1. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #193130 by Barnacle on June 14, 2008 at 5:42 pm

While I disagree fundamentally with a lot of what he writes (and especially certain assumptions he is making in doing so), I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. If anyone were to succeed in improving relations between religions, I would applaud them.

I also found this statement somewhat insulting:
"Where people of faith combat such extremism they should be supported."
I would like to think that ANYONE combating extremism deserves support.

2. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #136449 by Barnacle on March 1, 2008 at 8:54 am

DNA can quite easily be transferred from one species to another by viruses which obviously must use host cells to replicate and so have to integrate their own DNA into the host's DNA to trick it into copying it and producing more viruses. There is no question that this happens and there is a huge amount of DNA - even in mammals - which may have originated from viruses. For example, certain transposable elements.

I don't think Craig Venter was suggesting, BTW, that one mammal's gene might get transferred into another's genome. I think he was suggesting the same viral genes would be present in both and that, if you chose the wrong parts of the genome for comparison, you'd be liable to make mistakes. It is possible that he was arguing chunks of one genome could become integrated in another but, again, this would only present a serious problem if you were comparing very few genes. In very closely related species, though, I can imagine that it would be tricky to work out which species were the most closely related if it came down to the presence of such introduced genes.

I expect Venter has a very different perspective when it comes to taxonomy etc. anyway because he's been doing the ocean sampling project and works with bacteria a lot - which transfer genes regularly and for which the concept of a species is arguably truly redundant. He did at one point say that he sees the species we are most familiar with (i.e. the large ones within our visual range) as an 'oddity'. They are a ridiculously small subset of what is a very much bacteria-dominated world.

edit:
Wanted to add that the idea of lateral gene transfer just emphasises the point for me - that it is very much a gene-centric world. It is genes being transferred and the organisms they build are, relatively speaking, irrelevant.

3. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100489 by Barnacle on December 18, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I would like to think that what Richard Dawkins was saying is that he doesn't think Christmas is that offensive (I think most agree it's more fun than offensive) and that, as long as we recognise the fictional character of carols etc, it is quite harmless to sing along to them - in the same way as we can appreciate any work of fiction. I think the key is that Dawkins recognises the fictional nature of Christianity and is not, therefore, going to act on whatever suggestions the associated stories make.

Of course, that's just my wishful interpretation. It could also have been the result of some unusual back-track. I think it even more likely that it was just a case of spur-of-the-moment-response syndrome (i.e. he didn't think his words through to the same degree that we're analysing them).

Now this might seem pedantic but I want to also point out that the quote about the OT God is quite incosequential. That is a character in the fictional story, if you like, not the story itself. It's like saying that a character in some other fictional story is very gifted or has a good sense of humour. To then say that the story itself is terrible (or wonderful or has had widespread influence etc) has no bearing on the description of that character.

4. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100475 by Barnacle on December 18, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Aaron - this may have already been pointed out but, while your explanation works most of the time, I cannot see how it would work in such cases as, for example, donations to charities which function in other continents (keeping in mind that the impulse to 'be nice' is not something we only evolved recently and so must have developed when we lived in smaller communities without chance of ever going abroad). In such a case, there is no obvious benefit to our immediate environment that could have applied a few hundred thousand years ago and so the apparently altruistic action can only be explained by once again falling back on the mis-firing argument. Having said that, I rather like the idea and would like to hear if you have some way round this problem that I cannot see.

As for the interview, despite the obvious questions, I think it was one of the best I've seen in terms of getting the point across succinctly. As for the interviewer, he annoyed me with his implied defiance concerning humans being apes but was otherwise alright. Then again, I wasn't watching the interview (just listening) so there's a fair chance I would have liked him less had I seen how he was reacting (judging only from what's been said in other's comments).

5. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #98890 by Barnacle on December 14, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I personally rather like Giuliani for the most part and, while it's a shame that he is being endorsed by this idiot, I can understand why he is accepting the backing.

As for what Pat Robertson cares about more - politics or religion - he is probably concerned about economics more than abortion. Or else just realises that Rudy might actually win.

6. Messiah

Comment #55346 by Barnacle on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Are we all agreed that the 'experts' were real?

Assuming the answer is yes and that they are not willing to put their 'reputations' on the line by playing a knowing role in this programme, I don't think how Derren Brown actually does his tricks matters in this context (except as a matter of interest). The show was supposed to expose the 'experts' and how readily they will endorse someone claiming to have whatever ability and that we should not, therefore, be willing to accept an individual's claims simply because they have the backing of some 'reputable' authority figure.

