1. Former state science director sues over intelligent design e-mail

Comment #203394 by dr joneZ on July 2, 2008 at 7:57 pm

steveroot,

they both flick his switch together. It's a miracle, because all of this electricity lights up the room so it must be good

2. Former state science director sues over intelligent design e-mail

Comment #203391 by dr joneZ on July 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Education is the battlefront to watch. The War on Education - now in it's opening stages - will be the dirtiest fight of all time. This is but one case of many to come. Educators and teachers MUST stand for reason and freedom of thought.

Even Will Smith has the bloody Scientologists teaching at his new self-funded private school for his own kids

It's got to stop - education was never supposed to be a warfront

3. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #200058 by dr joneZ on June 26, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Why do (most) humans always think that all you have to do is collect data and that somehow the data will do all your thinking for you? What about creativity?

How is this supposed to tell us what new data we need to seek? What new telescope do we need? What new collider? What new biological probes?

Barry Pearson's comment is the most perceptive so far IMO. In order to analyse anything there needs to be something there to analyse doesn't there? Imagine a bunch of experts seated around a table, ready and fired up to do some hardcore number-crunching. They all go home early because nothing happened. Why? Nobody was able to come up with anything to analyse.

4. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #199418 by dr joneZ on June 25, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Why does RD lump UFOs under the banner of pseudo science? It's slightly illogical of him, given that he has on many occasions attested to the possibility that the universe is teeming with life. Like most, I regard with disdain the tabloid-pulp sensationalisation of "lights in the sky" and the crass nonsense of "alien abduction encounters" and all the rest of the hooey associated with the cultist embrace of the UFO "mystery".

Nevertheless, if RD can leave the door wide open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life he surely has to admit that some of this life may be more advanced than we are and may well have shown a covert interest in us over the ages. While rejecting out of hand most of the crud associated with UFOs, I think he should at least differentiate the cult of the UFO from the serious study of the phenomenon which virtually never gets any publicity.

5. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195748 by dr joneZ on June 18, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Anybody who wants to really get to grips with what Tegmark is on about should read carefully David Deutsch's book "The Fabric of Reality" which appeared in 1997. Deutsch is an Oxonian and a friend of RD if I am not wrong. Hailed as the "father of the quantum computer" he takes seriously Everett's groundbreaking "Many Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics and elaborates a theory of parallel universes closely resembling the Mathematical Universe hypothesis of Max baby. Where we are up to, people in all of this can be summarised the statement:

Reality is the dream of numbers.

The funny part is - even Richard Dawkins believes in a primary physical universe; that matter is a primitive material given. If I stub my toe against the rock and it hurts then the rock really is there-type thinking. Well, these neo-platonists like Maxy don't even believe that! In some respects, anyone who holds Tegmark's (and Everett's and Deutsch's) ideas to be sound is even more atheistic than Richard Dawkins! Dawkins still holds that "the universe exists; the universe is real". That's his wonderfully modest theology. He knows he cannot prove it any more than he can disprove god's existence, but that's OK. Even Victor Stenger in his tome "God, The Failed Hypothesis" fails to distinguish between the "physical universe" and "reality" (which comes in more than one flavour if QM is right: it is).

Of course Stenger's goal was not to present an argument in favor of the existence of the Physical Universe. His goal was to present evidence that IF such a universe exists THEN there is no evidence that it has been created by a GOD, and I believe Stenger is mainly right on this account.

Too bad Tegmark doesn't even believe in "Stenger's God" or "Dawkins God" (the physical universe). In that sense he is much more "atheist" than either.

6. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189693 by dr joneZ on June 7, 2008 at 1:59 am

Excellent thinking, Steve. Indeed, atheists are the New Homosexuals - at least in terms of their profile with the god-bothering majority(?)

