1. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125140 by DerrickB on February 11, 2008 at 2:42 am

An incredible challenge for anyone trying to follow in Richard's footsteps! Reasonable Humanity owes a very large debt to Professor Dawkins.

However, I do have a suggestion, and though he is not a scientist Simonyi's description seems to fit him perfectly:

"In order to accomplish the above goals, the appointees to the chair must have a pedagogical range that goes beyond the traditional university setting. They should be able to communicate effectively with audiences of all kinds and in different media. Above all, they must approach the public with the utmost candour. Naturally, they will interact with political, religious, and other societal forces, but they must not, under any circumstances, let these forces affect the scientific validity of what they say. Conversely, they should be also candid about the limits of scientific knowledge at any given time, and communicate the uncertainties, frustrations, scientifically perplexing phenomena, and even the failures in their area of expertise."

Anyone who has read his books - especially "A Short History of Nearly Everything" will know that this describes Bill Bryson perfectly.

2. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124296 by DerrickB on February 9, 2008 at 3:51 am

This article by Matthew Parris in the Times is the best I have read on this topic:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3337984.ece

3. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115292 by DerrickB on January 24, 2008 at 12:27 am

Well at least they should try for consistency! Here is a list of animals sacred to at least one religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_worship

Bear
Bison and Cattle
Crow/Raven
Dog
Elephant
Fish and Whale
Frigate Bird
Goat
Hawk
Horse
Leopard
Lion
Lizard
Mantis
Monkey
Rabbit
Rat
Serpent
Sheep
Tiger
Wolf

4. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #70411 by DerrickB on September 15, 2007 at 11:39 am

Stephen Fry had something to say on this topic and as usual said it wonderfully:

"I am a lover of truth, a worshipper of freedom, a celebrant at the altar of language and purity and tolerance. That is my religion, and every day I am sorely, grossly, heinously and deeply offended, wounded, mortified and injured by a thousand different blasphemies against it. When the fundamental canons of truth, honesty, compassion and decency are hourly assaulted by fatuous bishops, pompous, illiberal and ignorant priests, politicians and prelates, sanctimonious censors, self-appointed moralists and busy-bodies, what recourse of ancient laws have I? None whatever. Nor would I ask for any. For unlike these blistering imbeciles my belief in my religion is strong and I know that lies will always fail and indecency and intolerance will always perish"

5. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68485 by DerrickB on September 7, 2007 at 9:05 am

From Hobson's Wiki entry:

"His principal interests are the relationship between Protestant Christianity and secularism, which he believes is more positive than is generally understood; the relationship between theology and literature; and the post-ecclesial renewal of worship. He thinks that large-scale carnival-style celebration must replace church worship."

Yet another "you are attacking a version of religion that is not my kind of religion (which is obviously superior)"

sigh ......

6. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65463 by DerrickB on August 24, 2007 at 9:55 am

I posted an oldie:

We all had faith in Father Christmas. Our parents and our teachers told us to have faith in Him. Father Christmas knew when we had been good or bad. He wanted each of us to petition Him with lists of our desires. Sometimes He delivered, and sometimes He didn't. Still we didn't question - Santa had his reasons. We had to have faith that He could be everywhere at one time. And still we didn't question – Santa had his mysterious and magic ways. But gradually the questions began to nag and doubts became harder to ignore. Our brains developed and our eyes widened. We came to realise that evidence could challenge and trump blind faith. And most of us learned that becoming a full adult means giving up the infant comforts of received beliefs and unquestioning obedience. Growing up offers the opportunity to apprehend and appreciate and eventually understand the unbounded wonders of the universe through open minds. Growing up uncovers our evolved abilities of study and explanation, and as grown-ups we carry a responsibility to help those who still fear the searchlights of reason and evidence to break free from the dark and ancient cocoons of their childhood faiths.

7. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51437 by DerrickB on June 23, 2007 at 12:44 am

Icanus can I refer you back to comment 28. Of course there is coaching going on by the parents. They are the organisers of this recruiting drive in the UK. It is a marketing campaign that the media (and everyone else) has swallowed hook, line and sinker. There is no great principle at stake here - it is just cynical manipulation by an American Christian Fundamentalist organisation!

8. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51310 by DerrickB on June 22, 2007 at 9:39 am

This is simply a well orgainsed marketing campaign by the UK wing of the John Guest Evangelistic Association Inc. They are a Christian recruiting organisation. Their main guy Denny Pattyn believes the end of the world is imminent. Lots of info at:

http://www.taozenchi.com/bcpblog/?m=200602

Mum & Dad Playfoot run the UK Branch and are cynically using their own daughter. They have a shop selling their merchandise at a nice profit no doubt (The US parent company can afford to arrange private planes):

http://www.silverringthing.org.uk/shop.asp

The US Govt was initially contributing funding to this, but were forced to stop by the ACLU.

9. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38688 by DerrickB on May 9, 2007 at 12:36 am

"(Harris) does not know what it is like to be a born-again Christian or he would not expend so much sarcasm on the minutiae of Old Testament law. It is a tenet of evangelical Christianity that the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ created a new covenant with the church."

Like Brian in comment 7 I find this defence of christianity to be particularly risible. How many christians agree that the whole of the OT can simply be thrown away like this. Either it was the inerrant word of a god or it wasn't. If it wasn't then why should the NT be so? And what about all the bits of the NT that right minded people should find obnoxious (see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html). Do they throw out all these parts too?