Whether the other people involved were actors or whatnot really doesn't matter - the 'experts' fell for it.

It was relatively entertaining to watch anyway and I genuinely hope the conversion bit was staged because those 'skeptics' were pathetic as far as skepticism goes... There was, I think, one woman still left standing at the end of it though.

BTW, about the alien abduction lady - anyone could see that she's an 'alternative-treatments-person-who-doesn't-trust-western-medicine' come on! You don't need to look that up!

7. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37705 by Barnacle on May 5, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I don't think McCain realized he was stepping into another controversy when he mentioned the Grand Canyon. It was just a handy example of something impressive that he could attribute the creation of to a god.

Anyway, I don't see why we are all acting so surprised over this. It's exactly what I would have expected and, in fact, was surprised the answer was 'yes' at all. That only three do not believe evolution to be real is actually relatively encouraging compared to what I thought of them before. It is, of course, depressing to think that anyone at all in government can deny evolution - but we need to be realistic.

Anyway, these people are politicians and, as has been said, their aim is to appeal to the public. They also shouldn't be expected to be scientists or understand evolution fully dispite the controversy (absurd though it is) surrounding it at the moment. They are ignorant and it's worrying - but they should be judged on their politics.

8. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35245 by Barnacle on April 26, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Nepeta, even if what you say about religion in the past is true, it doesn't justify our continuing tolerance of it.

9. Der Digitale Planet (lecture)

Comment #34987 by Barnacle on April 25, 2007 at 8:44 pm

When Richard Dawkins speaks, he mentions the end of the century being just over a year away - so I would infer that it was late 1998. If you are after an even more specific date, I have no idea.

Very enjoyable lectures!

10. Flea Circus!

Comment #32920 by Barnacle on April 18, 2007 at 5:47 pm

What's up with that apostrophe?

11. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #32104 by Barnacle on April 15, 2007 at 5:57 pm

My Compact OED defines dogma as 'a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority and intended to be accepted without question'.

12. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #31877 by Barnacle on April 14, 2007 at 8:20 pm

It doesn't look like Sullivan actually wants a response this time.

13. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31050 by Barnacle on April 10, 2007 at 7:39 pm

I don't know where this clip came from or whether it's real but it's - unbelievable.

Those of you who are wondering why it's such a big deal for some of us - from my point of view:

My parents are not religious and I was never really exposed to religion. I never found myself in a position where I had to tell my parents that I was an atheist or 'come out'. I have no idea how people living with trully religious parents deal with this. I have no idea just how difficult it is to admit to being an atheist or how much pressure you might be under to keep quiet. Things like this make it clear and tell us how we can support people in that position and encourage them to hold their ground dispite their difficulties. It's valuable, if only in that it gives us a glimpse into how the parents are feeling. I, at least, want intelligent, thinking atheists to feel secure in 'coming out' even when faced with the prospect of this kind of outburst. This kind of thing can be overcome and I would like these people to know that they have others behind them who support them. And how can we help if we are ignorant of what they (and by extension, we) are dealing with?

14. Beatrix Potter, scientist

Comment #31046 by Barnacle on April 10, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I should speak up here I suppose - I'm female.

However, I do recall a poll that did suggest the visitors to this site are predominantly male. I also get the impression that I know more male atheists than female but I've also noticed that my male friends generally tend to be more interested in science, politics and 'how the world works' in general than my female friends who are thinking more about raising a family, worrying over what to wear, conflicts with their bosses etc. That's some heavy stereotyping if one generalises - but it's certainly how my acquaintances come across.

Didn't know much of that about Beatrix Potter - interesting.

15. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #29944 by Barnacle on April 5, 2007 at 3:59 pm

What can I say? Whenever I see Haggard, I feel like grabbing hold and shaking him (or possibly punching him)... The Monty Python script coming out of his mouth did not change this for me in the slightest.

16. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28310 by Barnacle on March 28, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Why does McGrath think Dawkins strongest argument is the link between violence and religion?

Allowing him the benefit of the doubt, I suspect it's because he cares more about what makes people 'feel good' than about what is 'true'. If I'm not feeling generous, however, I'd say he is deliberately avoiding the important points in order to appear more plausible.

17. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28305 by Barnacle on March 28, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Spinoza, many things, for example many implications of what we find in quantum mechanics, seem amazingly 'illogical' or counter-intuitive - yet they are demonstrated to be true through experiment. That you don't understand or cannot comprehend something does not make it incorrect.

18. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28298 by Barnacle on March 28, 2007 at 4:42 pm

"I quite agree that this is dissapointing because I think that there is quite a convincing secular critique you can make against Dawkins on his percieved role of religion in society."

Then someone should write a good book about that.

"The case against religion is made but not for alternative values. Maybe this is beyond the scope of the book but any good book on atheism should counter the arguement that atheists have no values."

That's simply not true. A lot is said in TGD about atheists and their values and it is made very clear that we do have values - but not the values we are told we should have by a book.

Also cheshirecat, you are ignoring the attention given to the New Testament in TGD. The criticism was not only aimed at the Old Testament, which, I'd have to agree, is generally ignored by moderates anyway (bar the creation story - which is unfortunate). Of course, that was part of the point anyway - to demonstrate that the (moderately) religious do not derive their morals from scripture to the extent that they claim they do - and that those who trully do are those who we call 'fundamentalists'.

The attitude of TGD towards theists may well not convert the majority (though it has done a few at least) but it might demonstrate to a few people that the beliefs they thought they held in fact play less of a role in their life than they assumed. Even if it were to have no effect at all directly on the religious, it has certainly drawn some (well, quite a lot!) attention to our side of the debate. That, for me, is what really matters.

There is an undeniable place for Dawkin's attitude towards religion. There are others who go for the more subtle approach.

19. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27629 by Barnacle on March 25, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I appreciate this was a reply to a particular message but I want to defend Janus anyway...

"Pure nonsense, dude. You've just defined an 'explanation' in the way you want it defined in order to suit your atheism. It is, of course, true that Occam's razor says we should go for the simplest explanation but that doesn't mean that we should go for a too simple explanation which is what you're doing."

No - this is the way YOU want it defined (not necessarily you personaly). The whole point is that theists argue the complexity of life/the unvierse etc calls for a creator. Considering the creator is, by definition just as, if not more, complex as the thing you are trying to explain, it cannot stand as an explanation. It will itself require an explanation - not because I ask for it - but because you do. It is because of your need for an explanation for the complex that a complex creator cannot be the explanation.

"As for your alien bio-engineers as you acknowledge yourself they do explain "the origin of life on earth" and, of course, this is the only life we know of: "we only have evidence that it happened on one planet" (R Dawkins, p260 Climbing Mt Improbable) . Life looks designed and, indeed, there was a designer (or more). Its now just a matter of determining identity"

Yes, aliens could explain the origins of life on Earth - assuming they exist - but then you are faced with the question of their origin as well. The point is not that this wouldn't explain life's origins but rather that this wouldn't stand as an 'ultimate' explanation. Just as Janus said, it's an 'intermediate' explanation at best. Similarly, if there is a god and she created life on Earth, you still have to ask how she came into existence. And, like you quote, we only have evidence for life on Earth. This presumably means the 'aliens did it' option is not something we can justifiably believe - the same would apply with the 'god did it' option. Sure, life looks designed - and evolution by natural selection explains why - without invoking any infinitely complex beings.

As for the whole 'chance' thing. Having to appeal to a billion billion planets isn't really that big a deal when you consider how many there are. Sure, the emergence of self-replicating molecules MIGHT have been unlikely - but that really doesn't matter as long as the probability was not zero or close enough to that for life to not emerge, ever, on any one of the planets in the whole universe. Regardless of this whole chance issue, it may not in fact be as unlikely as you're suggesting. It's likely that self-replicating molecules need not emerge by 'chance' but rather as a passive result of the laws of physics and the chemistry of quite 'ordinary' molecules. Do keep in mind that life first emerged on Earth rather early on (I'm assuming you're not the type who goes for the 6000 year old Earth).

The quoting of Dawkins doesn't help your case. A lot is taken out of context and the rest shows simply that you do not understand how evolution by natural selection works. You worry about 'leaps' that are not there (it's gradual remember) and the need for several fish to all lay down on the same side (it only takes one) or evolution going backwards (it doesn´t go backwards in the sense that things are not completely undone as evolution has no forsight - it can however go back a tiny step, by chance, or if a few 'easy' backwards steps actually favour survival or are neutral under new circumstances - like, possibly, the dinosaur extinction example) etc. These issues are nonsense. Go read another book on evolution (or try reading the same one again - but slowly).

