1. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #247158 by Valadon on September 14, 2008 at 3:57 am

Couldn't agree more, Sam, with both your article and the update, although I may be more firmly in the Obama camp.

2. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #171204 by Valadon on April 28, 2008 at 11:14 am

I am curious Professor Dawkins, as to the context of this phraseology. I constantly have to remind people that Atheism is not a 'worldview', but simply non belief. One can have a worldview based on other intellectual paradigms, but it is not derivative of Atheism itself It seems awkward to see you write this. I hope you will clarify your meaning.

I do agree, however, that literary biblical history is part of human history and can be regarded as one of many human accomplishments. And as a literary reference, there is no need to believe its contents in order to appreciate its aesthetics.

Thank you.

I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world view provides no justification for cutting the bible, and other sacred books, out of our education.

3. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106063 by Valadon on January 2, 2008 at 10:08 am

of interest may be an article by J Craig Venter:

A DNA-DRIVEN WORLD [12.6.07]
The 32nd Richard Dimbleby Lecture


Delivered by J. Craig Venter, BBC One, December 4, 2007

"In this lecture I will argue that the future of life depends not only in our ability to understand and use DNA, but also, perhaps in creating new synthetic life forms, that is, life which is forged not by Darwinian evolution but created by human intelligence.

To some this may be troubling, but part of the problem we face with scientific advancement, is the fear of the unknown - fear that often leads to rejection.

Science is a topic which can cause people to turn off their brains. I contend that science has failed to excite more people for at least two reasons: it is frequently taught poorly, often as rote memorization of complex facts and data, and it is antithetical to our visceral-driven way we live and interact with our world."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/venter.dimbleby07/venter.dimbleby07_index.html

4. For the glory of God

Comment #90096 by Valadon on November 22, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Comment #89804 by Russell Blackford on November 21, 2007 at 6:58 pm

I think that he meant something like "a spectrum from rigorous scepticism to credulity". I don't think he was trying to say that atheism is a kind of faith or depends on some kind of faith.

Another way to look at it is to imagine a continuum, or call it a "spectrum" if you want, from 0 to 10. At one end, we might have none at all of whatever is being measured (e.g. religious credulity) while at the other end is a maximum amount. It doesn't mean that people at the zero end have "a kind of" whatever it is that is being measured. It just means they are at that exreme end of the continuum where they have zero, nada, none at all.

That makes perfect sense as you have descibed it...all in all a better explanation.

My problem with Gardner's statement (as stated) was that faith is always seen as some reference point in discussing Atheism, and that is precisely why his comment stood out to a couple of us. It's almost (as Sam Harris says) taking "religious definitions" to make our own where it may be more advantageous to find better definitions that are non-referential and not watered down extracts of religion or faith. Take for example the very term as Harris suggests: "A-theism." Of course I am in no way ashamed of that term, but I do see some merit in what Harris has recently discussed about it.



thnx

5. For the glory of God

Comment #89801 by Valadon on November 21, 2007 at 6:37 pm

"#88419 by debaser71 on November 16, 2007 at 2:22 pm

"Faith exists on a spectrum. At one end are atheists like Dawkins who say they'll take a look at whatever evidence anyone cares to offer but they will not believe that which is not proven."

Do words not actually mean anything? Anyway otherwise an ok article"

I picked up on that as well. It's hard for me to envision Atheism on a spectrum of faith. Good article despite the fact that it seems to me an obvious flaw. Instead there might be a spectrum of faith and a spectrum of non belief.

6. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #89799 by Valadon on November 21, 2007 at 6:29 pm

I agree with others who are reading the book...simply wonderful...esp Hitch's introduction. Highly recommend.

7. The importance of doubt

Comment #66682 by Valadon on August 31, 2007 at 12:11 am

Inferno:

Why is whenever we hear of a religious person who struggled with their faith, they always seem to return to the faith they started off with? If it was a genuine struggle with questioning and doubt, shouldn't some of these former christians become Hindus or Sikhs or Zoroastrians?

