1. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242563 by physicist on September 4, 2008 at 4:45 am

NMcC wrote:

Yes, it is! LOL. Think youself lucky that I haven't referred to John McWayne. I would have, except I don't think even John Wayne ever concocted the brilliant plan of acquiring the title 'war hero' through getting himself captured by the enemy.

Apart from the fact that Americans tend to overuse the term "hero" (I recall that all US-soldiers returning from the first Iraq war were automatically "heroes" for the US media), I think you are too harsh on McCain on this one. After all, he went through a long and tortutous captivity in Vietnam, which is no minor ordeal in my view.

2. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242557 by physicist on September 4, 2008 at 4:07 am

NMcC
So, after "Obama-Biden, Laden with ...", we also have SPalin in the race. It's getting better all the time, isn't it?

3. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242553 by physicist on September 4, 2008 at 3:55 am

For whatever it's worth, a short note on the German perspective after Sarah Palin's speech in the Convention, as expressed in today's on-line edition of Der Spiegel. I paraphrase/summarize: Sarah Palin was not convincing; her attacks against Obama sounded brash and arrogant and she appeared weak. Nevertheless, politically, her weakness could be her strength because it could serve to dissolve the fears that the Republican Party, after one unjustified war (Irak) and a justified but failing one (Afghanistan) is going to carry on on Bush and Cheney's hard, inhuman course. Sarah Palin might give the Republican Party the human face it is missing.

Any comments on these from the American side? Has any similar analysis/point of view been expressed there?

4. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #239455 by physicist on August 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm

From personal experience I would say that the TF has very little influence within the scientific community. I would bet most of my colleagues have never even heard of it. And the Templeton prize has as far as I know never been awarded for the kind of work that is considered serious science. The battleground is really the public perception of the relationship between science and religion, and I am sure the TF has done some damage in that respect. I don't think it is a coincidence that many of the winners of the Templeton prize are well-known writers of popular science books like, e.g., Paul Davies and John Barrow.

Glad to read that the TF is irrelevant also in your field (cosmology, isnt it?), Oystein. I just had a look at the list of TP winners and I spotted there also Mother Teresa and Alexandr Solzhenytsin, not exactly people you would call scientists in the first place. It also seems that they have been awarding these prizes till 1973, so one could paraphrase Pauli in saying "so old ... and still so unknown." Freeman Dyson is the only scientist of really high reputation in that list; Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker is someone who did science a long time ago but turned to philosophy/ethics since then.

5. 'Armored' fish study helps strengthen Darwin's natural selection theory

Comment #239405 by physicist on August 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm

samratpathania wrote:

Aren't these two different issues?
Isn't natural selection one of the mechanisms that drives evolution?
So can't we always bring forth new evidence in support of a theory that explains a fact, no matter how well established the theory is.
Though I do understand what you imply.
Please feel free to point out the fallacy of my logic.

I see no fallacy in your logic. The healthy scepticism of scientists drives them into searching more and more; after all, theories are not written down all the way to their tiniest detail. They also evolve and adapt as more facts accummulate. Nothing unusual here.

6. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #239392 by physicist on August 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm

I agree, and I think this is already happening at multiple levels.

- Confusing the public by giving the false impression that science and religion are in harmony.

- Promoting quackery such as healing, thus harming the gullible and the sick.

- Belittling the Nobel prize.

- Appealing to the lowest instincts by handing out large sums of money to scientists willing to pay lip service to dubious and false doctrines (straightforward corruption by all means).

- Awarding and empowering despicable pseudo-scientists, thus magnifying the potential damage that they can cause (e.g. Dembski).

I strongly differ from your implied suggestion that the risk isn't already present and the corruption relevant.

These are quite useful statements of yours in clarifying what you are concerned about. I think it is useful to distinguish between in harm in conducting science itself, i.e., worsening its quality, and harm in its public perception. As regards the first, experience shows that bad science is short-lived. And indeed the scientific Journals I am familiar with would simply non publish any science with explicit references or commentaries in making any connection with religion or god or whatever. Such things are simply out of place in the scientific (Physics and Chemistry, which is what I am familiar with) literature.