This reminds me of the Marx Brothers and the scene from a Night at the Opera where Groucho and Chico are trying to agee a very long "covenant" and end up tearing out nearly everything until they are left with just one "verse":

Driftwood: We got a contract...
Fiorello: You bet.
Driftwood: No matter how small it is...
Fiorello: Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here? This thing here.
Driftwood: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause. That's in every contract. That just says uh, it says uh, "If any of the parties participating in this contract is shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified."
Fiorello: Well, I don't know...
Driftwood: It's all right, that's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a 'sanity clause'.
Fiorello: Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't fool me! There ain't no Sanity Clause!

10. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27359 by DerrickB on March 24, 2007 at 8:26 am

Consider what you are saying Mr Clarkson:

"I would not ordinarily take the time to talk about Harris. His argument is, frankly, stupefyingly simplistic, (which I know will be shocking statement to some, but bear with me.) What's more, this would ordinarily be off topic on this site because we are not interested in debates between belief in fairies and disbelief in fairies. We (the believers in good fairies) are interested in the followers of the bad fairies and what to do about them. But Harris's argument does end up having something to do with that for a number of reasons, as I will discuss. Indeed, he and those who follow his argument believe that disbelief in fairies is the response to the followers of bad fairies because belief in fairies itself in all of its forms is responsible for it. No belief in fairies; no belief in bad fairies. Simple, right? It gets a little more detailed, but not much."

The rest is a waste of time

11. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26894 by DerrickB on March 22, 2007 at 7:46 am

Justme - yes disappointing, but not completely surprising.

Religious faith cannot be supported objectively by reason and evidence - just like thousands of other things that humans believe (astrology, homeopathy, spoon-bending and so on). Unfortunately, there is clearly a great human need to have some kind of religious comfort.

I have come to the conclusion that the great majority of human beings - whether through their heredity, conditioning, lack of education in science, inadequate facility with logical reasoning (or whatever) - are just incapable of accepting any rational argument against the idea of god (and whatever their institutional version of god-belief happens to be).

However, people who appear to be rational in every other way, or who have been trained in philosophy or science, or who claim to apply reason and yet still cling to belief without reason and evidence - I find very difficult to comprehend or respect.

12. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26721 by DerrickB on March 21, 2007 at 10:43 am

MouthAlmighty - I agree with your comments. This dialogue should definitely be published as a companion volume to "Letter to a Christian Nation"

13. God's dupes

Comment #26030 by DerrickB on March 16, 2007 at 7:07 am

"what is it with Sam and spirituality though? I don't get it. Spirituality to me implies a spirt. Once you remove the spirit you just get an emotional rollercoaster ride. isn't that enough?"

I agree. Spirituality is exactly what Sam is otherwise demolishing - here are the common definitions:

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

14. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25828 by DerrickB on March 15, 2007 at 10:46 am

If you want to find comfort about 'life after death' I reckon there are more likely hypotheses than you will roast in Hell for eternity, or the remote chance that you will find paradise with a sky-god.

- we may really be living in a computer simulation in which case death doesn't really mean death

- the 'universe' may be cyclic and you will reappear in another cycle

- the universe may last forever and your exact atoms come together in exactly the same way (wouldn't that be you?)

- there may be an infinity of parallel universes and there are lots of you's (and maybe the fountain of youth will be discovered in one of them)

- a sufficiently advanced civilization could recreate you from remnants of your DNA

- consciousness is a multidimensional phenonema in some way that is not tied to our 4 dimensional experience

- we actually find a way to increase life-spans dramatically in the next 20-30 years

- there are other natural phenomena in the universe (or multiverse) that are beyond our comprehension supporting consciousness

- etc
- etc

15. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25558 by DerrickB on March 14, 2007 at 5:03 am

Andrew Sullivan has at last responded:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

16. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24409 by DerrickB on March 6, 2007 at 1:18 pm

"Atheist Pin-ups"

Just found this website. A very interesting list of well known individuals who are/were atheists or agnostics.

http://revart.blogs.com/photos/rev_arts_atheist_pinups/atheist_gates3.html

17. Long live satire

Comment #24408 by DerrickB on March 6, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Professor SUSAN BLACKMORE is a British author known for her popular science accounts of the field of memetics (The Meme Machine, 1999, co-authored with Richard Dawkins) and the non-existence of the paranormal. Blackmore writes for several magazines and newspapers and is a frequent television and radio talk show guest. She is a Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol and holds degrees in psychology, physiology, and parapsychology. Though a self-proclaimed atheist, she has been practicing Zen style meditation for the past 20 years.

18. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23824 by DerrickB on March 3, 2007 at 2:43 am

A wonderful poem - and I like Roger Stanyard's "Colorado Springs" version. However, in an attempt to be even handed:

When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of the past — do not be surprised, you are in Vatican City.

When religion first denies science and persecutes scientists but finally twists and turns to begrudgingly admit defeat yet avoid responsibility for wrongdoing — you can be sure that you are in Vatican City.

When millions of followers are living in abject poverty yet even the toilet flush handles are made of gold — don't be astonished, you are in Vatican City.

When you see your leader as someone who has complete infallibility in the name of his god — do not be too upset, you are in Vatican City.

When you find that a 1 day old blastocyst needs more protection than a dying five year old child — do not be too distressed, you are in Vatican City.

When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less — do not be surprised, you are in Vatican City.