It may be a case where the familiar is more acceptable than charting a new course...I'd suggest it is mere comfort, unless that person has resolved their doubt to their own satisfaction or simply accepts that doubt and suffers with it.

As to doubt itself, it seems to me on occasion to be a healthy part of any reasoning process. And moreover not the sole venue of those of religious persuasion. In addition, it is how we resolve that doubt or move from it to a better understanding of our subject that is of greater import.

In the case of scientific inquiry it would seem to be an integral part of a process for dealing with uncertainties and in that case doubt could be a positive aspect of that process. As we know science is a continuous method of discovery and does not claim absolute knowledge of a particular subject. Scientific theory can be modified by new information, but that does not mean that the accumulated data or facts compiled thusfar to support that theory are any less factual.

I think the main distinction between religious doubt and doubt that is a part of rigorous critical thinking is the perspective one takes...Doubt in a religious sense is mainly or historically perceived as more negative or induced by fear. Wheras with other types of inquiry it can broaden one's comprehension.

8. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66631 by Valadon on August 30, 2007 at 5:05 pm

As to the subject of Mother Teresa...and Hitchen's article...I found his piece as I believe Veronique did, to have an element of compassion as regards her moral dilemma and her descent into that dark tunnel of doubt. In fact he was more considerate than in previous pieces.

I too can express empathy with her situation, but considering her very staunch belief system, I can also understand how it might be almost impossible for her to do otherwise than to adhere (even if reluctantly), to her faith. As I mentioned before with Sam's article.. many if not most people of religious faith might regard this as her most valuable strength. While someone of my persuasion would consider it a great loss to her own humanity to not have recourse to the acceptance of her most private thoughts and the fortitude to act upon them.

If as some scientists suggest that our emotions are more intricately tied to our faculty for reason than we once thought, then it may be no easy feat to make a sharp delineation between the two. Even if we think for the most part that reason is the sole impetus for our decisions. She was human, all too human, and subject to the same frailties we all suffer.

9. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66627 by Valadon on August 30, 2007 at 4:36 pm

For what it's worth...I am very much in accord with Justice Ginsburg (US Supreme Court) in a legal sense when it comes to the issue of abortion...in accordance with the US Constitution it would be an infringement upon a woman's fundamental individual human rights to legislate that she has no right to the sovereignty of her person. Moreso, that right is even more important than the often touted rationale of privacy concerns.

In a moral sense, I think that neither the state nor the citizenry has a right to impose their consensual moral belief on another human being or that it should supercede the moral decision of an individual woman in a case where she is considering abortion.

Morality is an inherent human trait and as such is subject to the individual interpretation of a particular person...who are we to dictate what is for all intent and purpose a very private family decision. I think many of us as Atheists would decry the overbearing intrusion into our personal lives as we witness with so many faith-based moral imperatives...I find it hard to believe that some of us would succumb to the same obnoxious habit.

So, as far as Hitchens is concerned he is quite entitled to have his own particular stand on abortion without it affecting our own individual moral sense of it.

10. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66619 by Valadon on August 30, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Steveroot...

thnx I'd have to say that your quote left a more positive imprint on my mind

This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything." -from the Hitchhikers Guide

11. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66403 by Valadon on August 29, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Professor Dawkins:

This is my favorite part of Sam's very well written article:

"Let the good news go forth: we live in a cosmos, the vastness of which we can scarcely even indicate in our thoughts, on a planet teeming with creatures we have only begun to understand, but the whole project was actually brought to a glorious fulfillment over twenty centuries ago, after one species of primate (our own) climbed down out of the trees, invented agriculture and iron tools, glimpsed (as through a glass, darkly) the possibility of keeping its excrement out of its food, and then singled out one among its number to be viciously flogged and nailed to a cross."

12. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66401 by Valadon on August 29, 2007 at 11:44 pm

Richard Morgan,

True, Though hero-worship might have to be distinguished from legitmate praise or credit for someones's accomplishment...but I do know of what you speak. Krishnamurti once said "do not even follow me." (in so many words) as a teacher that was a profound statement for him to have made. In the end if we simply "adore" someone (celebrity worship) for their thoughts at the expense of our own we will give up something valuable of ourselves to another. In the end it would seem if that is the case we would not have fidelity to our own thoughts or understanding. Credit where it is due is one thing - Hero worship quite another.

13. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66382 by Valadon on August 29, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Thank You Dr Benway...I think you've made a valid point without being offensive...And in fact what you've stated is the whole point of Sam and Christopher's assessment of the predicament in which Mother Teresa found herself. She could not be true to her own thoughts or even her doubt because to do so would be a denial of her very foundation. There was no way for her to rectify this except as a suffering "servant of god." And that ironically is what most religious people may mistakenly construe as her strongest point...and of course as a reason to suggest her for sainthood.

I think you are absolutely correct in saying that as humans we are the most dignified when we are true to our thoughts and feelings...or as Sam suggests in his article when we do not sacrifice our reasoning for a less acceptable alternative.

14. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48975 by Valadon on June 9, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Corylus,

You raise a good point as to "differences" It might have been better had the Rabbi qualified his statement as "perceived" differences....as in "the other" Otherwise it could be misinterpreted as an artificial separation...some might choose to love Atheists in spite of themselves as merely a form of tolerance instead of human understanding.

15. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48974 by Valadon on June 9, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Richard,

Thank you for commenting on this and setting the tone. I had much the same reaction as yourself to this piece. First, that it was a dignified response to the question of religion and atheism. And secondly, that there were a couple of obvious flaws... such as suggesting atheism as a form of protest...which almost implies a militant intent rather than a simple foundational disagreement. I also found it interesting that we hardly ever see inferences to much earlier Atheistic thought. It seems to arise from the Enlightenment as if man had never contemplated this question before. Overall, I think that the sentiment provided by the Rabbi was better than most of the harangues we've been witness to from others and I appreciated his thoughtfulness.

Big John, Thank you, I always cringe when someone says atheism is a belief!!! Rather it is as you say non-belief based on factual empirical data....and the lack of evidence to the contrary.

16. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #36948 by Valadon on May 2, 2007 at 10:20 pm

You can also watch online here RA or WMP

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13868.htm

17. Beyond belief: In place of God

Comment #8817 by Valadon on November 22, 2006 at 11:17 am

RE: Vicki B #8679 "Valadon, I agree with you about the beautiful and awesome narrative. Science isn't stark at all, perhaps it's only stark to people who know the least about it. The knowledge of how the world works and how we ended up here among it is awesome and inspirational, and it's up to us to make the most of it."


Vicki, thank you...I've been thinking for some time about this subject of the narrative mind..I wonder what works might be produced using the narrative of science in terms of writing, art etc..historically, as we know, much of it has been based on religious myth or belief. There could be whole new art forms or types of writing etc.

The other thing that astounds me is that people feel that they will lose meaning in their lives if they don't hold to old myths, worldviews or even superstition, when in fact this overall narrative function isn't something that will go away...it is inherent in us all...and it just may be expressed in a different way based on a more informed understanding of our world....and we would not lose the historicity of mankind's prior works.

18. Beyond belief: In place of God

Comment #8768 by Valadon on November 22, 2006 at 8:32 am

Sorry in post # 8767 I forgot to post my name...so as not to confuse!!
Valadon

19. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #8628 by Valadon on November 21, 2006 at 9:14 pm

RE; 8589 by curious
"I am frankly astounded about the lack of mathematical knowledge among some of these people who call themselves Atheists and value what they think is science above all else. The fact is without at least a fundamental understanding of mathematics one cannot claim much of a knowledge about science."

I think that that may be short-sighted of you. I have no great expertise in mathematics which you suggest is the scientist's most important tool, but what I do have is a theoretical understanding that is intuitive of the above and a philosophical background to substantiate my thoughts and views.

20. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #8611 by Valadon on November 21, 2006 at 8:37 pm

I'm glad that Professor Dawkins visited us here in the U.S. you would be surprised to know how many were actually happy to hear him!