Now, the other points you raise deal with public perceptions. I agree with you that the TF tries to confuse the public, however: also in this issue their negative influence is minimal and pales in comparison to that of other, much more influential agents. Earlier this year, e.g., there was an article in Nature (I can find the precise citation if I search a bit), written by a high-standing scientist in the UK, pointing out to the fact that various "Universities" or even Universities there offer degrees in homeopathy. And this with the blessing of the state. Similarly, in Germany, there are 1 or 2 semester courses on homeopathy in the regular medical studies. You fully understand how then the public will be misled to consider this nonsense as science. The media at large are also very tolerant and ignorant regarding this and similar issues, thus further confounding the public's utter confusion as to what is science, how it is done and so on. Here in Germany, the public does not even know what the TF is; but they all know prominent journalists and even some University Professors in the "soft" medical fronts (e.g., sociology of medicine, politics of pharmacology and the such) who publicly defend homeopathy. This is what I meant by "proportions" and "perspective".

Belittling of the Nobel Prize is not a crime per se; some healthy feeling of irreverence towards titles of all sorts is good, even though the TF might be doing this out of completely different motives. At any rate, I wouldn't make it an issue to go out and defend the prize itself, rather the achievements of those who have won it. And, of course, there are dozens of colleagues who have also deserved it but they lacked the right lobby.

With respect to your last two points: I put the blame on the scientists who play this game. In fact, it is this weakness of character that I was referring to in my previous notes that causes all kinds of corrupted and corruptive behavior from within science. We are already losing quite a few bright minds from science, who decide, after their PhD to go do something else because they see their expectations of working in a fair and healthy environment being shattered. They see the egos, the scientists who get involved in intrigues and cheating and they get disillusioned. We got to work to make science more healthy from within, I think.

Gladly.
Because the peer-review process is not sufficient guarantee when it comes to the public understanding of science, considered the general level of scientific illiteracy.

Surely, you can appreciate how similar propagandistic efforts by ideologically-motivated groups have successfully undermined the authoritativeness of scientific consensus - for instance with regard to global warming (or the harmfulness of tobacco) in places like the US, where a false controversy has been manufactured, thus hampering progress and positive action.

We have plenty of examples to show us that inaction, appeasement and underrating problems isn't the way forward when science is under attack, be it on a small or on a large scale.

Sure -- you are talking about public perceptions of science and I agree that peer reviewing can do nothing for this. But you named yourself some "corrupting players" in this field with a lot, I mean a lot more influence than the TF.

7. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238690 by physicist on August 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Could you please make a coherent case showing why TF shouldn't be perceived as a threat, instead of hand-waving and appealing to your and someone else's perceptions?

I made my point already: The TF is a negligible player in terms of science funding; also, it does not take away out of the total amount of funds available to science (I would be much more worried if it did). I am talking from the point of view of someone who actively and continuously applies for research funds and knows this business, so I think I am in a position to know what's the reality; and I do find it legitimate to communicate in this forum what is the feeling among colleagues. Which are your credentials, BTW, in this business?

Being the TF the topic of this thread, albeit indirectly, we may as well discuss it in detail. If you find it burdensome, feel free to withdraw at any time.
Don't presume that people won't engage you, if they found your comments objectionable, though.

The fundamental, underlying topic is not the TF per se. What really matters is the risk of corrupting science in any relevant, measurable and harmful way. I maintain, and I have offered at least some examples, that major factors of corruption exist within the scientific/political system istelf. Further, I argue that a system of reliable peer-reviewing is the best guarantee against pseudo-science, whether this comes from the TF or from some other source. Bogus science will not go through the strict refereeing process and if some of it does, it will be refuted in the attempts to reproduce the results, either in the medium- or in the long-run.

I don't mind at all people engaging me. But now it is your task to show me, with your own arguments and without reference to what R. Dawkins has or has not claimed, why, in your own opinion, you find the TF to be a more serious threat to scientific integrity than the other factors I mentioned.

8. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238510 by physicist on August 28, 2008 at 9:35 am

decius wrote:

How does that justify the "fair-and-balanced" fallacy, that is undermining the integrity and reliability of contemporary journalism?

In the sense that the vast majority of practicing scientists (to be precise: physicists, since I can't talk for all disciplines) do not percieve the T.F. as a threat to anything. Most are indifferent to it, in fact, and have much more serious things to worry about. To the extent that Nature reflects the opinion in the community, this is a fair view of the state of affairs. You seem to believe that in issues of opinion pertaining to science-policy or politics, as well as science funding etc there is one "truth", which is not the case.

Why should it be desirable, or worthy of praise, to see it perpetuated in whatever part of Nature, as you suggested in your previous comment?