When you find the covering-up of persistent child abuse by some of your clerics – you may bet you are in Vatican City.

When the death and suffering of millions of human beings from AIDS is seen as less important than preaching the "evil" of condom use — be sure you are in Vatican City.

When guilt is constantly instilled in the lives of your followers — you can be certain you are in Vatican City."

19. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #23656 by DerrickB on March 2, 2007 at 1:08 am

"But I also think that a faith should be judged by the actions and life-choices of the people who follow it."

Interesting.
leads to a question for Sullivan
- is this your criterion for judging the truth of a faith, or simply its value?

Surely it cannot possibly be the former otherwise all faiths that have individuals acting morally would have to be true. If the latter then why should it not be applied to the actions and life-choices of people without faith? If, in general, atheists have behaved as well (or better) than christians throughout history then surely you would need to judge atheism as at least the equal, but more likely superior to christianity? That would be an interesting debate.

20. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #23652 by DerrickB on March 2, 2007 at 12:52 am

Another comment from Sullivan' blog about the delay in his next response to Sam (see last para below). I have included the whole blog item as it is quite interesting:

"Mormons, Catholics, Deluded Fanatics

01 Mar 2007 01:30 pm

A reader writes:

""When it comes to the delusion of one religion versus another, I'm usually loathe to compare the experiences of Christ's resurrection, Mohammed's ascention on a white horse, Moses' burning bush with the experiences of Mormon's "Christ in America" or Scientology's doctrine. Why? Well, the former all happened and were chronicled long before the age of reason. The latter have been dreamed up only in recent history, and personnally I'm willing to cut some slack to the stories of antiquity which were written and passed down by societies that have not benefitted from the age of reason.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm also one who tends to take many of the stories found in the bible with a grain of salt. The wonderous details of the stories are, in my opinion, subject to some doubt after being passed through so many centuries by fallible human hands. What's more important to me is the overall lessons that these stories hold, not the supernatural details within those stories. I feel I can attribute some of that to the authors and realize that those people did not live in the 21st century, but their message is still compelling. This is not so easy for me to do with these "latter day" religions.""

This assumes that revelation ended in pre-modernity. But why should that be so? For God, our sense of time is meaningless. I think evidence of a serious scam in the founding of a religion is more pertinent. And on this, critics of Mormonism may be onto something. But I also thnk that a faith should be judged by the actions and life-choices of the people who follow it. Whatever people say is their faith is less pertinent to me than how they act according to their faith. And many, many Mormons seem to me to be exemplary Christians in the way they lead their lives in many ways.

(P.S. My apologies for the delay in my response to Sam Harris's recent post. I'm over-worked right now - just finished a long review of Dinesh D'Souza's remarkable book - and don't want to rush it. Patience, please.)"

21. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23494 by DerrickB on March 1, 2007 at 4:50 am

Here is an interesting perspective from Andrew Sullivan's Blog today. A fascinating view on two aspects of this discussion
- the compartmentalisation of delusion
- the difficulty for a believer in one religion based on deluded beliefs to trash (or even criticise) a believer with a contradictory set of deluded beliefs :-)

"A reader expresses something that deserves an airing:

I've for a while read with interest as you've followed Romney closely. I particularly enjoyed watching you discover the oddities of his religion awhile back (the whole "undies affair"). His policies and flip-flops aside, I am, like Jake Weisberg, tempted to toss him aside as a viable candidate simply because of his religion. As much as it makes me feel like a bigot, I can't help it. On paper, anyone who would call himself a Mormon is divorced from reality and reason. I must admit that I have atheistic biases, but even if I didn't, Mormonism still stands with Scientology.

On the other hand is my personal experience. I have never met a Mormon I did not both like and respect. They have all been academically respectable and generally more worldly and accepting than your average religious type. They have been immensely and genuinely friendly and helpful. Responsible, upstanding, well-meaning individuals. I must admit that even as a liberal, atheist, drinking, pot-smoking guy, I have always enjoyed their company and valued their friendship.

But always in the back of my mind there is a voice: "This guy is a delusional lunatic." We're fine with one another in the public, social world, but in our inside, private worlds, we could not be more different. I'm not sure where to go from there.

I think we leave it in the inside private world. Look: I believe that a man rose from the dead two millennia ago. Why am I not also "a delusional lunatic"? Cultic practices can be anathematized in a liberal democracy. Not religion.

But that makes it all the more important that religious people also respect the boundary between an inside, private world and an outside, social and political one. I know the boundaries can get fuzzy. Our faith will always inform our politics. But we have to insist on a space, a moment, a gap, between that private faith and public politics. That gap makes a secular democracy possible and political conversation feasible. Romney's candidacy should stand or fall on his secular qualifications for a secular office. The tragedy is: Karl Rove and George W. Bush have made this a great deal harder in today's G.O.P."

22. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23421 by DerrickB on February 28, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Russell I tried to post a comment to Crawley's blog earlier today (about 10 hours ago). This supported your comments and suggested other examples of beliefs without supporting evidence - like homeopathy, clairvoyance, astrology etc - which are delusions not (necessarily) associated with mental-illness or even lack of intelligence.

Unfortunately it has not appeared.

