 'none' are only those who think about it. The default no thought position is 'christian', but when pressed the real answer is 'none'.

This applies to New Zealanders of European descent only however, as among islander/chinese/asian people the practicing ratio seems to be very high indeed.

Basically the tiny minority makes a LOT of noise, but the majority here would find this complaint laughable. New Zealand is very progressive in all social matters.

14. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199415 by shaunfletcher on June 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm

I very much hope that the new book will focus exclusively on evolution and specifically the currently available proofs and evidence, and in putting that information into a readable (this at least I can take as a given) and comprehensive guide to the subject.

I would really be delighted if religion, ID etc were left almost completely out of the book, and it focused on the subject at hand. In other words not another salvo in the God Delusion battle, but a solid, intellectually indestructible marker in the ground.

Naturally such a book would also provide the best ammunition possible when discussing those topics..

Shaun

15. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199032 by shaunfletcher on June 25, 2008 at 5:27 am

Nicely put overall, but if 40% (hell, if 10%) of scientists believe in god then Im a teapot.

16. Breaking the Silence

Comment #193675 by shaunfletcher on June 15, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Gordy, you are quite correct.

Fanusi, if that is right then I of course take back my post and issue a virtual raspberry to the article's writer for dissembling so.

17. Breaking the Silence

Comment #193498 by shaunfletcher on June 15, 2008 at 5:45 pm

"Wafa was careful not to be openly critical of religion, instead questioning an interpretation of Islam that seemed to breed terrorists and wife-beaters", and nothing in the piece indicates that stance has changed.

So does she remain either too scared or intellectually unprepared to go the almost inevitable extra step to realising it isnt JUST about vile medieval interpretations being wrong and wicked, but about the whole underlying edifice being nothing but nonsense?

While her courage is admirable (I dont know I would have as much), in the end they are just arguing about how what they both accept as holy rules we must obey should be interpreted.

18. The Mind-Altering Role of Incense in Religion

Comment #185932 by shaunfletcher on May 29, 2008 at 6:44 am

I wasn't aware there was anyone who didnt know thats the purpose of incense.. and by gods(sic) it works.

I would count my one two hour long space-out session on incense in one of the houses of cathol as a highly instructive lesson in the power of drugs to override the brains higher functioning, regardless of that brains full prior knowledge of the ludicrousness of the whole business.

Get em high and chant them into submission. fah.

19. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183882 by shaunfletcher on May 23, 2008 at 5:09 am

Vergil, yes I am, and I consider them to be little more than amusing philosophical ramblings.

Sorry, but they all rest on enormous and unsupportable assumptions, or statistical calculations with estimated figures built in which are without foundation.. as they must because we lack even the most basic information to be founding them on.

THINK about it.. even in terms of (presumptuous in my opinion) 'life like us' thinking, which might require an earth like ours, any theorising is just pub chatter.

We cannot even detect a planet that is earthlike around another star yet (and its important to remember that not being able to detect it also includes not being able to detect the absence of it). We therefore have no idea how common such planets might be.

We dont know what process led to the original genesis of life on this planet yet, so we have no idea of the kind of mechanism or its rarity required (we literally cannot say if it happens a million times a day on earth right now, or if it happened once only hundreds of millions of years ago)

We cannot predict with any kind of useful accuracy the robustness or directionality of evolution if it should begine somewhere, let alone calculate what chance of something we could see as 'intelligent'

Hell we cannot even define what intelligence or life IS with any certainty.

And you want us to take 'rare earth' goldilocks theories seriously?

20. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183821 by shaunfletcher on May 22, 2008 at 11:29 pm

"'Such atypical properties might somehow help explain why the Sun seems to be unique, as far as we know, in having an inhabited planet."

I am persistently astonished by ideas like this.

There is one, and only one, reason that the sun is the only star we have found with an inhabited planet. That reason is, simply, that we have never left the confines of this solar system and looked at any other in remotely the kind of detail required to have an opinion of any value on the subject of life. We dont even know if there is, or has been, life elsewhere in our own solar system yet we presume to talk about uniqueness in such matters?