What would be desirable is that Nature and other serious scientific publications pay attention to serious issues of integrity in science, how they choose their referees, how they scrutinize the authors' contributions to avoid pseudo-authorship etc etc. The T.F. is a marginal issue and you are making an elephant out of a mosquito with this. The important notion is to keep a sense of proportions.

9. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238438 by physicist on August 28, 2008 at 6:51 am

decius wrote:

As if it were a journalistic virtue. This attitude disregards the very foundations of good information, which should be a quest for truth, rather than be giving equal weight to opposing views.

NewEnglandBob wrote:

I disagree. If the target warranted the criticism while alive then his/her demise is no reason to hold back. After all, he/she can no longer be affected by it. Only if the criticism was held off, waiting for the death, would it be wrong and cowardly.

Relax, fellows. I am no fan of the Templeton Foundation or of the things it does but we should keep in mind that the T.F. does not constitute a major source of scientific funding either. Hence, they are not in a position to corrupt science. Scientific research is in danger of getting corrupted by all sorts of other factors, including industrial funding sources that have certain, specific interests in mind; egomaniac, powerful figures who will go all the way to cover-up their own mistakes, put younger researchers under pressure, use their influence to cut the funding of competitors; poor refereeing due to lack of time and competence (i.e. poor choice of the referees); and a lot more. Let us keep things under proportion here. As far as Nature is concerned, you know that this Journal serves a multitude of purposes. Parts of it are strictly scientific, publishing highly relevant papers that undergo tough peer-review. And other parts (the first half of each issue, roughy), are "lighter", having a purpose of telling the news and making recent developments digestible to the very diverse audience that reads the Journal. Practicing scientists, who typically read Nature are in no danger of being misled as regards the Templeton Foundation.

EDIT: Edited for typos and a missing blockquote.

10. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238380 by physicist on August 28, 2008 at 4:12 am

I find the article in Nature well-balanced; it mentions both the goals of the Templeton Foundation and the criticism that has been raised against it. And we should not forget that it was written in connection with an obituary; it would have been distasteful if they had launched a right-out harsh criticism against the man one-and-a-half weeks after his death.

11. The Other Darwin

Comment #232992 by physicist on August 19, 2008 at 2:06 am

No recognition that the great majority of historians and anglo-American philosophers, plus a lot of literary scholars, et al., dismiss postmodernism as self-contradictory bullshit.

phiwilli, I would greatly appreciate some citations because post-modernism indeed stinks of bullshit, yet there are (too) many of its defenders in highly prestigious US Universities. Thanks in advance!

12. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #231834 by physicist on August 17, 2008 at 7:11 am

Looks like an eye-catcher and nothing more to me, at first sight, though I 'd rather look at the article itself. A couple of things:

1. The ecosystem is not a closed physical system thus the 2nd law does not apply to it.

2. Consequently, we are talking here non-equlibrium thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, for which there is no minimum principle, just Liouville's equation (classically).

3. The principle of least action is mentioned in an utterly misleading way. It holds for classical systems evolving under the influence of deterministic forces but not in quantum mechanics. In all phenomena of life, quantum mechanics is present in all molecular processes in a very relevant way.

My impression is that this is part of some fashionable pseudo-scientific approach to "complexity" with lots of eye-catching phrases. And the idea that this work connects for the first time physics and biology is laughable -- just take a look at the large number of phycisists doing bio-stuff or look up the Biophysical Journal.

13. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218578 by physicist on July 25, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Al,

No. This is a public internet forum, where many people contribute from many backgrounds. You are lucky I don't charge for these lessons.

Scroll up to the banner of this forum and you might see a blue-lettered string saying "a clear-thinking oasis". As it seems, your reading abilities are somewhat limited.

14. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218570 by physicist on July 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Teratornis

For example, some people equate their religious beliefs with the promise that they will reunite with their dead loved ones. Questioning their faith, then, may trigger all the same territorial/defensive emotions as an attack on their loved ones.

And the same ones also equate their religious beliefs with the feeling of hope and support in life because they are either desperate or afraid of those situations in life in which they might lose all support from people, institutions or social structures (provided that the latter exist in the societies in which they live). It is a tough process to give away belief in an omnipontent, invisible, non-existent friend up-there because the mere illusion of his existence is soothing for many otherwise reasonable people.

15. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218546 by physicist on July 25, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I am stupid? How so, you haven't demonstrated this, I thought you were demonstrating that I was insensitive and rude. Now I am stupid? How so, how do you measure stupiditiy? Paradox of the heap, no?