Maybe this topic was closed after your post

23. The Only One in Step

Comment #23420 by DerrickB on February 28, 2007 at 2:13 pm

and if anyone is interested in the Bombardier Beetle and why grimlibenglion mentioned it:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3955_issue_03_volume_2_number_1__2_21_2003.asp#The%20Bombadier%20Beetle%20Myth%20Exploded

24. The Only One in Step

Comment #23416 by DerrickB on February 28, 2007 at 1:51 pm

grimlibenglion

Come on. This is just getting silly.
Please see
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_28/ai_n6194235:

Perhaps the best-known philosophical criticism of evolution was put forth by Karl Popper, who once claimed that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program" (Unended Quest, 1976). Popper famously retracted his comments once it was explained to him that there was quite a bit more to the theory than he had understood from a cursory examination of the subject: "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (Dialectica 32:344-346).

Your cursory understanding of science and ever more pathetic and erroneous attempts to justify the unjustifiable are becoming very tedious.

At least you are providing wonderful evidence of the nature and consequences of the God Delusion.

25. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23384 by DerrickB on February 28, 2007 at 9:38 am

One of the major problems with debating any theist is that we can rarely be certain what it is that they actually believe, unless of couse they are a fundamentalist in their particular religion. All the 'moderates' seem able to slip around challenges by moving on to vaguer and vaguer claims to faith or the mysterious nature of their god.

Maybe the best approach in any such discussion forum is to try to flush out first exactly where the theist is positioned on the spectrum of belief by a series of clear questions.
eg for Christians:

- Do you accept the literal truth of the Bible (completely, or just the New Testament?)
- Do you believe in Jesus's miracles, virgin birth, physical ascencion to Heaven?
- Do you believe that God regularly intervenes in the natural universe eg by answering prayers, or in the design of organisms?
etc

Then the debate can narrow down to the most ludicrous beliefs that the theist has admitted to, rather than get hung up on trying to challenge undefined notions of faith or god.

26. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23248 by DerrickB on February 27, 2007 at 6:08 am

#34
"1. The tomb with 10 ossuaries indicates a relatively well off family. I thought Jesus was the "son" of a poor carpenter and his wife, who had to be born in a stable. Did the family become well off later on? "

Not necessarily, see this:

Holland Lee Hendrix:
President of the Faculty Union Theological Seminary

NOT A HUMBLE CARPENTER

The recent discoveries at Sepphoris are extremely controversial..., but the findings really are requiring us completely to rethink Jesus' socio-economic setting, because we really had thought of Jesus as being really out in the hinterland, utterly removed from urban life.... What the excavations at Sepphoris suggest is that Jesus was quite proximate to a thriving and sophisticated urban environment that would have brought with it all of the diversity of the Roman Empire and would have required, just to get on, as the price of doing business, a level of sophistication that one would not have thought characteristic of Jesus, the humble carpenter....

I would locate Jesus more in the middle-class than in the lower middle-class, than in the lower class of the period. Certainly he would have been multi-lingual, and that causes us to rethink the entire literary heritage and rhetorical heritage that Jesus would have brought to his ministry. So that the discoveries at Sepphoris and the ongoing excavations really force us to recast the mold, if you will, out of which Jesus grows. It's a much more sophisticated and complex mold than had been previously thought.

"2. Can you really get viable DNA out of 2000 year old bones?"

Yes - the DNA analysis was conducted at the Paleo-DNA Lab at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay Ontario

"3. Do we trust an Academy Award winning movie director to do scholarly research?"

We can only hope that the evidence presented is subjected to rational analysis and debate and not simply attacks on those presenting the evidence or claims to Christian dogma.

"4. Why Jerusalem, and not Nazareth?"

These is very little evidence that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus and plenty that it didn't. "Nazarene" is likely be a confusion of the term Nazarite meaning holy man.

"5. Why are there any bones in Jesus's box? Shouldn't it be empty?"

You're kidding

27. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23238 by DerrickB on February 27, 2007 at 4:22 am

#48 gibodean

I believe that ossuaries were only used for burial in this way by Jews up to about 70AD. If the ossuaries are genuine therefore (and I don't think thre is any claim to the contrary) then they must be about 2000 years old.

28. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23154 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Kingasaurus - suspect yes - but this from Wikipedia:

"The Israeli Antiquities Authority has never offered any report explaining why it concluded the ossuary is a forgery. Therefore, a number of international experts refuse to agree that it is a forgery until the IAA allows scholars to review its findings. For example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary's authenticity, "The ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary's authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made." [1]

Meanwhile Biblical Archaeology Review also continued to defend the ossuary. In articles in the February 2005 issues, several experts in writing on stone argue that the James Ossuary is authentic and should be examined by specialists outside of Israel. Another article claims the cleaning of the James Ossuary before it was examined may have caused the problem with the patina."

It will be interesting to see how the documentary addresses this.

29. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23142 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:43 pm

#16 Stephen - I didn't see Exodus Decoded. How bad was it?

30. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23139 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Most of the news reports so far quote 'scholars' or 'experts' who have either 'slammed' or 'derided' the findings. As far as I can determine the scholars are either devout Christians who argue that it must be nonsense as the claims conflict with the Bible, or a then student archaeologist called Amos Kloner who originally discovered the tomb in 1980 and did not recognise its significance.

I am sure there will be some interesting and intemperate discussion for some weeks.

In a recent post on the debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan I recall someone asking what evidence would convince Sullivan that he was wrong about Christianity. If Cameron's documentary should turn out to be soundly based - I wonder how Christians will deal with this evidence?

31. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23132 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Its attracting some interesting responses - as usual misrepresenting the claims and attacking the messengers:


Rev. Schenk: Documentary on Jesus' Grave is a Hoax

Calls film "pure presumption" at best, "pure chicanery" at worst

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- National Clergy Council president, the Reverend Rob Schenck issued this statement following a press conference that announced a new documentary claiming proof against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"Today, Hollywood director James Cameron, whose claim to fame is a fictionalized account of the sinking of the Titanic, unveiled a documentary claiming a coffin found in Jerusalem 27 years ago once contained the remains of Jesus Christ. Cameron employed archaeologists and DNA experts to bolster his assertion Jesus was buried along with his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene and a supposed son, Judah.

"Over the years, Hollywood has attacked and mocked Christianity, providing only negative portrayals of people of faith. It has produced films that undermine moral culture. Hollywood's production of 'The Da Vinci Code' sensationalized a conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church engaged in a cover up of the real story of Jesus operating in the manner of a crime syndicate.

"According to Cameron, his film is no mere speculation, but historical fact. By claiming the remains of Jesus returned to dust along with other members of his family, the Hollywood filmmaker is denying the divinity of the Son of God and his victory over death. Cameron clearly intended to drive a stake into the heart of Christianity, since without the Resurrection, Jesus was only a mortal man.

"Media outlets should exercise restraint in reporting Cameron's Hollywood fiction masquerading as scientific fact. All of Jesus' contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven. For 2,000 years people of faith along and countless scholars have pored over the Scriptures, confirming their veracity. A Hollywood director is the least qualified to render any determination of Biblical truth. Not only so, but the people Mr. Cameron has partnered with completely lack credibility. One has been discredited by experts as a charlatan. This is nothing more than a modern day circus sideshow. At best it is pure presumption. At worst, it is pure chicanery."

Rev. Schenck holds degrees in Bible and Theology, Christian Ministry and has completed additional postgraduate work in Christian History.

He is Chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance and President of the National Clergy Council in Washington, DC.

32. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23130 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm

This isn't a hoax.
Here's the full story from the Discovery Channel Website:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

The DNA analysis was to show that while this is clearly a family tomb 'Jesus' and 'Mary Magdelene' are not genetically related and hence were likely to be married. Further analysis is intended to show if the Ossary with the remains of Judah is their son.

33. Faith

Comment #23078 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 6:52 am

ref #53 The 'debate' has started with some gusto!

(2/26/2007)


Rev. Schenk: Documentary on Jesus' Grave is a Hoax

Calls film "pure presumption" at best, "pure chicanery" at worst

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- National Clergy Council president, the Reverend Rob Schenck issued this statement following a press conference that announced a new documentary claiming proof against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"Today, Hollywood director James Cameron, whose claim to fame is a fictionalized account of the sinking of the Titanic, unveiled a documentary claiming a coffin found in Jerusalem 27 years ago once contained the remains of Jesus Christ. Cameron employed archaeologists and DNA experts to bolster his assertion Jesus was buried along with his mother Mary, Mary Magdalene and a supposed son, Judah.

"Over the years, Hollywood has attacked and mocked Christianity, providing only negative portrayals of people of faith. It has produced films that undermine moral culture. Hollywood's production of 'The Da Vinci Code' sensationalized a conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church engaged in a cover up of the real story of Jesus operating in the manner of a crime syndicate.

"According to Cameron, his film is no mere speculation, but historical fact. By claiming the remains of Jesus returned to dust along with other members of his family, the Hollywood filmmaker is denying the divinity of the Son of God and his victory over death. Cameron clearly intended to drive a stake into the heart of Christianity, since without the Resurrection, Jesus was only a mortal man.

"Media outlets should exercise restraint in reporting Cameron's Hollywood fiction masquerading as scientific fact. All of Jesus' contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven. For 2,000 years people of faith along and countless scholars have pored over the Scriptures, confirming their veracity. A Hollywood director is the least qualified to render any determination of Biblical truth. Not only so, but the people Mr. Cameron has partnered with completely lack credibility. One has been discredited by experts as a charlatan. This is nothing more than a modern day circus sideshow. At best it is pure presumption. At worst, it is pure chicanery."

Rev. Schenck holds degrees in Bible and Theology, Christian Ministry and has completed additional postgraduate work in Christian History.

He is Chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance and President of the National Clergy Council in Washington, DC.

(BTW here is the official Press Release from the Discovery Channel - http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070225/nysu014.html)

34. Faith

Comment #23071 by DerrickB on February 26, 2007 at 5:42 am

Not particularly relevant to this thread, but not sure where else to post it. This could be a hot topic of debate over the next few days as one of the filmmakers is James Cameron of Titanic fame:

"the makers of a new documentary film claim to have discovered the tomb of Jesus Christ and his family"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070226.TOMB26/TPStory/Entertainment

and did anyone notice Michael Portillo's column in the Sunday Times yesterday. We appear to have an unsuspected eminent supporter.

35. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22446 by DerrickB on February 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Have you read Rod Liddle's so-called review in today's Sunday Times? I have just sent this letter to the Editor:
Sir,

February 18th
The Sunday Times Culture Section page 46

I have just read Rod Liddle's comments about Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and American Fascists by Chris Hedges, two authors whose wordcraft and analytical abilities are so clearly beyond Liddle's that I am surprised that you (and he) are not embarrassed by his crass and vacuous review.

For example, Liddle sneers:

"So, God allows little girls to die, does he? Gee Sam – as a Christian, that supposed paradox never occurred to me."