It's time for atheists to "come out of the closet" in the way that gays did in the 70s. That's all we are doing by getting together; we are just recognising that our numbers are far larger than any one of us as individuals had ever imagined. That's not religion - that's ENLIGHTENMENT

7. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189683 by dr joneZ on June 7, 2008 at 1:20 am

I appreciate that atheists hesitate to clump together because that ALWAYS looks like small-minded types trying to augment their self-importance by sharing the burden of intellectual wankery. However, the CAUSE of atheism is important enough to short-circuit that style of thinking in favour of a "fight fire with fire" manifesto which may just pull all the lurkers and armchair enthusiasts out of their lethargy. The biggest problem is with the term itself. Why do we need a term like this to describe people who DO NOT believe something? It would make sense only in a world where the vast majority were believers. It is by no means clear that that is the case. Most atheists just "sit it out" and tolerate the religious wankers just in order to keep the peace. Well - that time is past. If people think that militant atheism will start a ruckus then so be it. We have World Youth Day bearing down on us here in Ausatralia and it is saddening to say that no atheist organisation in this country (to my knowledge) has mounted a protest against this puerile parade of Catholic back-slapping debauchery. Only by playing the numbers game does atheism (that funny word) have ANY chance of success ("cash value" - William James' term) in this foul "imaginary friend-dominated world".

8. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189676 by dr joneZ on June 7, 2008 at 12:56 am

I had a very strong feeling that this particular free thinker was advocating a religious approach to atheism

OK - maybe you feel that people of like mind who form action groups and become militant on the basis of shared beliefs and assumptions are performing ritual activities redolent of religion? You could have a point but unless atheists at least touch base with each other, how are they going to derive the all-important shared strength of banding in numbers?

9. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189673 by dr joneZ on June 7, 2008 at 12:34 am

"A non-religious atheist" - that must be some new kind of belief system none of us have heard of?

What are the core assumptions of your belief system?

10. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189653 by dr joneZ on June 6, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Any Australian atheists willing to start up a coalition of non-believers? Get in touch with me. If atheism is ever to have a "cash-value" we need to get organised globally. This is a great development.

11. A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Comment #189193 by dr joneZ on June 5, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Kevin Rudd is a very shrewd political chameleon. You will see him change the colour of his skin often as he listens to the polls, the media and the pundits. He suffers from the disease of political correctness just as much as Howard did and is a moral conservative to the hilt. Just the same, he knows that he must keep the left side of politics happy - his own people in other words - and will from time to time slip something through like this that appears to be progressive socialism. He will just as soon withdraw it if the Religious Right manage to embarrass him over it, so very little of Rudd's much-touted humanism is more than an elaborate window-dressing exercise.

Let's all please be clear on one thing: politics is "spirituality in action". What you BELIEVE is at the heart of everything you DO. The idea that in some societies religion and politics do not tango together is pure post-modernist balderdash. ALL human societies drag their belief systems around with their political process - indeed the very notion of "law" is a theological concept. Modern political "process" is merely an elaborate obfuscation of this fact, bolted down on top of quasi-biblical if not outright biblical morality. There is NEVER any separation of church and state where both exist side by side. The church needs the state to assure its continued existence and the state needs the church to mandate its law process by "approving" the moral basis of law.

It has always struck me as particularly illustrative of this that an atheist cannot, on the basis of his or her "non-belief in god or gods" refuse to swear on a bible to tell the truth in a court of law. As far as the judicial process is concerned, atheism does not even occupy a point on the moral map.

12. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187878 by dr joneZ on June 3, 2008 at 12:33 am

If anyone wants to see it i placed it on my blog, captaindoobie.blogger.com way back in October last year.

Damien - I'd love to contact Amanda Rishworth over this letter and see where they are with it but I'm getting "can't find the server" messages every time I hit your link.

Any chance you could cut/paste/send it to me as a private message?

13. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187875 by dr joneZ on June 3, 2008 at 12:00 am

I offer up Pete Stark, U.S. Congressman from CA 13 district. Has stated that he is an atheist, the first and only atheist (that we know of) to serve in the U.S. Congress.

