1. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #204939 by Barry Pearson on July 6, 2008 at 8:33 am

#204926 by Linda: Surely anyone having to submit to a home police search would like officers to take off their big dirty boots before walking around inside the house. I doubt that they would do that.

We have seen the UK go absolutely nuts groveling before the huge peasant population there instead of socializing immigrants to the West. Perhaps this comes from guilt over slavery and imperialism.

#204931 by Steve Zara: No, the UK has not gone absolutely nuts. People may have silly ideas, but there is no point just upsetting people, especially in their own homes. People need to be persuaded that their ideas are silly in a civilized way.

I agree that ridicule can be part of such a way, but scare-mongering by saying that the UK "has gone nuts" is wrong.

Here is a telling comment from the article quoted by Linda:

Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain's leading imams, said the measures were unnecessary: "In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely.

"I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do our bit to change our attitudes."

Right on!

As a consultant I often had such problems of people not understanding one-another's point of view to start with. It is always important to establish a baseline of what is agreed (including what is agreed to be in dispute!) at the start.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/

2. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204886 by Barry Pearson on July 6, 2008 at 4:37 am

#204872 by Goldy: Mordacious1, you aren't the only one avatarly challenged. I can't work it out either. By the time I finished getting a photo small enough for RD.net to accept it, it shows nobbut an eyeball or nose hair that poked out...

Don't crop it, resize (resample) it.

(Mine was 1938 by 2085 pixels!)

3. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #204860 by Barry Pearson on July 6, 2008 at 1:18 am

#204510 by Barry Pearson: I asked some questions. You didn't answer them. So I'll ask them again, using extracts from the above: Which god, and which sort of god, are you talking about here? Why should anyone take the Christian God more seriously than the others? Yet more people believe a deist god created the universe and/or life but takes no interest in human affairs.... What part of your argument would exclude that sort of god as the one that did the design work?

#204828 by clearmind: If you still don't get it, I can't help you more;

My analogies are all based on the evidence that the universe has a creator; So your question is irrelevant like askin Mona Lisa how many DA Vincis are there to make you?

I build my case on logic and reason that comply with science and religion. But evolution cannot comply with anything except Dawkins' books and lecturers - almost thousands altogether, maybe more.

My question are perfectly relevant. Furthermore, it would probably be easier for you to answer them than duck them, if you actually had answers.

Here is one of the major problems that religious people face when they use arguments such as "the universe has a creator" or "living things were designed". Even if those arguments were true, that would not be evidence for the sort of god anyone would pray to or which would give anyone an afterlife. Even less would it be evidence for your particular god (rather than one of the many others that are worshipped).

Note that, unlike some others, I didn't bring science and evolution into my questions. I am asking you questions about your religion and your god. If you have ever really examined your own beliefs comprehensively, and come to intellectually honest answers, you should be able to answer my questions. Indeed, you should have long ago asked and answered them without my prompting.

Probably many of us here suspect that you don't have answers. In other words, whatever your religion is, you couldn't provide a plausible reason for having that religion rather than one of the many other religions in the world. Now is your chance to show otherwise:


clearmind:

Which god, and which sort of god, are you talking about here?

Why should anyone take the Christian God more seriously than the others?

Yet more people believe a deist god created the universe and/or life but takes no interest in human affairs.... What part of your argument would exclude that sort of god as the one that did the design work?

4. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #204510 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 5:01 am

#204386 by clearmind: If there is a designed item, a built house, assembled computer, a decorated home, a served dinner table, then we conclude that somebody did all these things even though we did not see how and when they did it....

#204424 by Barry Pearson: Which god, and which sort of god, are you talking about here?

... 1000s of gods are worshipped world wide. About 10,000 religions are practised.... Many of those people believe their god(s) is/are the one that created the universe and/or designed living things. There are probably more non-Christians who think so than there are Christians who think so. Why should anyone take the Christian God more seriously than the others?...

Yet more people believe a deist god created the universe and/or life but takes no interest in human affairs.... What part of your argument would exclude that sort of god as the one that did the design work?

#204500 by clearmind: To Barry Pearson:

.... My analogies are all based on the evidence that the universe has a creator; So your question is irrelevant like askin Mona Lisa how many DA Vincis are there to make you?

I build my case on logic and reason. Now if you tell me or entire world that we came from the worms and still you can't prove it because it does not make sense at all. That is why the atheists people' population is less. Because, we, people can think that designed things cannot happen without any design, knowledge and wisdom.

I asked some questions. You didn't answer them. So I'll ask them again, using extracts from the above:


clearmind:

Which god, and which sort of god, are you talking about here?

Why should anyone take the Christian God more seriously than the others?

Yet more people believe a deist god created the universe and/or life but takes no interest in human affairs.... What part of your argument would exclude that sort of god as the one that did the design work?


Thank you in advance for any attempt to give an answer that doesn't insult our intelligence.

5. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204448 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 1:57 am

#204434 by Laurie Fraser: Hi Barry,
Really interesting project you've got going, which parallels, in several aspects, my own thinking about what it is to be "enlightened". I'm a little wary of any boxing of attributes; you can end up with a Myers-Briggs-style categorisation that smells a bit like astrology. Having said that, I believe it is a valuable project to determine the "hows" and "whys" of people's cognitive behaviours: attitudes and reasoning in particular. I'll be interested to see how it develops. Keep us informed.

Thanks, I need all the help I can get on this! If you have any references, please tell me.

I have no ambitions to turn this into something with the formality of Myers-Briggs. I typically use structured methods as an aid to group-working rather than for individual evaluation. Here are a couple of earlier examples of my methods:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/papers/value_chain/

What I want is some way of being able to say "XYZ is an unenlightened thing, and here is my justification". For example, Islamic human rights are unenlightened compared with universal human rights. But what are the specifics? What fundamental differences between them can I point to? So I will be trying to evaluate in descriptive rather than numerical terms the measures of Sharia Law, which is the basis of Islamic human rights, and do what I can for universal human rights too.

Atheists get "Stalin was an atheist and look what the result of that was" thrown at us. Stalinism was extremely unenlightened, by a number of my measures, and that was the problem, not atheism. The Inquisition was also unenlightened; but it would too simplistic to say this was because it was religious. There is an extra step possible - "what are the factors that typically make religions unenlightened, hence led to the Inquisition being unenlightened?"

There is even less chance that my measures will be generally accepted than there was for Myers and Briggs! After all, I couldn't prove to a religious person that relying on texts written 1000s of years ago is unenlightened compared to using modern evidence! They would argue that their texts are the ultimate in enlightenment. But it would identify the fundamental points of dispute. It isn't some vague "anti-God thing", but specific arguments about the reliability of different types of knowledge. And it is consistent from one topic to another.

6. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204435 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 1:23 am

Focus on the Family's executive director Tim Sisarich said .... "We're a Christian organisation so we believe that God made the planet and God made the cosmos ...."

That "so" is wrong, at least in the context of evolution. The implication is that Christian organisations logically/inevitably deny evolution, and they don't.

There is no inevitability of getting from "We're a Christian organisation" to "promoting intelligent design theory". Creationsists/ID-proponents are a lunatic fringe of religion (although in the US, at least, a big fringe).

There are both scientific reasons to reject intelligent design and theological reasons. I would like to see more use made of this "double whammy". I would like such people have to defend their beliefs against arguments from other religious people as well as arguments from scientists.

7. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204433 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 1:03 am

#204404 by Brian English: Here's my rant:
http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/2008/07/growing-endarkenment.html

I note the word "Endarkenment"! I'm sticking to a scale of enlightenment, with various dimensions measured from unenlightened to enlightened.

Work in progress:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/enlightenment.htm

8. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #204424 by Barry Pearson on July 5, 2008 at 12:38 am

#204386 by clearmind: If there is a designed item, a built house, assembled computer, a decorated home, a served dinner table, then we conclude that somebody did all these things even though we did not see how and when they did it....

So who is designer of the earth? Is it Evolution or God? The answer is here the logical one. Indeed evolution is out of question since the ideas cannot think and act wisely; they are just put forward by intelligent people; if they are not logical, ideas even can't be called ideas; delusion, fairy stories, or funny things to make us laugh only rather than think are the best titles.

Intelligent people, 84 of world population, know that this huge palace like hotel must be a designer as we figure out in the first paragraph. We choose "God did it" not because it is an easy way just because it is the ONLY LOGICAL WAY.

Which god, and which sort of god, are you talking about here?

Even in the 21st Century, 1000s of gods are worshipped world wide. About 10,000 religions are practised. (ref: World Christian Encyclopedia/Database). Many of those people believe their god(s) is/are the one that created the universe and/or designed living things. There are probably more non-Christians who think so than there are Christians who think so. Why should anyone take the Christian God more seriously than the others? (Many Muslims believe that Allah, who didn't have a son called Jesus, did the work).

Yet more people believe a deist god created the universe and/or life but takes no interest in human affairs. (And therefore it would be pointless to have a religion for such a god). What part of your argument would exclude that sort of god as the one that did the design work?

These diagrams illustrate the hurdles you would have to overome to convince many atheists of what you are saying. Many atheists can see that your arguments are not arguments for Christianity, just for some sort of god.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/3_hurdles.gif
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/justification_3_hurdle.gif

Please comment on those diagrams. There are people who believe they illustrate how far you are from making your case, or even from understanding what hurdles you need to cross yourself before you can build a case.

9. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204092 by Barry Pearson on July 4, 2008 at 5:55 am

#204081 by Steve Zara: I would love to see some evidence for supersymmetry. And, of course, the Higgs boson!

Or even more interesting, not the Higgs boson.

That would put the cat among the pigeons!

10. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #203775 by Barry Pearson on July 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm

#203751 by GBile: Barry P, Your 'three hurdles' atheist conversion scheme is great. I already see the theists frantically following this path and failing every time to reach their desired goal.

Now if they only would return the favor and give a schematic on how they could lose their particular faith (proven old earth, skeleton of jezus, obvious psychotic mental state of mohammed, or anything more subtle). We would be crossing off believers on a daily basis.
Unfortunately they will always come up with something new to be proven.

Thanks, and I agree.

An implicit question in my method is "if you can't assemble the evidence to get an atheist over these hurdles, and given that you didn't believe in god when you were born, why do you believe in god now?" In principle, religious people surely had to have crossed those hurdles themselves?

At the following, I describe the way the hurdles can be overcome in combinations. The first one is (I think) the typical "indoctrination in childhood" version.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_believe.htm#combining

The whole 6-page (!) method starts here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert.htm

I learned a lot developing this framework. I took it very seriously. I wish religious people would do their homework before arguing with atheists.

EDIT:
Here is how I became an atheist:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/me.htm#atheist

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

Comment #203419 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 10:33 pm

#203376 by Godfree Gordon: We should start organising debates between IDers and other relgious freaks - atheists could just stand back and watch it all implode...

Yup!

And there are several different kinds of Creationism/ID, all incompatible with one-another. Muslims, Christians, possibly others. Young World, Old World, and variations. Some ID people appear to believe in common descent, most don't.

Types of Christian creationism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_Christian_creationism

Non-Christian creationist movements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Non-Christian_creationist_movements

Islamic creationism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism

12. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203416 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 10:12 pm

#203308 by newandrew: What is particularly disgusting about the "new" stance is that it far less convincingly states something Obama said back during the campaign (possibly before -- I can't find the right source):

Here it is:
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_1/
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

13. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203201 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 1:07 pm

#203102 by Paine: Well, what would happen if it did break down?.....we'd be more like the UK, I suppose. And I cant really say that's a step down. (50% atheists over there)

#203155 by ThoughtsonCommonToad: I'm always very suspicious of that number, and well one of the wittiest things I heard in a long time came from a questioner at the FCOS event (I'm not sure about that) where Dawkins was a speaker. He said something along the lines of "My friend is an atheist. A cool headed, rational thinker, who bases her claims on hard evidence, like any self-respecting Sagittarius."

Eurobarometer survey 2005:

I believe there is a God: 38%
I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force: 40%
I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force: 20%
Don't know: 2%

See:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/EB_2005.gif

14. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #203031 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 9:13 am

#202613 by musicman30mm: Further, he fails to mention that Dawkins is explicit in the beginning of God Delusion about specifying which god he's claiming 'Almost certainly does not exist'- the Aberhamic God who created the world as we see it now, people and beasts and stars and Earth etc... intact.

This distinction is of the uttmost importance here, as the presented deconstruction is a far better defense for a deistic god, than for the theistic, Aberhamic God of Genesis.

That is pretty well standard. Huge numbers of attempts to "prove" the existence of god, or defend religious beliefs, or convert atheists, divert to trying to show the existence of a potentially-deist god. Then they go back to talking about their own theist god as though the same thing was meant by the word "god" in both cases. Muslims (eg. Harun Yahya) use similar arguments, which is ironic!

That is why I devised the "3 hurdle" model, as shown at the following page:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_believe.htm

The relevant diagrams are these:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/3_hurdles.gif
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/justification_3_hurdle.gif

15. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202840 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 3:46 am

#202812 by oriole: "Can't Darwin and God get along?"

Who said they were fighting? I notice God hasn't published another book since Darwin came out with his. I think that's God's way of apologizing.

No - that assumes that God has something to apologise for. There is an alternative position that won't appeal to many religious people.