The bear thing is funny but you certainly don't need to go for that example to find contradictions in the Bible - as you must know very well if you've read it. Though I have to say, the interpretation counts as much as what is actually in it - how do you feel about the week-long creation story? What? It's metaphorical is it?

20. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27475 by Barnacle on March 24, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Blacknad, that something was 'good enough' for it not to have been selected against, doesn't make it 'perfect'. Perfection is what you would expect from an omnipotent and omniscient god, however.

But there are plenty of otherr examples of 'bad design' - good enough for natural selection but quite unimpressive if an all-powerful being came up with the idea. For example, the leading cause of death for babies, under the age of one in the US, is 'airway obstruction' (ie choking) - obviously easy to overcome with 'better design'.

As for why non-believers tend to have a problem with 'moderate' Christians (and moderates with other religious convictions) - there are several possible reasons.

One might be the idea that you pave the way for the fundamentalists. After all, future fundamentalists are not always born into fundamentalist families and they don't always become acquainted with their religion because of other fundamentalists. If there were no religion, fundamentalists that subscribe to that religion obviously could not exist. I appreciate that there could be extremists who subscribe to other dogmas. It just so happens that religion is the most prominent one.

The other is that the majority of people who are religious - even if they are moderates - have their opinions - particularly on issues of morality - shaped by their faith. If you are taking Jesus' teachings 'at face value' (assuming that means you do NOT take them literally), that may not be a big problem. However, the majority of Christians do oppose, for example, abortion and many also have problems with homosexuality, IVF, cloning, genetic modification of crops etc When such opinions are uninformed, as they are with the religious who justify their position using scripture, I think it is fair for non-believers to be concerned. Of course, in this case that includes individuals belonging to other religions, as well as those who do not hold such beliefs.

Another is that, while you may say that your beliefs do not interfere with how you see science, many moderates would disagree. When the religious are hindering science without reason, it is right that we should be concerned and should oppose them since they are not just minding their own business anymore.

Personaly, I have no problem, in principle, with moderately religious people besides that I find their blind belief and irrationality perplexing and think their attitudes potentialy damaging. However, when they are affecting my life - be it by obstructing science, trying to push for what I consider to be unfair legislation or trying to influence what is taught in schools, it should not be surprising that I begin to react.

I should add that I also kind of take issue with it all being considered 'true' - I do think what is actually true rather matters.

21. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26638 by Barnacle on March 20, 2007 at 8:03 pm

The point is he would have cared deeply about the subject because it is in the mechanics of his mind to wonder at such questions where as it is not given to others to be interested in the great question.
...and there would be nothing wrong with that (not saying you said there would be).

But it's irrelevant. Back to the present - the difference between Dawkins and these people who write in 'reply' is that, so far, those replies simply don't contain good arguments - for the reasons already listed. Either the author simply doesn't seem to have understood the original arguments (or deliberately misconstrues them - it's difficult to see how they could possibly be misunderstood) or they are attacking straw men. I haven't read every book there is to read,of course - perhaps this one here will surprise me (I think I'll get this one - sounds more interesting - even if only because of its style).

Dawkin's arguments may have come from wherever - it really doesn't matter. And replies to his arguments can be 200 years old for all I care.

What is special about Dawkins (though he does have unique ideas too) is how lucid his writing is and therefore how easy it should be for people to understand his point of view. As for the 'replies' - they aren't usually new ideas anyway but, even if they are, if they don't address the arguments they are meant to be dealing with, what use are they?

22. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26618 by Barnacle on March 20, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

I do agree with the idea that certain value systems are more subjective or arbitrary than others. However, how we decide that is in itself not fixed (eg: not fixed by religion). I think the majority of humans agree on what is valuable or otherwise, to some extent, though anyway.

The point is that when we are acting morally for example, we are not doing it and feeling bad about it or wasting our time like Spaghetti Monster seems to imply. We do it because we 'want' to (for whatever reason). I may 'want' to do something based on a reasoned weighing up of the information I have at hand and a decision that will aid my survival. It doesn't matter how I came to the conclusion and chose my actions - that isn't relevant to the point I was attempting to make...

It doesn't matter that we might not be around to reap the rewards of our actions in the future - we get something out of it right now. In the same way, Spaghetti Monster claims he/she chooses to do things he/she 'wants' to and critisises the rest of us as if we are wasting our time doing 'good' things - simply because he/she doesn't recognise that we, too, do these things because we 'want' to.