There may be a host of reasons for lifes scarcity or ubiquity, whichever of those things should prove to be the case, but it seems stunningly futile to discuss the reasons for that level of rarity before even having any idea what it is.

I am not talking about the research here, as that is aimed at finding things out, not at commenting on fancied statistics.

21. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181307 by shaunfletcher on May 16, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Its been shown again and again that the vast majority of practising christians dont know what the ten commandments are.

I always find it hard to believe but every time someone checks its true.

They just think that the commandments are 'dont kill or steal and love thy neighbour and other stuff like that'

Churches do not, on any account, want people to be presented with a list which, as noted above, contains 2 actual worthwhile prohibitions and a couple of arguable bits of life advice, and thats about it.

Id be pretty upset if the law consisted only of this lot.

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

Comment #177837 by shaunfletcher on May 9, 2008 at 7:57 pm

I think it needs to be spelled out much more directly what this godbotherer actually just said.

He said he agrees with the actions of the Nazis. He thinks they were the reasonable thing to do. Only because of his faith is he against them. But should we ever persuade him there is no god then we had better fear him and what he will use his influence for.

THAT is what "a dictatorship ruled by reason, and where does it lead? To terror and oppression" means. That terror and oppression are the reasonable thing to do in his view.

23. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177407 by shaunfletcher on May 9, 2008 at 3:34 am

"Mr. Bush conceded in an interview with conservative commentators last year that his critics believe he is "hopelessly idealistic."

He reminds me of one of those people who, when asked what their biggest fault is, will say "I care too much" or "I work too hard", or perhaps worst "I dont take enough time for myself".

Invariably they neither care nor work at all that anyone has ever noticed.. this is similiar.

24. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171713 by shaunfletcher on April 28, 2008 at 5:55 pm

To those obsessing over this being 'mere mimicry', I would point out that we call that 'lear-ning' and its how we all got to know what we know. Or do you think your special brain figured out how to read from first principles?

Shaun

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

Comment #160392 by shaunfletcher on April 14, 2008 at 3:05 am

It literally never crosses the minds of these buffoons to ask why in fact most of the great art of the dark ages/medieval/renaissance was religious in theme or funding does it?

To look at that in two parts, firstly funding,
it seemingly never occurs to them that a large portion of it was funded by the church precisely because the church was one of the only bodies with vast amounts of money with nothing to spend it on? and that the reason they funded these great buildings and art was to ensure the appearance of importance and grandeur and that they hired the best artists because they wanted to awe the masses with fabulous work. Artists worked for the church because thats where the work was and you cant eat rocks. Why do they think religious fervor on the part of the architect was responsible for a cathedral's proportions? What evidence is there of this? isnt it as likely that the religion provided the money, the architect provided the inspiration?

Secondly in theme, where the art that was not funded directly by the church (though oh so very often by its functionaries who had stolen vast wealth from everyone else) but by rich individuals or organisations, the reason for religious themes is simple and clear and inarguable. It was compulsory to do so, failure to do so would variously result in terrible punishment and social exclusion. It was, in many places and times, literally a crime to produce art which did not depict the world in terms of god's (or the churches') glory. Additionally where artists or patrons wanted to depict things the church declared disgusting like the human form, or themes of love, it was okay to do so if you pretended it was religious. Hence the thousands of madonnas which are no more madonnas than I am, being portraits of wives and lovers of rich men (again oh so often churchmen) who had their girlfriend painted nude, but got away with it because it was masked as a painting of a saint or madonna. I think it might be a bit of a stretch to claim that such a painting is religiously inspired! The fact is that religion restricted not inspired, and the genius of artists found ways through the restrictions by being either savvy to the ways of weak flesh, or cleverer than the popes censors.