I recently watched a YouTube video that made the following argument about science and the "god of the gaps" argument. It asserted that, in fact, science was God's way of creating the universe and of revealing his work to us, and he fully supported the endeavour. The reason some people claim that God is in the gaps is that God really is in the gaps, as well as in the whole of science. The difference from the conventional Creationist/ID view is that God doesn't want there to be gaps, he wants science to close them.

It was a spoof, but quite an interesting argument:
"Disproving Atheism: God of the Gaps?" (4:38)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hSCekqYfr64

ps: are you sure God hasn't published another book since Darwin? What about "Dianetics: the Original Thesis"?

16. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202807 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 2:49 am

#202785 by mordacious1: Barry
Love your model.

It was interesting for me to learn from David Eller that there are over 1000 religions practiced today. MOST of these don't believe in any sort of god, ie. ancestor worship.

Only 1000? How about this:
"According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, an 800-page volume that attempts to track every religion practiced around the world, there are 9,900 distinct religions and two or three new religions created every day":
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200202u/int2002-02-08

I have suggested an extension to the model for Creationism/ID:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/4_hurdles.gif

At:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_creation.htm

17. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202772 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 12:46 am

#201868 by Barry Pearson: Robert O'Brien, would you please have a look at the images above, and tell us if those are the hurdles that separate you from atheism, and if so how you crossed them?

#202656 by Robert O'Brien: Barry, I am not interested in converting theomachoi, typically.

The question I asked is independent of whether you are interested in converting anyone. Please note that the question was about you and your beliefs, not about anyone else. I'll repeat the question in case you missed the point:

Robert O'Brien, would you please have a look at the images below, and tell us if those are the hurdles that separate you from atheism, and if so how you crossed them?
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/3_hurdles.gif
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/justification_3_hurdle.gif

Thank you.

18. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202367 by Barry Pearson on July 1, 2008 at 11:43 am

From my page "Religions are hobbies":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm

Employment

To what extent should employers have to cater for any special needs of practitioners of particular hobbies? Should photographers automatically be permitted to carry a camera at all times? Should flower arrangers automatically be permitted to wear a lapel bouquet in their uniform? Should employees be allowed to discriminate against customers who have a different hobby from theirs? Typically, the answer is no. (However much I may want to make an exception for photographers!)

There are good reasons for requiring employers not to discriminate against people because of factors that are not under the control of the (prospective) employees which don't interfere with their performance in the job. (Race, sex, and sexual orientation are obvious examples of such factors, and disability is deserving of special consideration in a compassionate society). But hobbies (hence religious practices) do not deserve automatic special consideration.

19. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #202285 by Barry Pearson on July 1, 2008 at 8:20 am

by Teratornis: I'd also mention that children often have no choice in the matter. Their parents drag them off to church or temple and that is that. An adult has to actually choose to continue with a religion, whereas the young child remains utterly dependent on its parents and cannot easily defy their wishes.

#200956 by Abhishek: Then an interesting point the questioner raised, was that what if the child decides to call himself/herself a Muslim? If it only requires a distinction in the big catagories, a child could say I've looked at the big catagories and I think I'd like to be called a Muslim child, please.

#202188 by phaseshift: Abhishek: you ask about the case where a child would choose to call itself a muslim/catholic, etc. Well, I think the question is best answered with another question: what if a child decided it was ready to vote? Or to have sex? I think you get the point. There's a reason that kids have restricted rights until a certain age: they can't be assumed to have enough information and experience to make complex judgements.

Nicholas Humphrey attempted to answer this point in 1998 or so.

Nicholas Humphrey, 1998, "What shall we tell the children?" (PDF):
http://www.humphrey.org.uk/papers/1998WhatShallWeTell.pdf

He challenged views about the freedom of parents by drawing a comparison that enlightened people would struggle with. It isn't simply whether children can at that age apparently make informed decisions. It is also whether later as adults this is something that they would have wished had been done differently.

.... Let's suppose we were talking not about children's minds but children's bodies. Suppose the issue were not who should control a child's intellectual development but who should control the development of her ... genitalia.... And the issue is not whether anyone should be permitted to deny a girl knowledge of Darwin, but whether anyone should be permitted to deny her the uses of a clitoris. And now here I am suggesting that it is a girl's right to be left intact, that parents have no right to mutilate their daughters to suit their own socio-sexual agenda, and that we as a society ought to prevent it....

.... You'll agree that, if it were female circumcision we were talking about, we could build a moral case against it based just on considering whether it is something a woman would choose for herself. Given the fact - I assume it is a fact - that most of those women who were circumcised as children would, if they only knew what they were missing, have preferred to remain intact. Given that almost no woman who was not circumcised as a child volunteers to undergo the operation later in life. Given in short that it seems not to be what free women want to have done to their bodies. Then it seems clear that whoever takes advantage of their temporary power over a child's body to perform the operation must be abusing this power and acting wrongly.

Well then, if this is so for bodies, the same for minds. Given, let's say, that most people who have been brought up as members of a sect would, if they only knew what they are being denied, have preferred to remain outside it. Given that almost no one who was not brought up this way volunteers to adopt the faith later in life. Given in short that it is not a faith that a free-thinker would adopt. Then, likewise, it seems clear that whoever takes advantage of their temporary power over a child's mind to impose this faith, is equally abusing this power and acting wrongly....

.... More worrying still, the children themselves may often be unwitting collaborators in this game of isolation. For children all too easily learn who they are, what is allowed for them and where they must not go - even in thought. John Schumaker, an Australian psychologist, has described his own Catholic boyhood: "I believed wholeheartedly that I would burn in eternal fire if I ate meat on a Friday. I now hear that people no longer spend an eternity in fire for eating meat on Fridays. Yet, I cannot help thinking back on the many Saturdays when I rushed to confess about the bologna and ketchup sandwich I could not resist the day before. I usually hoped I would not die before getting to the 3 p.m. confession"....

.... I want to propose a general test for deciding when and whether the teaching of a belief system to children is morally defensible. As follows. If it is ever the case that teaching this system to children will mean that later in life they come to hold beliefs that, were they in fact to have had access to alternatives, they would most likely not have chosen for themselves, then it is morally wrong of whoever presumes to impose this system and to chose for them to do so. No one has the right to choose badly for anyone else....

Children can be pressured into things that they would/will regret in later life.

20. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202180 by Barry Pearson on July 1, 2008 at 2:20 am

#201977 by Scarthin Nick: If there is anything in the theory that humans have predilection for the glorification of cult figures - why not swap our present crew of dour and downright hostile divinities for Dr.Who?

Just look at all the plus points - he likes humanity warts and all, gets on with gays, trustworthy with young adults, no absurd list of prohibitions, saves the world about once a week instead of visiting it with floods and plagues, and doesn't ask us to be eternally grateful for him doing his job. Is a fictional character - but hey, what's new?