Well Gee Ed, let's reflect on Rod's insight by looking at just part of what Harris actually writes:

"Millions of people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, many of them children. When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will surely be reducible to a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? The Bible is a very big book. There was room for God to instruct us on how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Please appreciate how this looks to one who stands outside the Christian faith. It is genuinely amazing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience."



I am sure that Liddle has given deep and sustained thought to this "supposed" paradox and has profound resolutions that he could (but doesn't) share with us. But let me bet that it boils down to something along the lines "this is all part of God's mysterious a plan", or "we can't understand the mind of God" or "we are being tested" or "it's a consequence of our gift of free will" or some equivalent drivel. But I would be delighted to be corrected.

Liddle erroneously claims that " the point Harris is trying to make is that the Bible should have told us absolutely everything there is to know about the world." No Rod, he's trying to say that the Bible (if it is the word of God) should have told us something (anything) that isn't obviously available to the mindset of iron-age, superstitious and credulous middle-eastern mystics and certainly shouldn't include simple errors that wouldn't have been made by educated people writing centuries before then.

Liddle also claims that Harris writes from "an unreconstituted left-liberal position." No-one who has read Harris's The End of Faith could argue that he is an unreconstituted left-liberal. He goes on to say that Harris " would do better to offer rigorous and respectable atheist opposition to abortion and stem-cell research (of which there is plenty)." Really Rod – well it would be interesting to see some. Harris is not trying to offer respectable argument, what he offers in spades is exquisitely written rational argument backed up by evidence. Something of which Rod Liddle seems completely incapable.

As Harris points out:

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want."

Yours,
Derrick Byford

36. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21211 by DerrickB on February 8, 2007 at 3:41 am

Just seen a lovely quote in a letter in this week's New Scientist:

"If atheism is a faith, then not playing chess is a hobby"

Perhaps we should all use in our email taglines!

37. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19340 by DerrickB on January 26, 2007 at 9:32 am

For Information

From: Sam Harris To: Andrew Sullivan 01/26/07, 10:20 AM

Dear Andrew--

Many thanks for your last essay. As will probably come as no surprise, you have not yet converted me to Catholicism. Still, you have put forward many points that deserve a serious response. I'll be away from my email for the next few days, so I won't be back at you until next week. For the moment, let me simply reiterate my appreciation for your willingness to engage in this debate. Many people appear to be finding it very useful. And I've found it a genuine pleasure to correspond with you.

All the best,

Sam

38. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19200 by DerrickB on January 25, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Oh dear.
I have just seen Andrew's latest post:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/truth_and_conse.html

Mr Sullivan appears to have abandoned any sensible debate entirely. Other than a pathetic attempt to undermine Sam personally, we just have vacuous nonsense about 'other routes to the truth' and 'other modes of rational discourse'. I am sorry Andrew - whatever route is taken to the "truth", unless it can be supported by evidence or replicated independently then by any reasonable definition or understanding it is not a demonstrated truth and therefore just as likely to be an untruth or self-deception. How can you not see this??

39. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18988 by DerrickB on January 24, 2007 at 7:23 am

ridelo - While I agree that Mr Sullivan is probably unmovable I strongly disagree that the argument should stop. It is rare to see such a debate between two highly intelligent advocates. Even better is how clear and formidable the power and elegance of Sam's replies for anyone with an open mind. To have this on record and available is a hugely valuable resource!

40. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #18971 by DerrickB on January 24, 2007 at 4:52 am

Every hotel room may be financially challenging - and yes the rate of loss through removal and defacing would be significant. Starting with 5 copies in each Secondary School might be more productive?

41. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #18955 by DerrickB on January 24, 2007 at 1:37 am

Should each copy have a personal letter attached encouraging our representative to read it - or would it be better to have some standard paragraphs prepared setting out a consistent viewpoint (with endorsement from some nationally known supporters)?

42. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #18950 by DerrickB on January 24, 2007 at 12:45 am

Wouldn't Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation be more likely to be read - especially by United States politicians?

43. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18834 by DerrickB on January 23, 2007 at 5:28 am

Russell I find your posts almost without exception among the most articulate, thoughtful and useful on this site. Can you confirm that this Wikipedia entry refers to you (although I have little doubt that it does!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blackford

Thanks - and keep posting

44. Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Comment #18600 by DerrickB on January 22, 2007 at 1:48 am

In case you have trouble following the links in the article above, below is a very important retraction. We rely on reason, evidence and honesty in our arguments against organised religion and its irrational claims. Willingness to be corrected by new facts is also crucial to the scientific method! Let's celebrate in this retraction - there are countless genuine opportunities to ridicule the fundamentalists!

Fact Checking 101
How Skeptic magazine was Duped
by an Environmental Activist Group

by Michael Shermer

In last week's eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group. That press release, dated December 28, 2006, was headlined:

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

The first sentence of the release reads:

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.

Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false. Callers were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees — or by anyone else — to withhold scientific information, and all were referred to a statement by David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service as to the park's official position. "Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc. use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon," the document explains.

If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer: 'The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.'

Understandably, many of our readers were outraged by both the duplicity of the claim and our failure to fact check it. One park ranger wrote us:

You're a day late and a dollar short on this one. As a national park ranger, I found most of PEER's findings to be bogus. So have others: http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com

A Grand Canyon park interpreter wrote:

This is incorrect. I have NEVER been told to present non-science based programs. In fact, I received "talking points" demanding that Grand Canyon employees present programs BASED ON SCIENCE and that we must use the scientific version supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. As an interpreter I have shared the "creation" story of the Hopi people and the Paiute people because it is culturally relative. I used these stories as a tool to introduce the scientific story. Be confident there are good people running government, too.