Drawing conclusions, i.e., that I need to calm down, which presupposes I was not calm in the first place, on the basis of non-existing evidence, is a clear sign of stupidity. Religious people do the same all the time, remember?

Saying "calm down" was a reaction to YOUR arrogance telling me stupid shit like:

"If you were a scientist they would call you an idiot." Well, physicist, if you were an baseball player they would call you a pussy, but I fail to see how that is relevant here. But I guess since you are a scientist, and I am not, that is one thing you can tell everyone you are better at than me. I extend me ass felt congratulations.

No, I did not say that, you have intentionally misquoted me. I said that if you acted like this in a scientific environment, the latter would have rejected you. The implication to any clear thinking person being that your attitude is non-scientific. As for the rest, look: some people are proud of their mom and dad, which is something that luck gave them. And some others are proud of their own achievements. Live with it.

Further -- this is a site that treasures and appreciates clear, scientific thought. This is why I expect some rationality from its (regular) contributors. If it were a site on baseball, I would arm myself with my baseball statistics and try to contribute to it.

Don't continue to comment, you lose credibility. Like Joe Morreale over on Harun Yahya constantly telling us "This is my last comment".


Fucktard.

I did wish to end this but you found it necessary to hurl to me your usual nonsense, so you got an answer. At any rate, note that you are not in a position to tell me when to stop commenting, when to write or what to write.

16. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218508 by physicist on July 25, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Al,

When I debated communism with several people here, I took an evening and read the Communist Manifesto, I came back and determined my initial judgement about Communism was right... re reading the Manifesto didn't change this.

Well, taking an evening to read the C.M. makes you an expert on Communism, then. That says a lot.

Blowing your own horn huh? Don't let me stop your auto-fellation.

Your persistence on using sexually-related terms in an otherwise non-sexual context could be an indication of deprivation. Of course I can't be sure because, unlike you, I do not pretend to be able to diagnose peoples' psychological disturbances from a distance.

Now drink your juice and calm down.

I think your arrogance can only be matched by your stupidity; often these two go hand in hand. So now you even pretend you know I am not calm? Thanks for the laughs you gave me and have fun with your own narcissism.

17. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218456 by physicist on July 25, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Al,

And as a rule the intellectualism here is in general rather low, with the exception of several people.

I wouldn't say that; my opinion is that the intellectual level of many individuals, and the ensuing discussions in which they engage each other here, can be quite high. I enjoy this aspect of this site and I would like to see it stay this way.

Did it occur to you that my honest opinion is that someone might be an idiot, a d-bag, or autistic? That was a serious question.

I do take your question seriously and I reply with my own, addressing it to a self-proclaimed clear-thinker. If a person whom you have categorized in any of the little boxes you mentioned above does make a lomg, coherent and sound statement, do you bother reading it and contemplating on its content? Or it is easier for you to just dismiss it on the grounds that this person is, for you, a ... (fill in your favorite word)? So much about rational thinking and "intellectual honesty", eh? No wonder you are not a scientist because if you were and you were about to, say, referee a paper and dismissed it without reading it on the grounds that his author is "an idiot", the scientific community would have rejected you in no time.

In your humble opinion... right? Or is there some objective measure here?

Of course, in my humble opinion! I know the limits of objectivity well. I make myself no illusions that people can become rational beings; in fact, I treasure quite a bit the irrationality or non-rationality in humans, provided it does not exceed certain limits. The latter are partly defined by nature and partly by society. But anyway, I digress.

It is not my aim to carry this discussion endlessly and I do not enjoy the task of telling people off. I hope you understand that I hold no grudge against you and, for me, the issue is finished.

18. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218424 by physicist on July 25, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Al,

I appreciate your note and the fact that you openly say your statement was insensitive honors you. Let me make two short points on what you wrote.

1. No, I am not an attorney; I do Physics.

2. You confound intellectual debate with rudeness. I am not in the business of showing off my intellectual credentials and achievements but if I did there wouldn't be much room for you to brag on issues as "highly intellectual" and "competitive". In short, I am not impressed. A hard and honest intellectual debate does not have to be accompamied by steady insults; the latter are not only rude they are also a sign of weakness.
If you have problems distniguishing a protest from whining, then you are lacking quite a bit of emotional maturity.

As for the rest, Mr Morgan and others -- look: I don't personally know anybody here, I don't defend any particular person, it's only about the principles. By the same token, I have nothing personal against you either.

19. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #216780 by physicist on July 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Al,

I think you realize that if you really believe that a person is a complete failure and phycologically wrecked, as implied e.g. by their repeated memberships in cults, the least reasonable thing to do is write a post with the wording "if I were him I would kill myself" (or contemplate suicide). Irate called you on this utterly insensitive and deeply immoral statement and your reply to him was mildly apologetic. Your explanation there was shallow and looked like a cheap lawyer's trick in my eyes anyways. Now, Tera did the same, i.e., he called you on what you wrote and put forward some very reasonable arguments. I am aware of the fact that Tera has a thing with peak oil and bikes and his belief that books should be made extinct and so on but this is not the point here. What I find truly apalling is that you have launched a stalinist-type attack on him, putting into question his mental sanity and hurling epithets that used to be funny on this site but they have been abused so much, they are getting boring and, at times, disgusting. How low is your self-esteem, really, to admit that what you originally wrote was completely out of line?

There are two things you should learn as long as you have time, two simple ethical rules. First, if someone is lying down and they are waek and hurt, we don't kick them. And second, your idiotic attempts to intimidate anybody who disagrees with you by brand-naming them mentally ill are reminiscent of fascist tactics. Think about it.

20. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215511 by physicist on July 22, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #215484 by Oystein Elgaroy

That's a very refreshing idea, actually. Just make sure, though, that you conceal your identity by making intentional spelling- and grammatical errors that make it look as though the report was written by an Italian, e. g., "The Fisics of the manuscript is wrong and people who has write it is imbecile". Somethnig of the sort ...

21. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #215174 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm

@tera #215147

I didn't know I could find that information out by clicking on someone's name, thanks a lot. As for the rest, I think that the scenarios you are mentioning are far-fetched. The violent death of a human being is a tragic event and what you mention holds for any crime, not just for religious-motivated ones. Further, you mention the ability that prolonged violence and oppression has in getting into people's minds and affecting the ways they think. Though I don't disagree, I cannot see such a danger from a religious-totalitarian regime, at least not in the West. Though I am willing to speculate on scenarios that seem improbable, yours seems to me to be really far-out.

22. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214934 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 4:37 am

@ hawt4dawk, comment #214567

Sorry for the delay -- yes, it appears that in Germany religion is much less present than elsewhere. Bismarck made sure a long time ago that the state has the only say in a number of issues in which the Church tends to make claims (e.g., mariage). On top of it, having in Germany two basically equally strong Christian denominations who fought each other served as a means to curtail their power. And nowadays there's a very respectable number of people here who are officially non-religious. No negative effects whatsoever on the good functioning of society (quite the opposite), so I would claim that Germany also sets an example, in addition to the Nordic countries. And I find this important because Scandinavian countries are sometimes labelled as too small, too exotic or too particular by some apologists of religion.

23. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214890 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 2:29 am

Quetzalcoatl -- it was definitely not nit-picking, as this mistake completely changed the meaning, no need to apologize. As for the rest of your note, I would definitely categorize the kind of behavior you describe as socially VERY relevant. In fact, we have in western societies concrete authorities that intervene within the borders of a family when there is sufficient reason to believe that parents act in ways harmful to the good of their children.
In Germany, for instance, this is the so-called "Jugendamt" (meaning sth like "Authority for the Young People") that has the obligation to intervene whenever parents abuse their children, neglect their tasks in providing sufficient care for them etc. Recently, the mayor of the city of Schwerin in Germany lost his job because his city's Jugendamt failed to intervene and prevent the death of a five-year old girl, whose parents left her die because they did not care to provide food for her. Obviously, failure to care for medical attention falls in the same category.

24. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214886 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 2:16 am

Steve -- glad to have this cleared up. Please note that the words I used were "a very personal belief in god" as opposed to "a belief in a personal God". I think you can easily see the difference.

25. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214885 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 2:13 am

Quetzacoatl -- apologies and thanks: I meant to write "free them from their delusion", which indeed means "dissuade" (just learned a new word by looking it up in an online English-German dicitionary; funny thing if you understand a word of a foreign language by looking it up in another foreign language).

26. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214878 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 2:04 am

Steve, nothing more enjoyable than a civilized disagreemnt with you and thank you for your welocme. After reading your note, though, I am not even sure that we disagree. To the extent that monotheistic religions install feelings of exclusivity and superiority, yes, they must be confronted. But where is the contradition to the statement of mine that you quote in your post? These are precisely the aspects of religion that are politically and socially harmful and, as you said, have no place in a democratic society. Mind you, I know this all to well, since the country I was born in has an "official religion" that is intricately connected to the state, although in its constitution this country establishes at the same time freedom of religion and equality of all individuals, i.e., it is no theocratic regime in the classical sense.