Russell T Davies once described the Doctor as "a moral force travelling through time and space" (or something like that).

Although this is early-evening family entertainment, there are often moral dilemmas posed. "Would anyone have died if you hadn't come here?" "Can't we save at least one person?" (Hm! Both of those were asked of the Doctor by women). People rise to the occasion and sacrifice themselves for the greater good. (Lots of people die!)

Star Trek TNG sometimes did that well too.

OK - as a fan I'm reading too much into the stories, (should I say "parables?), but you can continue to think about these (often unresolved) questions afterwards.

21. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201868 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 10:57 am

#201647 by Barry Pearson:

To get to the Christian position, there are various hurdles. I suggest a few here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/3_hurdles.gif
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/justification_3_hurdle.gif

Robert O'Brien: I would be interested in whether you agree that there are the hurdles, and how you crossed them?

#201779 by Robert O'Brien: [didn't answer that bit]

Robert O'Brien, would you please have a look at the images above, and tell us if those are the hurdles that separate you from atheism, and if so how you crossed them?

They are used in the following page, but you may not have to read that in order to see what they mean:
"How to convert an atheist: Cause the atheist to believe in your god(s)":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_believe.htm

Thank you.

22. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #201789 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 9:14 am

#201762 by epeeist: There a couple of opinion pieces in other papers today. A typically ill argued piece from Christina Odone in the Guardian .... and an absolutely scathing attack on her position in the Independent .... by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

EDIT: You will note that Christina Odone is a) Catholic and b) probably a member of Opus Dei.

My understanding is that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a Muslim? I often disagree with her, but here I think she has it right. She knows what the future is for Muslim girls who can't break out of the "Muslim community". (Christina Odone spoke drivel).

23. Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

Comment #201780 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 9:05 am

My comment has just appeared there:

I wasn't aware that anyone had seriously claimed that Darwin WAS the father of atheism! (There were many atheists before him). So why bother to write this much to say he wasn't?

Some people here haven't caught up with the modern science of evolution. It is hard to over-emphasise just how well-established the science of evolution is, how much evidence there is for it, how modern and up-to-date that evidence is, and how fast, and to what depth, the science of evolution is enriching our understanding of the life on Earth over the last few billion years.

Some people have specialised religious beliefs that contradict evolution. Trying to defend religious beliefs against evolution is equivalent to trying to protect your house against a lava flow by standing in front of it!

A reason that many atheists criticise religion(s) is that religions often attempt to force or constrain people who don't share those beliefs. A good working model is:

"Religions are hobbies".

(More accurately, religious practices are hobbies). If all parties, (governments, religions, religious people, and atheists), work to that model, we can all coexist much better.

24. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201706 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 5:56 am

#201679 by Steve Zara: We don't need a designer. We are lucky to be able to observe a speciation event actually in progress

Chuckle! Yes, I'm enjoying that. Not least because of the revelation of so much dogma and intolerance in an organisation that many people (myself included) had thought was almost an enlightened church.

Needless to say, I hope that this will speed up what I requested in my letter to my MP and his party leader:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/letter1.htm

.... I want all religious bias to be removed from Government and Law:

- My main desire is disestablishment of the Church of England, and the removal of their automatic right to have many bishops in the Upper Chamber giving a religion (any religion) privileged influence on the legislative process....

(Yes, I do sometimes do things with little hope of success. But perhaps a steady drip drip drip will eventually make it more than a gesture).

25. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201676 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 3:27 am

#201646 by Steve Zara: If one was going to design from scratch a system of dogma that could make people do anything, it would be religion.

Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett make a good case for the evolution of religion by natural selection.

Are you suggesting that in fact there was an Intelligent Designer who helped religion over its difficult bits?

(Duck!)

26. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #201657 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 2:18 am

#201615 by DanDare: No don't merge method of thinking and source of information, they make very good dimensions. Would you add lateral thinking to the thinking dimension please.

I think there is another dimension too, similar to co existance, to do with moral reasoning. It would have something like "evolving (progressive?), open, enabling, rewarding" vs "static, given, prohibitive, punishing"

I'll add lateral thinking. I think I too prefer separation between method of thinking and source of information.

I'm not sure whether "moral reasoning" is an extra dimension, or a consequence (an emergent property?) of the existing dimensions. (Just as "science" isn't a separate dimenstion, but a consequence of "method of thinking and source of information"). Perhaps I need to reconsider the "Rights and duties" part - perhaps Human Rights are a consequence of "moral reasoning", not a dimension? And perhaps the "reasoning" part is provided by "method of thinking and source of information"? (I wonder if "attitude to others" is a better dimension, and "coexistence" and "moral reasoning" are consequences? After all, if you don't consider some others even to be human, your reasoning may not lead to human rights. Or ape rights, which I think I'll introduce).

Aaaaarrggh! It is hard to separate them into largely-independent dimensions! And, based on the way I used to designed complicated computer systems, it is a good idea not to have more dimensions than strictly necessary.

But I'll cover "moral reasoning" somehow. Thanks. The page will appear here (just notes at the moment, probably to be updated daily) before August 2008:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/enlightenment.htm

27. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201647 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 1:39 am

#201526 by Robert O'Brien: Goedel (I've given up on trying to post the umlauts here) defines God and then proceeds to prove God exists, which is what we do in mathematics/statistics all the time.

#201573 by qomak: I cannot understand why people waste so much time with ontological arguments those fallacies can be shown in two sentences: [cut]

#201577 by MPhil: (Then again, I don't think the ontological arguments are of any real consequence, either. I think they are technically - logically - interesting. But that's about it :)

#201606 by Robert O'Brien: I've had more than an introduction to mathematics, and the holes exist only in your head. Besides which, Goedel was a master of mathematics. That does not make him automatically correct, of course, but if you are suggesting he made some amateurish errors in his argument then you need to have your head examined.

I must confess that I'm bemused by such things as ontological arguments. I am not a philosopher. I am not even a scientist, although I have a degree in Mathematical Physics. I am an engineer.

To me, ignoring philosophy and concentrating on the real world, there are all sorts of possibilities, from "no god" to "deist god" to "unknown and perhaps unknowable listening caring god" to "a listening caring god whose prophet was Muhammad or who had a son called Jesus or [lots of others]".

Ontological arguments appear to try to bootstrap a god into existence without practical real world evidence. Why can't you bootstrap the FSM into existence that way? Are these ontological arguments believed by any serious academics to prove anything useful about the real world? Can they prove details such as having a son called Jesus, or having an afterlife, or the existence of miracles? Have they any relevance to religion, which isn't concerned with deist gods, just specific versions of theists gods?

To get to the Christian position, there are various hurdles. I suggest a few here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/3_hurdles.gif
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/justification_3_hurdle.gif


Robert O'Brien: I would be interested in whether you agree that there are the hurdles, and how you crossed them?