One of our readers directly challenged Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER:

When I challenged that PEER guy to show me some evidence and provided him evidence to the contrary, he didn't have much. I would say PEER did more than jump the gun. I'd say they are spreading misinformation.

Another Grand Canyon park interpreter offered this explanation:

Ruch's attempts to insinuate a conspiratorial link between the NPS and organized religion are misguided and founded in fervent anti-Christian opposition, not reason or the law. Ruch's anti-Judeo-Christian bias is evidence by his lack of opposition to GCA's selling of Native American creation myths. His misinformation campaign aims to tarnish the reputation of the NPS to leverage his position that creationism books should not be sold in the GCA bookstore. I've emailed a few of my contacts at GRCA, and so far, all deny any conspiracy and all freely give the canyon's age in education programs (as does all official GRCA print material). I'll post updates as information becomes available. Until then, don't believe everything you read.

The reference to the creationism book being sold in the Grand Canyon bookstore — Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail — is true. It is sold in the "inspiration" section of the bookstore, alongside other books of myth and spirituality. In any case, the story is an old one now, and completely irrelevant to the claim that NPS employees are withholding information about the age of the canyon, and/or are being pressured to do so by Bush administration appointees.

Embarrassed and angered by all of this, I promptly phoned Jeff Ruch myself and inquired what evidence he has to support this claim. He initially pointed to the creationism book and the fact that the NPS has failed to address numerous challenges to the sale of same in their bookstore. When I pointed out that this is irrelevant to the claim in the press release, he then reminded me of the biblical passages that have been posted at places along the rim of the canyon. Again, I admonished, this is not evidence for his central claim. We went round and round on the phone until I finally gave up and hung up, convinced that he simply made up the claim out of whole cloth.

Not wishing to simply call Ruch a liar, and allowing myself to calm down a bit, I emailed him and asked:

Can you tell us who in the Bush administration put pressure on park service employees? Can you name one person in the GCNP staff who says that they are not permitted to give the official estimate of the age of the canyon?

He responded:

1. I do not know — it is at the Director's level or above. We have been trying to find out for three years.
2. Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times.

I contacted Julie Cart at the Los Angeles Times, who was out of town on assignment, and got her editor, Frank Clifford, on the phone. Clifford knew all about the creationism book and the biblical passages on the rim of the canyon, but said that he had heard nothing about this new claim of Bush administration appointees silencing park service staff, and that if Julie knew of such a thing the Times would be most interested in following up with the story. I then reached Julie by email, who said that she too knew of no such silence on the part of park staffers regarding the age of the canyon.

Once again outraged and enraged , I emailed Ruch to ask him why he referenced Cart, who denied his central claim. He responded:

I referred you to Julie because of the response she got from the superintendent's office when she covered the issue earlier — not for any new claim.

Thanks a lot. I wasted several hours tracking down that false lead. Now at my wit's end with this guy, I point blank asked him if he made it all up. He responded:

The interpretive staff at GCNP we are working with do not want to be identified and have gone into deep underground as the atmosphere at the park is now somewhat volatile.

Well, it would have been nice (not to mention ethical) if he would have said so in the first place. (I have now wasted about 10 hours of research time on this instead of other projects.) The referencing of sources who wish to remain anonymous is quite common in journalism and, in fact, there are laws protecting whistleblowers . The fact that no such reference was made until I pointedly accused Ruch of flatout lying makes me, well, skeptical of this explanation. His final statement to me doesn't make me any less skeptical:

We are issuing an amended release today that

1. deletes reference to what interpretive staff can and cannot say and
2. features the NPS official statement that they provide geological information to the public.

Then why did PEER issue that statement in the first place? In my opinion, this is why:

PEER is an anti-Bush, anti-religion liberal activist watchdog group in search of demons to exorcise and dragons to slay. On one level, that's how the system works in a free society, and there are plenty of pro-Bush, pro-religion conservative activist watchdog groups who do the same thing on the other side. Maybe in a Hegelian process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis we find truth that way; at least at the level of talk radio. But journalistic standards and scholarly ethics still hold sway at all levels of discourse that matter, and to that end I believe we were duped by an activist group who at the very least exaggerated a claim and published it in order to gain notoriety for itself, or worse, simply made it up.

To that end I apologize to all of our readers for not fact checking this story before publishing it on eSkeptic and www.skeptic.com. Shame on us. But shame on you too, Mr. Ruch, and shame on PEER, for this egregious display of poor judgment and unethical behavior.

Michael Shermer
Publisher, Skeptic magazine
Executive Director, the Skeptics Society
mshermer@skeptic.com

45. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #18599 by DerrickB on January 22, 2007 at 1:06 am

You may not have seen this on the BBC News web-site this morning:

'Altruistic' brain region found'

Scientists say they have found the part of the brain that predicts whether a person will be selfish or an altruist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6278907.stm

46. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18079 by DerrickB on January 18, 2007 at 7:43 am

Perhaps it would help discourse if we could agree on some kind of nomenclature for the various god-concepts in common use. So 'Zeus' for the god(s) of the traditional western mythologies (Greek, Roman, Norse etc). 'Goa' for the god(s) of Abraham (Allah, Jahovah, Yahweh, Holy Spirit etc). 'Golg' for the vaguely defined (or currently undiscovered) non-denominational first cause of everything (God of Spinoza, Eternal Inflation, GUT etc). 'Spaghetti Monster' for all fairy-tale gods that fall into no other category. This is clearly not a complete list, but a start.