Shaun

26. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156110 by shaunfletcher on April 6, 2008 at 7:31 pm

CommonToad, I almost hesitate to try and give this kind of answer in a place where others are better qualified, and I would also note that a read of the selfish gene answers the question infinitely better and is to be recommended. Im going to use a term 'species-pool' to refer to a group of one species which is in some way seperate.

As I see it, group selection in a case such as language is simply unnecessary.

The choice being made at each stage is between members of that species-pool that can communicate more effectively and those that cannot.. not between those members with the mutation favouring the enhancement and other species-pools. So a primate which could make itself understood a tiny bit more clearly because its voicebox was, as a simplified example, a tiny bit more flexible or its brain was a tiny bit more specialised for communication got to have more babies than one not carrying that mutation.. and the mutation therefore eventually came to dominate that species-pool.

What other species-pools are doing is wholly incidental. Its of course the case that individual success of members will often inevitably lead to group success, but that drive is one way, there is no mechanism, and no need for a mechanism, which pushes the other way.

Shaun

27. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154676 by shaunfletcher on April 3, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I guess some of Richards work was once considered controversial, given some popular views and alternative ideas doing the rounds at the time (The punctuated equilibrium stuff and group selection ideas). However, seeing that those alternatives have essentially been put to bed and the main thrusts of the argument Richard was the most recognisable face of are now simply the mainstream reailty, it's a bit foolish to keep calling him a controversial theorist.

28. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154157 by shaunfletcher on April 2, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Even in the article Ben (and someone here) is falling into the trap..

"I'm quite certain that the average Muslim does not want" is the same kind of thinking.

Ill tell you what, Im 100% sure that many 'average muslims' DO want exactly these things. They DO want noone to be allowed to criticise their faith, they have been taught since birth to think that and they do so. Do people not realise that when polled, a majority of muslims support the death penalty for Apostasy?

29. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144359 by shaunfletcher on March 15, 2008 at 5:48 pm

What is so sad is that people WILL watch and enjoy and learn from really good science TV. They will, they always did, but the media people wont provide it because they think the audience is 100 times stupider than it really is.

30. How to abandon your God

Comment #139448 by shaunfletcher on March 5, 2008 at 9:10 pm

I dont understand the bit about fundie churches being more modern on evolution than the followers of cathol.. Surely the RCC accepts evolution while your megachurch protestants dont at all?

31. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #133228 by shaunfletcher on February 25, 2008 at 11:16 pm

I believe ring species to be perhaps our most powerful/easy to use device in persuading the waverers, and wavering the rigid.

They are easy to explain, and the dichotomy they cause for anyone trying to deny evolution as the cause of speciation is obvious enough to be visible to any intelligent person who listens to a description.

Additionally the examples are interesting even to someone not interested much in biology, and people will generally listen to an interesting tale, even if they expect to disagree with it.

And finally there is almost no counter argument available, without appearing foolish even to oneself.

32. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114169 by shaunfletcher on January 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm

This doesn't border on the blasphemous, it joyfully blasphemes without a care in the world. Good for them.

As for historical.. that's outright funny coming from a bish basher isnt it?

I wouldn't go and see the play though, it sounds dreary and self-involved.

33. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88073 by shaunfletcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm

I would LOVE to see a definitive on this from someone truly equipped to answer it (hint hint!), but its my impression that you cannot just start referring to something as a law because of the body of evidence for it.

I mean that the 'law of gravity' is a theory, but in the sense that there is a theory that there is a law of gravity.

Evolution however is not a theory of the existence of a law, it is a theory of the existence of a process. There is nothing about evolution that is restrictive or limiting, it describes not inhibits.

Therefore it would be a nonsense to refer to it as the 'law of evolution'

No?

34. Exorcism death shocks archdeacon

Comment #87914 by shaunfletcher on November 13, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Ill be back home in Auckland in 3 weeks yay.

Anyway.. Ive seen and felt all you describe now youve described it further.. but then I went there in a smiliar fashion about 10 years ago.