These are taken from my "How to convert an atheist":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert.htm

On the 2nd and 3rd pages I have listed what I consider to be "risky" arguments from the point of view of converting an atheist, or even having an argument with one that is likely to be taken seriously. There are lots of these, including ontological ones. (There are also arguments that I consider probably to be futile for this purpose, such as presuppositional apologetics and transcendental arguments. The latter has its own curious pseudo-logic).

28. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201632 by Barry Pearson on June 30, 2008 at 12:52 am

#201159 by phil rimmer: Don't defend other peoples religious dogma by seeking to deny us the right to attack it.

#201452 by theIdiot: Judging that several evangelical atheist books have made it to the top of the best sellers list, that the authors have received much media attention, interview time even on conservative media outlets, such as FOX news, not to mention outlets such as Youtube, forums that are available to the public, I have to wonder who has denied you the right to criticize religion? If anything, you've been provided an open door.

I've attended several universities where students and Professors lambasted religion with free reign. If there's even been a moment in history where the atheist gets his time on the pulpit it's now.

#201464 by Goldy: Pendulum.
Actually, can you say that the religious have been forever tolerant? Silly point - what are you trying to tell us?

I don't think this is a pendulum. Much of it is a new phenomenon that has changed the conversational climate long-term. But because it has happened fairly recently, some people haven't realised that it is probably permanent, and worry that it may reverse.

Well within the last decade, we have new media feeding a somewhat changed audience. 9/11 changed the audience, and the new media, including extra TV channels but especially anything to do with the web, provide the opportunities to discuss and debate with the new audience. I expressed this at:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2749,Should-Strident-British-Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-Dictate-Education-Policy-to-US-States-Barbara-Forrest-Apparently-Thinks-So,The-Discovery-Institute,page1#197070

Extract:

Suppose that Richard Dawkins had had an outline of "The God Delusion" in earlier decades - 1996, 1986, 1976, .... Would there have been sufficient incentives for Richard to expand that outline to its current comprehensive version, rather than release it in more limited form? Would there have been sufficient incentives for a publisher to publish it as widely and as well-translated? What would the reception have been?

For example: 1996. The web existed, but was not widely used. There were no web forums, no video-viewing such as YouTube or video downloads, little or no on-line publication of news articles, etc. There were fewer TV stations available to most people in the UK, probably less need to find material to fill the air-time, and perhaps less need for controversial material to attract viewers.

Another factor in 1996 was "this was pre-9/11". That influenced some of the content of the book and surely changed the audience.

Given all of this, how far would people have taken an interest in even the comprehensive version? Surely far fewer people would have been aware of it, and there would have been fewer opportunities to debate it?

It isn't surprising that some people are concerned that religions will attempt to reduce/suppress such attacks. The UK nearly introduced bad legislation in 2006 that would have made it an offence to insult/ridicule religions in a way that upsets/offends people. Fortunately it didn't happen. The UN Commission on Human Rights has now adopted a new role of monitoring and criticising free speech in the case of religion. Fortunately they don't have the teeth to make this stick.

Religions will continue to try to deny the right to attack their beliefs. The "new media" will (I hope) continue to thwart them.

29. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #201140 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 6:41 am

#201134 by Roger Stanyard: One of the key issues that is widely lost in the "debates" over science and religion is that fundamentalism (as distinct from religion in general) is a serious political issue - between what is essentially a call for a theocratic state and what can broadly be described as the modern liberal democracy. The fundamentalists (YECers/IDers are nearly all fundemntalists_ are driven by a hard line ideology and they want to be in control.

Organisations such as the Christiann Coaltion, the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, the National Association of Evangelicals, Truth in Science and the Discovery Institute are deeply political organisations.

Yes. During debates, there are two totally different arguments going on at the same time.

One side is trying to show that science (especially evolution) is correct. The other side is trying to show that there must be a religious flavour to education, science, and government. I have suspected that some of the ID "theorists" don't really care a lot about whether evolution is correct. (The "Wedge" document didn't worry about the issue. It was concerned about the "materialistic worldview"). If evolution is correct, that is an inconvenience to be overcome. What matters is whether they can give the impression that it is wrong so that religious politicians have a platform.

I say on my website:

I cannot over-emphasise just how well-established the science of evolution is, how much evidence there is for it, how modern and up-to-date that evidence is, and how fast, and to what depth, the science of evolution is enriching our understanding of the life on Earth over the last few billion years.

Trying to defend specialised religious beliefs against evolution is equivalent to trying to protect your house against a lava flow by standing in front of it!
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_discussion.htm#whataboutevolution

A modern undergraduate textbook on Evolution mostly references papers and books of the last 30 years, often much less. The pace appears, if anything, to be accelerating!

30. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201136 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 6:23 am

#201131 by Roger Stanyard: The possibility of convincing YECers that they are wrong is exceedingly remote. Lenny Flank has spend a quarter of a century or so in trying to do so and says that he can count on the fingers of one hand the number that have changed their minds....

There is ony one point to arguing with such extreme fundamentalists - to show others how stupid and bigoted they are.

We need to know who we are trying to convince. Those people are really a "lost generation". This is a battle being played out over generations.

Here is a repeat of something I said a couple of days ago:

.... We shouldn't judge the success of the "rational viewpoint", or "the enlightenment", by whether existing Creationists are converted. A few may be but most won't be. Our success should be judged by the degree to which their endeavours are "contained", and by the beliefs of the next generation.

Will there be replacements for Dembski, Behe, etc, in the next generation? If so, how will their views compare? Note that Behe doesn't appear to deny evolution and common descent. Will the next generation, if there is one, similarly accept many scientific positions, and confine themselves to narrower conflicts than the current generation?

.... Many Creationists are fully aware that this is largely a battle for the next generation. We should all act and judge accordingly.

That is why, despite being childfree, I recently joined BCSE. (And people in the US should join NCSE).

31. The $10,000-a-Month Psychic

Comment #201112 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 4:16 am

#200830 by Double Bass Atheist: I just can't understand how anyone, in 2008, can still think these charlatans are real... especially major corporations!

#200946 by bachfiend: At $10,000 a month she is probably more productive than many a CEO, who probably get paid that much just to get up in the morning to destroy shareholder value. Her teaching seminars sound much more interesting than many a meeting I have been forced to attend over the years (although I may be wrong; during most of them I was in a state of induced semi-coma).

Although I don't believe she has pre-cognition, there is often merit in business in forcing a decision of some kind.