I do have to respond to this post# 7237 quote:

"Atheism, on the other hand, takes no responsibility. There is nothing to strive for and no motivation to do good to others, and there is nothing or no one to hold people accountable for their deeds. If you seek responsibility, it is not found in atheism."


Atheism is not an entity it can take no responsibility...but people who consider themselves atheistic have no recourse but to take responsibility for their actions...it is not after all divine will acting here. And on the contrary I strive to be the the best and most loving human being that I can be...I am self-motivated in that respect.

21. Beyond belief: In place of God

Comment #8598 by Valadon on November 21, 2006 at 7:55 pm

It is just as futile to get someone to give up using their ears, or love other children as much as their own... Religion fills very basic human needs."
- Mel Konner, ecologist, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia


As human beings we are all capable of logical, analytic thought...thought that is directed or goal oriented; we also have the function of narrative and that is where our stories, our art , our rituals, our meaning come from. Religion was for so many years the dominant narrative of how we connected to our world. We can see this in its most primitive form in early man and proceeding to current day as organized religion. It is not, however, the only narrative that man can have in terms of his place in the universe and his participation in it. Science, all of it's branches from cosmology to anthropology to evolution also has a beautiful and awesome narrative.

People wonder how such a stark thing as science can console or give meaning to life...I think science gives us the tools to understand, it is up to each one of us as human beings to console each other and to see the meaning of life all around us.

22. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8515 by Valadon on November 21, 2006 at 1:30 pm

Post #8485
"We have Emergence, which is a more powerful idea by far. God is a fundamentally useless notion, the idea of a great sky being running our lives, a cosmic intervenor and creator. Emergence... emergence is the idea that we are agents in a mysterious and wonderful process."

I agree with you John...we already have Emergence..it is called evolution...this is informed by the reductionism of science (experiment and observation), but it is not limited to reductionism by virtue of our understanding of evolution as emergence and described by Professor Dawkins as the simple becoming more complex...(this idea is not simply reductive, but additive and expansive) And in addition there is cross pollination in terms of interdisciplinary study.

23. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8362 by valadon on November 21, 2006 at 3:16 am

I only found parts of the essay thought provoking (Agency,and the combination of self-organization with natural selection) ...there were parts of the essay that seemed disjointed to me and it ended with a whimper instead of a big bang! I also see no sense in ressurecting a word, that for all intent and purpose has a different meaning to different people (some less transcendent than others) besides if we are speaking of emergence shouldn't a new understanding of life and our relationship with our universe etc deserve a new title?

Some people like Mr. Kauffman, think that the current strife between reason and religion is something that has to be fixed or mended. When in reality, and to my mind, it may be a natural phenomenon and vital to the evolution of our minds. And in fact we've had competing ideas throughout our human history.

This is not something that needs to be loudly or softly spoken...it just needs to be spoken...awareness and education are key to dispelling fallatious arguments. I watched an old episode of Cosmos tonight with Carl Sagan. In this show he was in a school room with children and he lit up their eyes when he spoke of the stars...that's how children learn, absorb and become enthused about their world. And I have to admit that I felt like one of them when he spoke. It was just as wondrous to me.

I'd like to see more scientists really become involved with people. Currently we have a few programs on the science channel or Nova..but there should be more outreach.

Mr Kaufmann spoke of the early Greeks and the Cosmos, Sagan spoke of Democritus specifically what a shame that science went into a dark age after him...because this is what he thought:

"The universe is infinite because it has not been produced by a creator. The causes of what now exists had no beginning."

"There is an infinite number of worlds of different sizes: some are larger than ours, some have no sun or moon, others have suns or moons that are bigger than ours. Some have many suns and moons. Worlds are spaced at differing distances from each other; in some parts of the universe there are more worlds, in other parts fewer. In some areas they are growing, in other parts, decreasing. They are destroyed by collision with one another. There are some worlds with no living creatures, plants, or moisture."

circa 460 B.C.