And yes the nasty little digs at maori over educational 'help' etc grate every single time I hear them. Just like the oh so common 'jokes' about asian people.

35. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87883 by shaunfletcher on November 13, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Their website for the lucy exhibition:

http://lucyexhibition.com

contains a section entitled What is Evolution?

http://lucyexhibition.com/evolution.aspx

which gives the standard explanations of what it is and what a theory is, and ands with a peculiar sort of 'nothing to worry about here religioes' paragraph.

Would be seriously odd for the people who put this up to stop their staff using the word.. maybe its an unnofficial idiot in lower management?

36. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87881 by shaunfletcher on November 13, 2007 at 1:33 pm

I recommend you write an EXTREMELY polite letter to the director of the museum, asking what their official policy on this matter is.

Should his reply be that this word is not to be used, I recommend a letter to the scientists/museum who actually own the skeleton, telling them about this and asking for their opinion.

If his reply is that this isnt the case, then I would write back asking him to train his staff properly.

Then whatever it all adds up to, you can write to the major newspaper/tv news for the region with the whole lot.

37. Exorcism death shocks archdeacon

Comment #87729 by shaunfletcher on November 13, 2007 at 1:45 am

Im actually VERY sympathetic to issues concerning maori and other islander groups (mostly educational problems but others too) but I think you need to look more deeply at the political landscape before saying 'Yet when Maori do things that are good, it isn't reported. Almost 80% of NZ is pakeha, mostly ex-UK. The names and ethnicities of the leaders are pakeha with a few exceptions'. I cant see that at all, loads and loads of government ministers, MPs, people in leading public roles etc are Maori. I cant speak for ceos and other private sector roles, but in public life it isnt I think right to say Maori arent represented fairly. And whats the basis for saying good things done by Maori arent reported? The media (assuming you dont listen to old fools on talk radio) are highly sympathetic to Maori causes and issues arent they?

'they are like all other aboriginal people downtrodden if they try and keep their culture and only accepted if they become more European' This is also a weird phrase.. are you living in the same new zealand I know? Maori only accepted if they act european? I simply cannot see that at all. Maori culture, art, life is celebrated widely, and actually given precedence in the public sphere. White people call themselves pakeha! think about that. We call ourselves an insulting maori name because that word is just part of our language now.

There are dirt poor areas, where a lot of rural maori are living in unnaceptable conditions. There are some very bad schools serving majority maori areas. There is a cycle of deprivation which needs to be broken. These are the issues that need attention and work. But too often the 'leaders' of the community are more interested in other issues that are more glamorous/interesting or personally lucrative. Maori are very very often let down by their own community as much as by anyone else.

All isnt well in New Zealand for sure, but compared to other countries with an indigenous minority population things are remarkably functional.

However, there IS a foolish acceptance of unnacceptable behvaiours such as family violence, corruption, abuse, incest, in the name of 'inclusiveness' (as we see in this case). And there is some reaction against that in recent times, mostly due to the revelations about child abuse in some communities (and this is a real and huge issue for those communities, not a press invention. A HUGE issue, and one they as a community and the institutional world have known about for decades, but the press kept quiet till it blew open). The frank fact is that dead babies on the front of the newspaper wakes up a society that has been quietly ignoring the problem forever. Then other issues start to get discussed that would have been left alone.

38. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87450 by shaunfletcher on November 12, 2007 at 6:50 am

Quote: Salman Rushdie asked us, "Are you willing to die for short skirts and dancing?"

You know I rather think I am.. because if those things (and a million others) arent 'allowed' then society, and life in it, is worthless to me.

I wont kill someone else, but Id stand up in the street and declare their preachers to be liars, their religion filth which must be prevented from having the faintest influence on the lives of even one person, their prophet an illiterate murdering child molester and their god a childish fantasy. And damn the consequences.

Sorry. Im a little angered by this.. person.

39. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83692 by shaunfletcher on October 31, 2007 at 12:49 am

Inayat Bunglawala, the MCB assistant secretary-general, said: "Bookshops sell a variety of publications and we live in an open, democratic society where it is not illegal to sell books which contain antiWestern views."

40. AAI 07

Comment #83532 by shaunfletcher on October 30, 2007 at 10:29 am

'Social Darwinism' (a misnomer but in this case an sppropriate one) is a failed concept in any form.. Only someone lost in rhetoric actually supports ideas like those scooter seems to be arguing for. WAKE UP. Communism lost, but it seems that some havent yet adjusted their thinking away from the days when hinting at anything communal felt (in one country anyway) like betrayal.

It might be time for (tongue in cheek) 'Social Dawkinsism'.. based on the thinking that develops from the selfish gene, we can quite easily see that a sensible balance of social networks and private freedoms almost certainly yields, in practice, the best results for the population.

Maybe if unconvinced you should run a huge computerised game theory experiement to see what yields the most successful stable populations.

41. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81745 by shaunfletcher on October 25, 2007 at 5:55 am

We are often told that the western/Judeo-Christian (and in a modified form Islamic) model of morality is based on the founding principles of that great tri-part religion, enunciated in the Ten Commandments that sit at its heart. We hear often of these 'rules for life' being posted and placed in locations from law court to school walls. In the recent hot tempered debates on Atheism, Evolution, The place of religion in society and such, an almost constant argument from the deist side is that our morality comes from god and, sometimes by implication or sometimes by explicit statement, that the commandments give us the core of this morality. That those of us who reject theism are fooling ourselves and that our morality comes still from this foundation stone of the progressive and compassionate world. Those who want them on the walls of law courts tell us that even if we aren't religious, our laws are really based on these rules, so it's only logical they should be there!

But what are they? What is this great moral code we all live by? I have conducted for some years an ongoing straw poll of people to see how many people know them, with predictably low resulting scores. Active Christians might get six or seven, most others four or five. I invite the reader to have a stab at this themselves, to list out without any reference all ten of them. Perhaps you can, but I freely acknowledge I could only remember eight properly when I started to write this article. Most people seem to carry the innate expectation that they are mostly moral guidance, that they provide and cover most of the really basic wrongs that are universally acknowledged. Stick to these we assume, and we wont go far wrong. Even those disputing their influence or source often buy into this, by treating them as just logical moral rules, as what any society will come up with which embraces the morals inherent in decent people and in a functional society.

But this might be one of the greatest conjuring acts in history... a masterful piece of deception and sleight of mind. The commandments say little about really important moral issues, and a great deal that has nothing to do with morality at all, except in the most distorted sense imaginable. I would like to step through these ten great stone chiselled laws of life, and let us see what they have to offer us for guidance, what kind of list of useful commandments we can construct. For convenience I will use a core of the protestant commandments, but please note that these differ in detail for Judaism and other major Christian sects. The gist of the whole is consistent across all of these faiths however.

The first commandment:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Here we have a rule that's only purpose is to establish and protect the religion who imposed the rule. Clearly this is of no use in providing moral guidance, merely a self serving stricture. Hardly a good start to our list of moral commandments.

The second commandment:
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol.
Well I suppose this might not be an awful idea, worshipping mere things is not a very good thing, but wait... isn't this a little too specific to be of much use to us? Lets not be too quick to interpret this as a modern idea about not becoming materialistic, as many are wont to do, it is in reality simply a prohibition on what were, at the time of writing, alternative religious practices. A restatement of rule one in fact. Oh dear.

The third commandment:
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God.
Why ever not? And what if that isn't my God at all? This one seems to be concerned primarily with protecting and reinforcing the sanctity or seriousness of the religion itself. A familiar tone is appearing, and this one must go the way of the former two.

The fourth commandment:
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Well it's nice to have a day off work for family time and such is it not? That seems to be the most popular modern reading of this rule, but something being nice, and traditional to boot, hardly makes it an overarching rule for life. Hardly any religious groups respect this one anyway, let alone the rest of us. Again it's about reserving things for the religion, making it special and making sure people don't forget about it. This isn't going to make a final list.