I once developed a method for helping a group in a business come to some conclusions, see below. Although part of it was intended to aid correct decision-making, another intention was to force people to react to a (preliminary) conclusion, at which point they engage their brains "properly". In fact, I didn't advocate that people blindly "obeyed" my method. They were supposed to have the expertise to come to good decisions if stimulated. Here it is, with small extracts:

"A Process For Designing A Value Chain For A New Product"
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/papers/value_chain/

2.2 Psychology

There are some tendencies that this Process attempts to avoid:

- middle-of-the-road positions may not be challenging enough to bring out the creative energies in the decision makers, and they may not see the need to fight for their views

- such intermediate positions may be so blurred that there is only the appearance, not the reality, of consensus

The Process is designed to avoid fence-sitting, and deliberately polarises decision-making like an agent provocateur.

However, the Process is a tool to aid consensus and decision making, not magic - whatever it says, professional people must exercise their own judgement and not use the Nuremberg defence "I was only obeying orders". If the resultant decision remains disliked, then they should follow their judgement, and the Process has served its purpose by challenging a position which has probably turned out to be robust....

2.3 Summary of the Process

.... The first pass through the Process is likely to yield anomalies and discomfort.... Typically this is because the decision requires some choices to be made, and half-hearted choices are likely to lead to uncomfortable decisions.

Therefore, if the decisions the first time are not liked, the Process should be run again, this time paying attention to why uncomfortable conclusions have been reached, and correcting them.

Who was it who suggested that a valuable person to have is someone who is always wrong? (Parkinson?)

32. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201108 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 3:53 am

#200665 by Steve Zara: Paula really is an excellent interviewer. I like this discussion format.

#201041 by room101: I agree with Steve wholeheartedly...I really think it's best to let Richard be Richard, to allow him ample time to explain things, which is what you have to do when dealing with something as complex as biology. And there's no back and forth "ping-ponging" between Richard and some theist, with each getting only 5 minutes.

I don't normally post to say "me too". But ... me too!

Paula sets the context, a bit like the abstract and headlines in an article, or the chapter headings and chapter introductions in a book, and Richard expands on it, like the rest of the article or chapter. It structures things much better than Richard switching between introducing the next topic, and then delivering it. We easily see that we have arrived at a new topic. (Although Richard alone is OK if there are visual aids to show the structure, which tends not to work well on TV/video. I wonder if Paula objects to being compared to a visual aid?)

I wonder what the point of the typical debate is? Entertainment? Yes, if Christopher Hitchens is involved! But mostly they leave me frustrated or infuriated. What have I, or anyone else, learned? They are better suited to topics where there isn't a right answer, (eg. within politics). Point-scoring doesn't settle scientific issues.

33. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #201097 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 2:51 am

#200613 by Barry Pearson: "how is it determined whether it is the person claiming god exists, or the person claiming that god doesn't exist, who is making the extraordinary claim?"

#201003 by morgantj: Barry, If nobody claimed a god existed in the first place, then there would be no idea of a god for others to claim doesn't exist. So I think the burden of proof is on those who are making the positive claim.

That is the position you and I wish were accepted by everyone. But it won't be, and we have to accept that claims that it should be can and will be ignored by many people if they have the chance.

We are all familiar with the "Is-ought problem", where people foolishly go from "this is how it is" to "therefore this is how it ought to be". So "nature red in tooth and claw" doesn't really mean that humans should fight all the time, but some people think it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

There is also an "Ought-is" problem, where people carelessly go from "this is how it ought to be" to "therefore this is how it is". (To some extent this is simply "wishful thinking"). People often will not accept that the burden of proof lies with them unless they are forced to by whoever sets the context for the discussion, even though we say they ought to. We shouldn't assume they will, just because they ought to. That was the theme of my web page:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_discussion.htm#burdenofproof

If you live in a community where most people believe that god exists, then someone saying otherwise may appear to be making an extraordinary claim. Yes - we see things differently. But that will never convince them.

We have to ensure that important contexts (schools, courts, science, government) keep the burden of proof where it should be. Creationists (especially ID) are trying to shift the burden of proof in all of those contexts. They already succeed with this in some debates.

34. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #201081 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 12:52 am

#201062 by robotaholic: I think Richard Dawkins is right tho - the battle between evolution vs ID or w/e is not the real problem - the REAL issue is religion vs Science - and THAT is the battle Richard Dawkins wants to wage hardcore-

I think there is a broader "war" - between "enlightenment" and "unenlightenment". That is multi-dimensional, and more illuminating than more one-dimensional battles such as "evolution vs ID" or "religion vs Science".

I am currently developing my ideas on this, which I will publish as a web page. But so far, I have tentatively identified 5 dimensions (it may become 4) that can act as measures for societies, organisations, and people. Here they are:

1. Dimension: Method of thinking
Enlightened: Freethought, reasoning, logic
Unenlightened: Dogma, doctrine, traditional

2. Dimension: Source of information
Enlightened: Evidence, observation, education
Unenlightened: Revelation, mysticism, divination, sacred texts, superstition

3. Dimension: Coexistence
Enlightened: Tolerance, pluralism
Unenlightened: Intolerance, censorship, fundamentalism

4. Dimension: Governance
Enlightened: Representative government, secularism, freedom
Unenlightened: Authoritarian, aristocratic, theocratic, totalitarianism

5. Dimension: Rights and duties
Enlightened: Universal human rights
Unenlightened: Qualified permitted rights

Note that "evolution vs ID" or "religion vs Science" are really covered by more general dimensions, and sometimes combinations of them, typically "Method of thinking" and "Source of information". (I may merge those).

You could probably "score" (if I provided numbers, which I probably won't) 80% as a moderately/privately-religious scientific tolerant secularist. Or 20% or less as an intolerant totalitarian dogmatic atheist, like Stalin. Who would you rather have as your neighbours? (Probably the only way of getting to 100% would be as an atheist, but how many people in society would ever get to 100%?)

Religions are inherently unenlightened, but to different degrees. And religious people can be more enlightened than their religion. Church of England is moderately enlightened, and some within it more so. The Catholic Church is moderately unenlightened, but not nearly to the level of Islam in its natural state, which is very unenlightened.

We shouldn't measure societies just by how atheist they are, or how scientific their members are. Most people will never really be "scientific", but I'll settle for "reasoning, logic, evidence, observation, education".

35. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #201073 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 12:15 am

#201052 by John Pritzlaff: By the way, I disagree with the way Condell refers to the public sector. I think what he means is the governmental sector.

He lives in the UK. We use "public sector" for (approximately) "governmental sector", as in "public sector pay rises", etc.

36. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201072 by Barry Pearson on June 29, 2008 at 12:09 am

#201066 by Roy_H: Perhaps they asked a real astronomer such as Patrick Moore or Heather Couper but they would not do it!

Hm! Normally people queue up to get into Doctor Who.

(They always claim "my children would never forgive me if I passed up the chance").

37. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #200896 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 12:14 pm

So what?

Rose, Martha, Gwen, Sarah Jane, Donna, Harriet.