My point was simply to explain that we do does impact us NOW even if it doesn't seem to. Even if all I'm doing is deciding that I should believe this article over that, I'll get something out of making what I deem (based on a reasoned evaluation of both if you wish) to be the correct decision.

What I'm saying is not in conflict with what you are saying Riley and MelM. I agree with you completely. It's also not meant to be in conflict with what Spaghetti Monster said - I'm just trying to explain that he/she is incorrect in thinking that actions now that are not obviously of immediate benefit are meaningless.

23. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26495 by Barnacle on March 19, 2007 at 6:24 pm

When I flicked through this issue of Nature and saw that fossil, I punched the air yet another time. I don't think there is much of an effect to be had on theists with these transitional fossils - but they are wonderful discoveries anyway and they represent a sort of personal victory in my eyes.

Anyway, Spaghetti Monster, let me first say that I don't think you're a theist as was implied by someone earlier but I do disagree a little with you.

Amongst other things, you said earlier: "Sorry, I have to disagree. Human life may have more value to YOU over an egg plant but, in reality….. no such value exists."

I agree with you there - the value doesn't exist in the sense that it hasn't been declaired by some transcendental being to be 'valuable'. We assign our own personal value to things. It just so happens that many of us agree on what is valuable. Even you, who claim to be 'amoral', know what is considered 'moral' - and probably largely without needing to think much about it. You also assign value to your own life that, 'in reality', as you say, has no value at all.

As you said 'YOU' may think otherwise. We each choose for ourselves what is valuable. If I feel an eggplant has more value than a human, then that's it - for me an eggplant is more valuable than a human! But, clearly, very few people (if any) think this. The fact that you chose this example suggests you also don't think this.

As an atheist, I don't follow some universal moral code written in a book (or otherwise). I, instead, do what I 'feel' is right (which happens to include remaining within the confines of the law in my case). I do what I 'feel' is right for myself - it makes me feel good.

For example, I get a certain satisfaction from helping friends or family or from donating to charity. To go to your original example, I particularly enjoy nature and personaly value it so I 'want' to help prevent global warming and preserne species that might otherwise go extinct. None of this is to do with some moral code - it is me doing what makes me feel happy or that, for whatever reason, I feel I should do (not because someone told me to - but because I 'feel' this way). So, like you, I am being completely and utterly selfish in every sense - except that the outcome is widely considered 'moral'.

Why these things are so widely seen as 'moral' and why I personaly gain some sort of pleasure from being 'moral' may be down to my evolutionary history but I digress.

What I really wanted to point out is that your assignment of particular significance to your own feelings is equivalent to anyone else assigning significance to the feelings they have for anything else they happen to care about - for whatever selfish (or apparently otherwise) reason.

When you say, "To me responsibility is having the "ability to respond" in any given situation to whatever outcome will benefit me and bring me the most pleasure.", you are saying exactly what I also think. The only difference is that you don't recognise that people like me (and apparently many others on this board) do actually gain some sort of satisfaction from trying to help future generations or from doing things widely considered 'moral' or 'altruistic'. This wanting to help future generations is still just about pleasing myself - but the outcome is (likely to be) good for many other people too. It doesn't matter that we won't be around to see the outcome - the point is only that we gain something from it NOW (just like you've been saying).

So, basically, I see your stance as being hypocritical. You are criticising other people for doing what you do just because the outcome of their actions is accepted as moral - whereas yours may not be.

24. The History of Creationist Thought

Comment #26417 by Barnacle on March 19, 2007 at 7:21 am

It was amusing but it didn't really make me laugh. I think what is going on in reality - no need for deliberate comedy - is ridiculous enough already to make me laugh (and cry, unfortunately).

25. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #25171 by Barnacle on March 10, 2007 at 4:16 pm

There came one point when he said 'I don't believe in god...' and I thought he was going to say something truly revealing - but he quickly ruined it.

I don't know quite what I think about this guy. On the one hand I agree with a lot of what he says and understand his reverence for the universe and his appreciation of science. But I also don't understand his need for a god. He seems to me, to even know (at least at some level) that he doesn't need a god - and yet insists on this belief anyway.

I guess the 'loony' description is the closest to what I think of him. But he's not an honest loony like the fundamentalist Christians - or even moderates - he is a loony 'loony'.

Still, I agree with the above - I'd rather have this kind of loony to deal with than the 'other' type.