The fifth commandment:
Honour thy Mother and Father.
Well its nice to be respectful to your parents is it not? It is, but that is not what this commandment is really about at all, rather it is a reminder that authority on earth is god-given, and is to be respected and obeyed. It's possible in a moment to think of half a dozen reasons and occasions to neither respect nor obey both ones parents and authority figures, so this one, while of some use, is no underpinning rule of decent living. At least we are getting into morality as a subject, which gives us hope that we will soon get to the good stuff.

The sixth commandment:
Thou shalt not murder.
Well there isn't really much to say about this other than to accept it whole-heartedly. Of course every religious sect and every society has gone on to construct variously sensible or self serving lists of killings that do or do not constitute murder, but the base sentiment is inarguable. We have a First Commandment at last! It's slightly worrying that in the original it doesn't appear till the sixth of ten but let us continue.

The seventh commandment:
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Now I think I am going to be generous about this one. We would hardly want a list of one commandment after all, that would be making a mockery of the whole thing. In many formal interpretations this is a prohibition on any lustful behaviour or thinking of any kind, except for the procreative necessity between people married in the eyes of God. This interpretation is not going to be in our list, for reasons countless and, I imagine, obvious. The complete denial of desire and of the human sexual urge is the very opposite of helpful. In the narrowest interpretation possible we can read this as referring only to unfaithful sexual relations by a person in a voluntary permanent relationship, and then only when deceit and breach of promise is involved. This view I think can be used, as there are few ways to see such behaviour as a good thing. I let this through with reservations, but I was harsh on the Mother and Father so I think some license here can be allowed.

The eighth commandment:
Thou shalt not steal.
In the standard modern interpretation this is a solid entrant in our list, covering a multitude of, as it were, sins. A prohibition on taking things unlawfully seems inarguable, the only debate to be had might be on the meaning and scope of the word 'unlawfully', but I think we can safely leave that aside and accept this as our third commandment.

The ninth commandment:
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
There seems little problem with inclusion of this as our fourth commandment, as it not only forbids untruthfulness but even refines this with its reference to bearing witness, effectively giving us a rule against causing harm through untruthfulness. We are on something of a run here and almost at the finishing post.

The tenth commandment:
Thou shalt not covet.
Oh dear. We are back in the old familiar territory of both mistaken meaning and of a blurring of the distinction between what's nice and comfortable and what is really necessary and important. On the second point, and with a modern liberal mindset, this rule tells us not to be jealous, not to wish things were ours. Not be be materialistic in a sense. That's nice, but no more than nice. But again that isn't what this rule is about at all. We let it slide into our life at our peril, because its underlying and deeply pernicious message is one of submission. It is telling us to be content with our given place in the world, to accept that the rich man is rich because god made him so; the powerful are so because that is the place given to them in the world. So back to the fields and keep quiet. Seeking to better oneself is a sin. It is not, and this is not a rule for anyone's life.

The eleven... oh wait. That is it. That is the moral framework given to us by the underlying basis of the dominant cultures of the world. All of it, worthy of posting as a list to remind us of what really matters in the world. The big ones.

1. Thou shalt not murder.
2. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
3. Thou shalt not steal.
4. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

All of these moral codes (and many others) can be seen to have simple benefits genetically. Even ignoring the vast bulk of work done since, The Selfish Gene itself effectively provides structures whereby all of these could directly arise from genetic evolution. No god is needed here, sorry people.

42. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78561 by shaunfletcher on October 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm

No Dr Williams, that sounds like exactly what they are talking about.

43. Patience, fairness and the human condition

Comment #78483 by shaunfletcher on October 13, 2007 at 7:15 am

Im a little concerned that the conclusion far ourweighs the experiment. One game, which could simply have been a bit beyond the chimps comprehension, is hardly proof that 'chimps are simply rational maximisers'.