I'm a heroine addict!

38. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200889 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Gosh!

Rose, Martha, Gwen, Sarah Jane, Donna, Harriet.

I'm a heroine addict!


And Richard Dawkins too!

39. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200859 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 10:46 am

#200848 by Steve Zara: Comment #200837 by Barry Pearson

Your website is a useful resource. I think your "Evidence in Court" argument is right on target.

As you are presumably aware, the text of that subsection was supplied by hungarianelephant as a result of something I said here earlier. I just incorporated what he sent me.

Thanks for your response.

40. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200837 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 10:04 am

#200692 by Steve Zara: When a theist makes certain claims about the properties of God, it is possible to show that those claims are certainly false, given common use of words.

This can be applied to ideas such as combined omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, and the Trinity, and that one can believe with confidence that an experience is supernatural.

My strong feeling is that one can reduce all claims that God exists to merely claims that something vague might exist, but it certainly isn't the Abrahamic God, which is a logical impossibility.

As I evolve my pages "How to convert an atheist", I am having to ponder questions like that, and I am coming (belatedly) to similar conclusions. (Although I am not pursuing the logical problems, because I am looking for positive things to say). From:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert.htm

Can science say anything about the existence of god(s)?
Science can state confidently that certain types of god don't exist, that certain other types of god are unnecessary, and that certain things supposedly done by god(s) were not.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_discussion.htm#myviewsonscience

Do people ever believe in exactly the same god?
Do any two religious people share the same mental concept of any god? They may say the same words, but that is often required by religions with a strict doctrine, such as the Catholic Church or particular versions of Islam. Will a converted atheist have the same concept of god as the person who converted the atheist?

Are the gods of the Abrahamic religions the same?
Are the gods of the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Koran, the same? They are obviously very different in character and details, yet both Christianity and Islam are based on the assumption that they are the same God/Allah, and that the apparent differences can be explained (or explained away). It is rather as though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have franchises on a loose concept.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_discussion.htm#samegod

The more I research "How to convert an atheist", the more I realise just how dodgy religious beliefs are from a theist perspective, not just from an atheist perspective.

41. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200648 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 3:06 am

#200594 by Logicel: Barry Pearson, have not read yet your writings on the hobby approach. Does your approach mean that pious parasites would need to get real jobs (as far as I know governments don't subsidize hobbies) in order to practice their hobbies?

How dare you not read my words of wisdom! I have had a revelation that they are the answer to the world's problems. I feel deep in my heart that I alone have been vouchsafed the secret of coexistence in the universe. (Please send donations to ....)

I don't (yet) address that directly. The aim is not primarily to document specific answers, although that is sometimes possible. The aim is to show that sensible analysis based on this approach can lead to useful answers.

Here are some quotes:

"Should we have a minister for train spotting? Should we automatically give seats in the House of Lords to senior members of flower arranging and photography societies? Should the media always consult gardeners on moral issues? No."

"To what extent should hobbies have special tax status, whether for charitable or other reasons? That is for each nation to decide for itself. Having decided, those principles should apply to religious practices, given that they are hobbies."

"Religious practices should have special privileges to the same extent that other hobbies have them, typically not at all. It is when people of specific religions try to claim more privileges than other hobbies have that atheists and people of other religions tend to object."

I also show how to tackle questions that I haven't tried to:

"Choose a topic concerning religious practices that you want to examine, in order the see how the state and the law should respond. For example "how should we respond to a religion that demanded exemptions from certain laws for its members, or demanded special new laws affecting non-members?"

"Ask yourself "how would the state and the law respond if hobbyists and hobby-societies demanded such special treatment?" Then apply the results of the analysis to that religion. If the results are unacceptable to that religion, they need to be made aware that they are attempting to disrupt society in a way that is unacceptable to the rest of society, and for the sake of social harmony they must compromise."

There are good cases for certain academic positions related to religion, as an aspect of philosophy, history, culture, etc. (And our photographic society got grants from the UK Lottery fund).

The page is largely concerned with how to ask the right questions about the roles of religions in society - it helps to think about the topic. (Gosh! Have I strayed into philosophy? Help!) You must fill in the gaps yourself.

42. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200640 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 2:46 am

#200592 by Brian English: Yep, that's it folks. Us atheists have a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. and emphasizing an agressive nationalism and often racism.

Yes - there is more here about "The Evil Atheist Conspiracy":
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/eac.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/eac2.html

43. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200613 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 1:42 am

#200578 by morgantj: 2. This "lack of supporting evidence" that he claims that atheists do not have to support their 'claim.' Come again? Please don't tell me he doesn't realize that the burden of proof is on those whom are making the positive claim, the claim that god exist. He is committing fallacies in his claims of the oppositions fallacies thus discrediting his own argument.

We take it for granted that this is where the burden of prooof is. But I don't know of a way of convincing other people of that. I don't think that argument is likely to be successful.

Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Not everyone accepts that principle. And how is detemined whether it is the person claiming god exists, or the person claiming that god doesn't exist, who is making the extraordinary claim? To someone practising "presuppositional apologetics", even just saying that god might not exist is an extraordinary claim.

I've come to the conclusion:
"The burden of proof is assigned by those who control the context for the discussion."
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_discussion.htm#burdenofproof

We can dislike that, and see many claims (such as "atheists need to disprove god") as fallacies, but I don't know how change it, without first ensuring that the audience practises rational thinking.

At the link above, I show the implications for various contexts: Science and some other uses; Court of law; Debates; Politics; Intelligent Design; Unstructured discussions; Conversion of an atheist.

44. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200604 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 1:22 am

#200480 by TeraBrat: Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything. It's not only pointless it's detrimental and counter productive. It makes people dig in and entrench themselves in their arguments. You are better off saying nothing.

It depends how you do it, and who you are trying to convince.

A telling way of ridiculing a religion is to ridicule something else that the audience agrees is ridiculous. (For example, the beliefs of another religion!) Then to show that their own beliefs have correspondences that are exactly as ridiculous.

But sometimes the religious people concerned are not the target audience for the ridicule - probably most of them will never break away from their reliefs. The people who matter are, for example, the next generation, or agnostics, or people who are tempted to give special privileges to one religion versus another.

45. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200589 by Barry Pearson on June 28, 2008 at 12:37 am

#200574 by kram50: I would like to see this video put right out there in the public eye...perhaps on the evening news...on the front page of all newspapers...it should be shown in all churches. It is most important that the moderates, who are quite indifferent to the plite of the free world, get a mitt full of reality on a regular basis! I don't think the majority of beleivers actually know what the hell is going on this world.

#200577 by clearthinker: Kram50 - I would love to see this video out in the public eye as well.

Something we can all agree about, gosh!