That's great mordacious1. How, then can we get more intelligent, rationalist types like Mr Stark to go into politics? That would appear to be the question. I seriously admire anyone who is publicly atheist in the USA because they are simply going to cop so much shit from people. Here in Australia, the atheists cower in silence. There is the occasional rap from Phillip Adams - a journo - and the odd inspired response from a reader in newspaper letters columns but other than that, no hint of the kind of intellectual maelstrom going on over this issue as in Europe. I welcome all emails from any Oz Atheists who, like me, despair of the stranglehold that faith-based institutions have on our society.

14. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187824 by dr joneZ on June 2, 2008 at 7:23 pm

plenty of atheist prime ministers before with nobody batting an eyelid (Atlee for instance)...

How many would be aware of that? They clearly were not noisy atheists because they are not remembered as being distinguished by their atheism. I could see Ted Heath as an atheist, but people would have seen that simply as another of his eccentricities. How times have changed. In the past it was quaint to be an atheist. Now you risk losing your job and facing death-threats

15. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187820 by dr joneZ on June 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Nick Clegg of the UK Liberal Democratic party?

But is he campaigning on that platform? I'm impressed that you could name one, but how do you rate his chances Cartomancer? The burning firebrands and the stake can't be a long way off...

16. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187818 by dr joneZ on June 2, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Faith-based schooling in Australia is as devisive and sectarian in outlook as anywhere else. Aussies are still a long way from realising the extent to which religion has its hooks into society. Indeed, most down-underlings shy away from discussions of the sort outlined in this article because "nobody wants a shit fight over religion since everyone knows where that leads." There is ZERO intellectual leadership for the atheist mindset out here. We desperately need our equivalent of RD or Hitch or someone to animate the discussion and really ram home a few points. Do any of the other Aussies on this list agree? We are seeing scandal after scandal uncovered in the faith domain, from Mercy Ministries subsidised by Gloria Jeans coffee-houses, The Twelve Tribes of Israel sect subsidised by organic bakeries to the undue influence of the Exclusive Brethren fundy set on Federal politicians. Both Howard and Rudd have ruled out a proper investigation of the Bretheren and Rudd himself is something of a bible-basher it seems. His vitriolic condemnation of the photographic work of Bill Henson is clearly motivated by religious values which dwell at the heart of his "working families of Australia" line.

Why is it that NO politician will ever choose the path of reason and rationality? Somebody please name me ONE self-avowed atheist politician anywhere in the world...just one.

17. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177277 by dr joneZ on May 8, 2008 at 9:02 pm

The way they will have to organise it in the near future will have to be as follows: religion is something you do at home with the shutters closed and the curtains drawn and only ever between consenting adults. Children under the age of 18 are not to practise religion. Young people caught with Bibles, Qu'ran, Torah etc. will be subject to an age check by police.

As each walking-frame faith-head departs the planet we should be yelling "One more down! 1.2 billion to go!"

18. EXPELLED!

Comment #147528 by dr joneZ on March 20, 2008 at 9:12 pm

THAT'S GOT TO BE THE LAUGH OF THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
WHAT A BUNCH OF DORKS FOR DAWKINS!!!!!

GO PZ!!!

19. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143347 by dr joneZ on March 14, 2008 at 3:15 am

But why only 7???? Why not 6 or 9 or 11 for chrissake? Just because there were 7 deadly original sins doesn't mean we have to stay with that number in the revised version. Can't anyone in the Catholic Church count beyond 7? Whoops - there's the TEN Commandments now isn't there - I forgot! We're at least into double figures now. And just WHEN can we expect the newly revised and updated 21st Century edition of the Ten Commandments???? I'm positively gagging with prurient excitement...

11. Though shallt not dispense with the concept of God. (We'd love to burn you at the stake for that but it doesn't even qualify as apostasy and even if it did, apostasy isn't punishable by death anymore. At least not by our lot...)

20. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143314 by dr joneZ on March 14, 2008 at 1:45 am

I move that the Catholic Church to immediately add the following sin to the new 7:

8. Suggesting that taking drugs is sinful when the very basis of one's chosen religion is highly likely to be the preserved beliefs arising from drug-induced hallucinations of acacia-bark-snorting tribal elders in the Palestinian wilderness

saw a burning Bush the other day ;)

21. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138669 by dr joneZ on March 4, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Sorry to burst in with a change of topic, but I just read the following article in the Sydney Morning Herald, here in Australia. It seems the origins of some, shall we say, seminal episodes of the Old Testament may well be the result of.... well read the article - here it is:

Culled from:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/was-moses-all-a-blur-on-psychedelic-drugs/2008/03/05/1204402497518.html

High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

"As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don't believe, or a legend, which I don't believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics," Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush", suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a classic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music".

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, which is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

AFP

22. Changing my Mind

Comment #106382 by dr joneZ on January 2, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Have you read Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" on that very topic of the parallels between QP and eastern mysticism?

Read it in the early eighties, not long after it came out. It gave my brain a good whirl, that's for sure but am afraid I now rank it as one of the more - ahem - hysterical accounts of quantum physics from the late 70s. It was a time of Shirley MacLaine, Dr Who, Timothy Leary and Star Wars, so its fairly understandable that the author would oversubscribe a little to his material. Unfortunately, I was unable to contunue past chapter 2 of Zukav's later work "The Seat of the Soul" which by then sounded to me like the kind of "spiritual" faffing about that Richard Dawkins so superbly debunks in "The Enemies of Reason".

If Zukav could still get orgasmically excited by the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics I very much doubt. I wonder what kind of dance he would go into over the Higgs Boson. I now say that this kind of book - like the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" does a disservice to its subject matter by conflating supernatural wishful-thinking with scientific theorising.

Once again - a good read, but way out of date now


cheers,

dr j

23. Changing my Mind

Comment #106372 by dr joneZ on January 2, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I wonder if contributors have read the "conversations with God Trilogy" by Neale Donald Walsch. I dont believe that anything in the series contracdicts the main thrust of Dawkins except for the primary point and that is that God does not exist as a separate entity - We are God in every infinite facet of our existence, good and bad.

I have read the entire series of Conversations with God and found considerable overlap with the thinking of RD et al. He be quite a clever (and by now very wealthy) thinker, our Neale Donald Walsch. One of the best bits is where God announces "God's greatest moment will come when humanity realises that it no longer needs the concept of God". To which - I can hear Christopher Hitchens quickly snap "..and never did".

In my view, the best volume is "Communion with God" - where he spells out in terms even a complete moron can understand why any concept we can ever devise of G is based on human attributes. Therefore - God is human: us. We've merely been talking to ourselves all along. What have we been talking about? ourselves. The whole enormous dialogue of religious faith has been nothing other than a self-referential and circular discussion.

Actually - I strongly suspect that Walsch is a committed atheist who is playing a very intelligent game. He is attacking the edifice of religion from the INSIDE -something your average tweedy atheist finds somewhat difficult (that's OK - I'm one myself!). The Conversations with God series of books is an attempt to do away with religion as we know it. Walsch grabs the bearded sky-god and throws him back down to earth - where he/she/it came from in the first place. This is a very valuable message to get across!

We see ourselves wherever we go and in whatever we look at. Quantum physics confirms this. All observation is self-observation. Our brains are virtual reality helmets that provide us with - and update continually in milliseconds - an interpretation of something "out there". The author richly mines this intellectual terrain in a series of responses by "God" to his (the author's) probing questions about life, the universe and everything. It's a wonderful read and represents a true intellectual stepping-stone for faith-heads on their way out the chapel door into the big wide world.

Now - the 64 million dollar question: what does Neale Donald Walsch think about Richard Dawkins and TGD? So far, he has astutely avoided "noticing" the growing atheist movement and has not joined the hard, pointy end of the debate. He's a fantastic public speaker - it would be good to see him plunge in and do a one-on-one with, say, Dan Dennett.

cheers,

Kim Jones