Im sure there is a body of other scenarios exploring this from different angles prior to coming to such bold conclusions, but the article doesnt make it seem so.

44. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78464 by shaunfletcher on October 13, 2007 at 2:09 am

The author

"why he has been a tenured professor at Oxford University"

He is not teaching there. One of the Microsoft founders pays his professorship for the public understanding of science (not evolutionary biology). He is NOT an actual professor. Although he surely could have achieved that.

The author
"A point we are all painfully familiar with because every religious apologist on here uses it."

You are talking to a concinced atheist who is actively engaged in spreading the naturalist worldview in varios freethinking and humanist organizations. Don't I fit into your ridiculous black/white worldview? I'm so sorry.

The author

Apparently I also reached what I definitely did NOT want to reach: Some users showed a remarkable black/white, ingroup/outgroup thinking, otherwise only known to me from faitheads. I think there IS (and Dawkins thinks so too) a certain danger of people just repeating everything Dawkins says and defending him like he was a prophet, no matter what.

All in all what I'm trying to say is: Beware of treating anyone like an omnicient, infallible being. This is an actual danger. Atheists are not infallible either.

45. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78211 by shaunfletcher on October 12, 2007 at 7:07 am

82. Comment #77940 by The author on October 11, 2007 at 7:28 am
Your reaction is exactly what I was afraid from happening: Dawkins turns into a prophet for some people, his atheism into a kind of religion that is to be defended in the same irrational way as real religion.

46. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77510 by shaunfletcher on October 9, 2007 at 1:17 pm

"or Dawkins is really defending an "ultradarwinist" position that hardly any evolutionary biologist shares."

I must admit I am unable to find any supporting evidence for this idea. I did try. Dawkins is pretty much mainstream, albeit like anyone else in a complex fields falling into one camp or another on contentious issues.

The 'ultradarwinist' name you keep flinging around seems like something you hope will stick and will sound bad?

47. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77371 by shaunfletcher on October 9, 2007 at 6:34 am

oh hold on there..

all evolution happens in slow and gradual steps. You wouldnt find Gould saying otherwise! Thats what evolution IS

The argument has only ever been about HOW slow and gradual, and whether that rate is broadly steady or very irregular.

48. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77120 by shaunfletcher on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Comment #77054 by The author
As for offensive language, Gould wasn't any worse than his foes. It should tell us something that there are hardly any ultradarwinists among the evolutionary biologists except Dawkins and Dennett. Evolution does not always work in slow, gradual degrees, and as the alternative is a natural explanation as well (sometimes punctuated equilibrium and other mechanisms play a role) I really don't see the great problem. Gould may very well had been influenced by his religious and political views, but the insistance on "pure" natural selection as an explanation for practically everything also doesn't seem to be objective.

49. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76763 by shaunfletcher on October 7, 2007 at 6:47 am

Having been extremely ill, a complete shock, and having my life saved by (and only by) modenr medical techniques and practices, I find his comments so touchingly familiar.

I have thanked, in person where possible and inside where not, every doctor who learnt, studied and worked, every nurse, every technician, drug chemist, researcher, and my sheer luck at being born at the time where all the arts of science and civilisation have allowed this to be.

Without CAT scans, advanced heart drugs and other pharmaceuticals, clinical practices advances, surgical techniques etc I would be dead at 39. Thank you world.

The amazing thing to me is how few people I saw being treated seemed to have thanks for anyone or anything, and how many healthcare workers and doctors were shocked to be thanked with real sincerity.

People take it all for granted and thank their silly god for nothing.

50. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73740 by shaunfletcher on September 26, 2007 at 3:46 am

Like incest, the 'problem' is rarely actually to do with the thing itself (does anyone genuinely care if an adult brother and sister sleep together? or if one woman/man and two women/men want a tripartite marriage?)

The problem is that so very much of the time that isnt the story at all. The story is one of power, abuse, children being dominated and abused, brainwashing from an early age, etc etc.