Pat Condell's YouTube videos (he's done 42 of them) always get viewed by lots of people, and get lots of very complimentary comments. Obviously that is mostly a self-selecting group, but it is a large group. (This one currently has 1363 views on YouTube alone, and is also available elsewhere).

People feel that he is expressing something that needs to be said, because people don't like the way the lives of the rest of us are impacted by religion. If religions and religious people ceased trying to force us to do things we don't want to do, or stop us doing things we do want to do, or threaten us (and sometimes damage us), we would be vastly less vocal. Pat Condell wouldn't then make his videos.


clearthinker: on 23 June I asked you to give your views on my page proposing that all concerned should treat religious practices as hobbies. I haven't seen a response from you. It is my proposed model for coexistence without conflict, and if adopted would cause much of the anti-religion polemic to go away. I am actively promoting this proposal (for example, as an early comment to Pat Condell's video on YouTube, and in comments to articles in onlines news sources). Please have a look and comment:

"Religions are hobbies"
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm

Thank you in advance.

My 23 June request to you:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2757,The-Flea-Delusion,Tao-De-Haas,page2#197973

46. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200322 by Barry Pearson on June 27, 2008 at 10:03 am

#200257 by Gregg Townsend: I've been thinking--shocking I know--but wouldn't it be possible for a government funded Baptist School in the UK to just insert ID into the science class as a counterpoint? What mechanism is there in the education system that prevents them from doing that?

Others have answered this, but there are still concerns. Some links:

The BCSE Campaigns
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CurrentCampaigns

Current issues in UK creationism
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CurrentUKCreationistIssues

Is Your School Affected by Creationism?
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/YourSchool

The UK govenment's position on creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/TheUKGovernmentsPosition

(I'm a member of the BCSE. They are not resourced to the level of the NCSE in the US).

47. Creationist critics get their comeuppance

Comment #200203 by Barry Pearson on June 27, 2008 at 4:29 am

#200177 by HunterZolomon: It's painfully obvious that creationists will *never* concede to evolution being true if evidence like this doesn't shake their faith.

Correct. This is a battle being played out over generations.

These people have a different concept of what constitutes good evidence. (I suspect they are often not lying when they claim that the evidence is in their favour. They just don't mean the same thing as we do by the word "evidence"). And they have too much personal investment, mental and social and sometimes financial, to change their views.

We shouldn't judge the success of the "rational viewpoint", or "the enlightenment", by whether existing Creationists are converted. A few may be but most won't be. Our success should be judged by the degree to which their endeavours are "contained", and by the beliefs of the next generation.

Will there be replacements for Dembski, Behe, etc, in the next generation? If so, how will their views compare? Note that Behe doesn't appear to deny evolution and common descent. Will the next generation, if there is one, similarly accept many scientific positions, and confine themselves to narrower conflicts than the current generation?

The Catholic Church is hovering between the 19th and 20th centuries as far in its acceptance of science. By the end of this century, it may have caught up with the start of the 21st century. It couldn't survive immersion in societies where there is a significant amount of scientific literacy. The same may apply to Creationism. It is easy for children to access the vast amounts of information about science on the web (etc), and easier for them to see the controversy about what they have been taught during childhood. "YouTube atheism" is hard to censor for children with modern technology. Attempting to put firewalls around what their children can see may restrict their access to many useful education resources, and this will give many parents a dilemma. Do they want to save their children's souls at the expense of restricting their future opportunities?

Many Creationists are fully aware that this is largely a battle for the next generation. We should all act and judge accordingly.

48. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200179 by Barry Pearson on June 27, 2008 at 3:06 am

#200172 by Barry Pearson: And a court's normal way of discovering whether "someone" supports a particular claim is to interrogate them under oath, and no religion could bring their god to court.

#200175 by clodhopper: God couldn't possibly swear in court. He'd have to affirm.

Chuckle! God is an atheist:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GN2_zqWUYKo

Faith is based in things that aren't based in fact. Since God knows everything, he can't have faith.

And, because he's already the highest power, he doesn't believe in a higher power.

And so, God is an atheist!

ps: I have lots of interesting "favourites" at my YouTube channel:
http://youtube.com/user/BarryCPearson

49. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200172 by Barry Pearson on June 27, 2008 at 2:41 am

#200111 by clearthinker: But the greatest debate is about whether there is a God or not.

No - there are debates about whether any god(s) exist, and if so which one(s), and if so what its/their nature is. It is a narrow debate that confines itself to one "God".

In the 21st Century, across the world, 1000s of gods are worshipped. 1000s of religions are practised, most of which don't resemble Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. That tells us that gods and religions are at least partly cultural artifacts. So they are an interesting topic as aspects of history and culture.

What is therefore obviously wrong is to hint that one particular god/religion is "true" in the sense of matching the nature of the universe. It isn't something that can be proved to be wrong, but neither is there evidence that it is right.

What would be good evidence? Here is some material supplied to me by "hungarianelephant":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/convert_discussion.htm#evidenceincourt

Based on that, there follows a quote from my page "Religions are hobbies":
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/hobby.htm
I suggest you read that page to see how topics like this thread can be analysed.

What evidence is needed for a god?

This page identifies the roles for any particular religion without attempting to answer the question of whether that particular religion's god exists. But religious people may justify their claims for extra privileges on the grounds that their god exists and supports those claims. Their privileges will be at the expense of others, and so they need evidence. What sort of evidence?

If we were talking about "what is the nature of the universe", then we should demand scientific evidence. But we are talking about coexistence and conflict-resolution within society, and a different type of evidence is appropriate. Courts of law are a conflict-resolution mechanism used by societies. Using the UK as an example, the conflict may be between the state and individuals (or groups), as in criminal cases, or between different individuals (or groups), as in civil cases. Therefore, court evidence is appropriate here. So if a religion demands privileges compared with other religious religions, there are two hurdles: evidence that their god exists, and evidence that their god supports their claim. Even after centuries, no religion could assemble evidence of suitable quality to be accepted in court. And a court's normal way of discovering whether "someone" supports a particular claim is to interrogate them under oath, and no religion could bring their god to court.

50. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200160 by Barry Pearson on June 27, 2008 at 2:03 am

#200106 by clearthinker: As for the mantra that education MUST be secular - who says? Given that the number of atheists is a minority of the population why should my tax go to pay for the indoctrination of children into secularism?

There is no such thing as "indoctrination of children into secularism"! There is simply the avoidance of indoctrinating them into anything else.

A 2005 Eurobarometer survey showed, for the UK:
"I believe in God": 38%
"I believe in a higher power": 40%
"I don't believe in God or a higher power": 20%
"Don't know": 2%
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

According to that survey, (repeated in "Social Trends 2008"), believers in God are also in a minority.

In fact, your logic might suggest that we ought to be teaching about "higher powers that are not God". I would like to see a proposed syllabus for that!