What I meant to say is that to the extent that people may wish to have a very personal belief in a god and this has no detectable negative effects on society (and I do know examples for which this is the case), I would not undertake any action to delude them. Associated with this reluctance of mine is the fear that this might look as an act of indoctrination and it could massively backfire.

I do hope I am not coming across as an apologist of religion because nothing could be father from the truth.

27. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214840 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 12:32 am

Well, the instances in life in which humans need hope most acutely are those for which they have no influence at all on the outcome, yet this outcome is critical on their lives. An exam, in this context, is a relatively harmless thing.

28. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214836 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 12:20 am

TWP #214828

In the face of such events and experiences, I can fully understand your point of view. I did spend part of my life in the States in the late 80's early 90's. Either the country has undergone some deep changes since that time or I was living in an artifical world (the ivory towers of academia). At any rate, the US I got know and love is not a place or religious madness but a country that promotes civil rights, democracy, openness and tolerance.

29. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214831 by physicist on July 21, 2008 at 12:14 am

I would like to comment on the discussions and questions regarding irrational acts or feelings by saying that hope can also be thought of as irrational, especially if it is one that is not based on facts. Yet, it is an essential part of life. It seems to me that overcoming the need for getting hope and consolation from an imagined friend in heaven, and succeeding in coming to terms with the injustices and hardships of life without such an agent, is the second most serious obstacle for getting rid of religion, life after death being the first. Actually, one could even group the two together, both have to do with hope that utterly unpleasant events will be remedied and dealt with by an omnipotent being. Feeling completely powerless in many occasions in life drives people towards some kind of religious belief. The majority of people who do so would stop there and say -- look, I need this god to maintain my sanity in life but if you don't, that's fine with me.

Although I do reject seeking for hope by inventing a personal, caring god, I cannot imagine going through life without the feeling of hope itself. I am wondering to what extent my non-religious mechanisms for strengthening my hope when it gets tough can be classified as rational but my feeling is that they are not. They are not irrational to the degree that I postulate an omnipotent being who will take care of my problems but they are definitely also not rational in the sense described, e.g., by Mitchell in his posts (thanks for your clarifications, Micthell).

30. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214819 by physicist on July 20, 2008 at 11:51 pm

@TWP, #214623

What I realize by reading the comments here is that the perceptions on the way believers think and act cover a very broad spectrum. TWP, you live in the States, if I am not mistaken, and I understand that there is a very ugly version of religion there that has influence and makes a lot of noise and trouble. These people, with their adherence to the biblical writings etc probably make you think that, as you wrote, if someone points a gun on a believer's head and tells them "denounce your god or die", they would go "kill me, then", and then they become martyrs and enjoy paradise. (In fact, it is precisely those biblical freaks that are the biggest hypocrites, so they would renounce their faith in a millisecond and them claim that also Petrus did it, so what). Back to your question: fact is, as far as I can tell from discussions I had with the friend of mine I mentioned, he does not even believe in god's judgement after death, heaven and hell and the like. He, as much as the vast majority of believers I could think of, would rather say "I denounce my faith" and keep living. In fact, I think that your example was not very well chosen, since, in the face of being threatened by a gun, everybody could just pretend they are not believers. Guns can impose to you how you act but not how you think.

That notwithstanding, I will wholeheartedly agree that religion pushes people do irrational things sooner or later. We should confront only those parts of religion-based irrationality that are politically relevant and harmful. The example you brought up, even at the very tiny probability that a believer would opt for being shot on the head, would end up harming that person alone and would have no further implications for society.

31. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214573 by physicist on July 20, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Comment #214546 by phil

Aha! Another physicist -- theorist or experimentalist, if I may ask? (By the order of my question, you can guess where I stand!) By reading your post, I start wondering whether you and I are sharing a common friend. Really.

Comment #214556 by Mitchell

I agree with what you said here. The point I was trying to make originally is that the obvious forms of irrationality (superstition etc) definitely have to be confronted but there's all sorts of non-religious irrationality around, for which I don't even have a clue how to confromt efficiently. May I ask you, when you invoke terms such as "fact", "evidentiary" etc and you juxtapose them to "supernatural beliefs", are you referring exclusively to the realm of the natural sciences or do you include in there political and social views as well?

OK, now I really must go to bed, so if you answer to me, I 'll read it tomorrow ... thanks for your time!

32. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214543 by physicist on July 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm

@Mitchell, comment #214536,

hey, I need to get some sleep and you are keeping me awake! I will just drop a thought I had after reading your message. It seems to me that if rationality, then, is defined only with reference to one's own thoughts and goals, it would not serve us at all as a means of cohesion in society, would it? I think that your definition is way too narrow. I am a proponent of the great power of rationality myself and I would not like to see it being degraded in something so subjective. Your view sounds somewhat ... eh ... excuse the insulting word ... deconstructionist to me.

33. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214534 by physicist on July 20, 2008 at 3:22 pm

@The white pearl and mordacious:

Thanks much for welcoming me! I will be glad to contribute from time to time, whenever I feel I have something of substance to say. TWP, I almost agree with what you wrote but I have a reservation. In Germany, where I live, I have met a few people who adhere to a (very diluted) form of religion and still they are as rational as it gets in every aspect of their lives. I am thinking in particular of a fellow who is a good friend of mine, who is socially engaged and a very honest and intelligent person. He keeps his religion to himself; and to the extent that his belief affects his interactions with other people, it is in a positive way because it serves to him as a deep reassurance that all people are equal in their basic rights. Though I do not share his belief, I 'd rather have a moral believer than an unscrupulous atheist any time (and no, I am not implying at all that atheists are inherently less moral etc., I wish to state this clearly).

mordacious, as far as scientists are concerned, I also enjoyed very much the contributions on cosmology today (I am not working in this field, so it was educational for me too). And it may please you to know that I have already e-mailed your PMS-joke to the friend of mine I mentioned above and also to another, female friend. I 'll let you know how she reacts.

Anyhow, if my thoughts appear somewhat scattered, it is because I have had a long day and it is past midnight here, so I am going to bed very soon. I am sure we 'll talk again later.

34. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214515 by physicist on July 20, 2008 at 2:57 pm

I am sorry to just intrude into the discussion you are having on irrationality (I am a longtime lurker here and I thoroughly enjoy reading this blog and the discussions). I am a practicing scientist, being surrounded by colleagues most of my time, who are educated and intelligent beings and (are supposed to, at least) think and act rationally in their job. Yet, even in this environment, one is constantly confronted by all sorts of trouble that is caused by irrational thinking. It does not seem to me that religious conviction lies in the heart of it. There are much stronger reasons for that --traditions, the inertia of the whole social/political system and most of all vested political and personal interests that drive people contort reality and facts any way they like, just in order to achieve their goals. Come to think about it, some of them might even package their behavior as "rational", in the sense that it serves the goal of maximizing their profit. I am not even sure that the borders between rationality and irrationality can be defined in an objective way, although I would never argue that there are clear-cut cases (psychics, superstition, religion) that lie on the irrational side.

35. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99231 by physicist on December 16, 2007 at 2:06 am

Hi, sent2null, re: comment #39. I see your points, I think these are pretty much issues of taste and priorities. Newton made possible the synthesis pure abstract reasoning (the Greeks) with experimentation (Kopernikus and Galileo), to create what constitutes a most revolutionary achievement that still characterizes modern science: the formulation of natural laws in mathematical terms. This way he paved the way for the coming of Theoretical Physics, on which all modern science and technology (excluding, to some extent, the biosciences) is based.

On the Maxwell/Einstein thing: I disagree because Einstein's SPECIAL relativity wouldn't have been developed without Maxwell's equations and, contrary to popular belief, Einstein was not working in a vacuum, locked away in his tiny patent office in Bern. But as I said, these are subjective judgements.

Well, folks, I am not going to call it "Newton Day" nevertheless, simply because no matter how deeply I admire someone I am opposed to personal cults. Christmas is how I got to know it and I 'll stick to it for reasons of social compatibility. As long as we are *aware* of what's true and what's a myth, I don't see any reason to spend time and energy in renaming things, there are more substantial things to do.

36. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98990 by physicist on December 15, 2007 at 5:43 am

Plus, the whole discussion on the term "great man" completely misses one of the main points I tried to make in my posting, I am afraid. What I am tried to say is that for us, practicing scientists, who earn our living by doing research, science is not the glorious, myhtical and glorified enterprise that many in this forum believe it is. It is ridden with many faults, traps and prejudices that humans carry in their minds and in their souls. By virtue of intellectual honesty, chastising religion in one thing and very much to the point in most cases, but a great deal of inhibition to scientific progress is self-inflicted, through hierarchical, political and financial structures of the scientific community itself. To some extent, science has a built-in process of self-healing, in the sense that scientific lies will be sooner or later discovered by means of peer review, attempts to reproduce results etc. But some results may cost an enormous amount of money and effort to be reproduced; and some truths may lie buried for a long time because power structures within the scientific community may prevent them from being aired -- and none, absolutely none of these has the slightest to do with religion.