As a rationalist I would argue that what 'Golg' stands for will ultimately be found to have an entirely 'natural' explanation. Indeed, one that will be uncovered through the scientific method. However, it does not concern me (overly) if Golg is believed by some to be ultimately mysterious - just so long as this is not used as the reason (or faith underpinning) to argue illogically, deny the value of the scientific method, or justify other irrational beliefs.

47. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18065 by DerrickB on January 18, 2007 at 6:06 am

"As the Pope said last year, I believe that God is truth and truth is, by definition, reasonable. Science cannot disprove true faith; because true faith rests on the truth; and science cannot be in ultimate conflict with the truth."

Replace the word God with Zeus, or pink unicorn. Do you see how silly this statement is now? You can't just say "I believe that X is truth, and truth is reasonable therefore X is reasonable", it doesn't make any sense!

Trouble is that the believer can simply define his 'God' as the one X that makes this statement work. Then it makes sense for him. This is the trouble with debating a vague and shifting god-belief as if it were anchored on any kind of sensible ground and why I said in a posting above that I believe we should focus debate against the sitting-ducks of established religions and the nonsense that flows from their books and high priests.

48. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18022 by DerrickB on January 18, 2007 at 2:20 am

kcjerith says:

"I really like the last part when he says 'I'm not sure what you mean by "God,"' The word god (while i am sure there are some basic concepts that are near universal) is very vague, and one should always make the believer define what the hell you are discussing."

I agree. Whenever a believer becomes pinned down by rational arguments (that is when they are prepared to enter into such reasoned debate - rarely) they will move the goal posts along the lines that Sam notes so that it becomes hard to recognise what the debate is against. Pushed far enough it seems all the vestiges of religion are stripped away until we reach some vague rarely fully explained core belief where we rationalists don't have "a mature understanding of the historical and literary contexts of scripture" or that we are not theologians so how can we possibly understand. While Sam deals with this effectively enough, it can be hard to find convincing arguments against where we ultimately end up - a magical ultimate designer or first cause type of god. (I like to call this "the god of the last gap" or GOLG perhaps would be a better name.)

Tactically, it seems to me (and I think Steven Weinberg) that we should be focussing our attention on disposing of the easy targets. It is hard to see how any kind of established religion should be able to withstand the avalanche of reason and evidence that is not just available now, but that is pouring out of recent scientific research (and just wait till the LHC at CERN is online!).

What are the easy targets? There are plenty, but I feel there are two deserving most of our fire. Richard Dawkins talks about consciousness raising. If we could achieve this in these two areas alone the world would be much saner and safer.

- the nonsense of beliefs that claim to be based on iron-age texts that are clearly self-contradictory and largely puerile.
(self-selection of the few 'good' bits that support an individual's preferred belief system and that do indeed make some sense is no defense)

- the nonsense of believing that prayer or any other form of communing with a personal god has any effectiveness or value, and that indeed it is evidence of delusion.

49. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16148 by DerrickB on January 5, 2007 at 3:06 am

I've recently been reading the judgement in the Dover School Board ID case. This is a masterpiece of argument for anyone interested in engaging in debate with Christian fundamentalists. It did occur to me to wonder how the Discovery Institute and its fellow travellers might respond to a campaign for prominent stickers to be included in all bibles and other religious texts in schools along the lines of the following: "what is contained in this book is a set of often inconsistent views and theories that are not factual. Gaps and contradictions exist throughout the text and there is no evidence supporting any claims made. There are hundreds of peer reviewed reference books available for students who may be interested in gaining an understanding of what evolution, cosmology and science actually involves."

50. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15113 by DerrickB on December 29, 2006 at 2:17 am

As always Sam provides absolute clarity and has an amazing ability to cut to the core issues. In another post I tried to illustrate how a child's belief in Santa Claus has lessons for understanding belief in Religion and an appropriate response. Applying Sam's identification of three arguments is interesting:
"Father Christmas is true" - argued by almost all children until they are mature enough to understand lack of evidence and unreasonable consequences.
"Believing in Father Christmas is useful" - It certainly adds to the charm of the festive season and helps parents.
"Not believing in Father Christmas is bad" - A child may take this position, but a mature adult would find it hard to argue this on behalf of other rational adults.

Here is my original post:

We all believed in Father Christmas. Our parents and our teachers told us to believe in Him. Father Christmas knew when we had been good or bad. He wanted each of us to petition Him with lists of our desires. Sometimes He answered, and sometimes He didn't. Still we didn't question Him - Santa has his reasons. We had to believe that He could be everywhere at one time. And still we didn't question Him – Santa has his mysterious ways. But gradually the questions began to nag and doubts became harder to ignore. Our brains developed and our eyes opened. We came to realise that evidence could challenge blind faith. And most of us learnt that becoming an adult means giving up the infant comforts of received beliefs and unquestioning obedience. Growing up offers the opportunity to apprehend and appreciate the unbounded wonders of the universe through open minds. Growing up uncovers our evolved abilities of reason and explanation. And so as grown-ups we carry a responsibility to help those who still fear the light of truth to break free from the cocoons of their childhood fantasies.