Fair enough, this is an atheist site, so religion is going to be the prime target. But blasting away, repeatedly, some of the most obviously idiotic creations of pure imagination and superstition seems limited to me. One should also look at one own's "weapons", scientific thinking being our most powerful one, with the same critical spirit we claim to treasure.

37. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98984 by physicist on December 15, 2007 at 5:25 am

In reply to #9 (allanplasket) and #10 (Rtambree): let us judge people in their own historical context. I think this point is trivial, actually, and none of us, clear thinkers(!), should fall into this trap. Alchemy and astrology were fashions of the time; alas, misoginy too. What "anti-socialite" means, I am not sure but I can easily think of some individuals who don't enjoy much of social mixing with fools and they might be labeled as anti-social or whatever. Apocalyptic prophecies? Again, theology was *the* scholarly occupation of that time! That's why Newton deserves all the credit for raising above the constraints of his era and making it possible that scientific thinking (in terms of modern theoretical physics) could be born. Forgot already that Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford were founded as theological seminaries? Did you ever have a stroll around Cambridge's oldest colleges, including Newton's own Trinity College? It is obvious that they were designed as monasteries. Please judge people according to the standards of the times they lived, not the modern ones.

My characterization of Newton as "great man" pertained to his scientific achievements. He certainly had character faults, as we all do, a huge ego probably being one of them. He was human. If you are looking for saints, turn to religion, please.

38. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98974 by physicist on December 15, 2007 at 4:26 am

I have always believed that Newton is the greatest personality in the history of scientific development (and one of the greatest thinkers of all times, for that matter), contrary to pop culture that promotes and trivializes some of his 20th century peers (e.g., Einstein or Feynman, who did great things but, admittedly, "they were standing on the shoulders of giants".) Let us also not forget Maxwell and Boltzmann, the second one even being a tragic figure, driven to depression and suicide partly also because of narrow-minded, fanatical and almost "religious" ideas of fellow scientists, of all people! (OK, they were not strictly religious, they were "philosophical", whatever this means). Poor fellows, they lived long before the media-society offered publicity and glamour. But let us not forget, as Steven Weinberg has repeatedly pointed out, that there are also other impediments to scientific inquiry, completely unrelated to religion. Financial interests, political priorities and, worst of all, philosophical prejudices and overblown egoes being some of them.

I 'd rather have preferred it if Richard Dawkins had engaged a more positive tone; one bringing forward the truly revolutionary achievements of Newton as, to some extent, Steven Weinberg has done in his marvelous book "Dreams of a Final Theory". (I truly recommend this book to anybody wishing to read the physicist's angle on questions of Philosophy and God.) In his article, Richard Dawkins he simply used Newton's name at the title and at the closing sentences, spending the rest on a debunking of Biblical myths, which I find rather unfair to the great man.

39. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #95404 by physicist on December 8, 2007 at 9:34 am

Our intellectual resources, the most valuable of which is time, are limited; hence, we should rather concentrate on fighting against the truly harmful and threatening aspects of religion, such as: (a) religiously motivated intolerance and violence; (b) the spreading of myths that are detrimental to progress of humanity; and (c) the enslavement of human minds through superstition and the discouragment of critical enquiry. In this sense, I find Hitchens' contribution a waste of such resources. Does Hitchens believe that people who observe Hanukkah are actively and conciously celebrating the victory of (religious) darkness over Hellenistic Enlightment? Were that to be the case, then I would see good reasons to have a confrontation with the whole circus but I don't think so. Apart from that -- Demokritus and Epikurus most certainly did NOT discover the atom. It was fashionable in classical Greece to have opposing philosophical schools about any issue and the continuous or discrete of matter was just one such topic of debate. Demokritus was a philosopher who invented the word "atom" and claimed that matter is made of atoms but he formulated no testable scientific hypothesis about their existence. Let us give credit to Boltzmann (who put forward a sound hypothesis about the existcen of atoms and died 5 years too early to see it confirmed) and to Rutehrford, who actually proved the atoms' existence experimentally.

Really, such superficial and ill-founded polemical comments as Hitchens' do not bring us forward.