1. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #282717 by Lemniscate on November 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm

It's not "just a theory", it's just a hypothetical model.

2. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280983 by Lemniscate on November 9, 2008 at 5:26 am

I agree that an atheist community would be contrived. There wouldn't need to be an atheist community in a non-religious society - you'd just get communities forming around other activities or political orientations. The desire for an atheist community is an indicator of an unhealthy society.

3. Liddy Dole's Un-American Ad

Comment #279154 by Lemniscate on November 5, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I agree that America should not get too self-congratulatory over electing a black man. It's still going to trail miserably behind similarly developed countries in acceptance of homosexuals and atheists.

On the notion that a seven year old couldn't be an atheist. Why not? If some seven year old children can master calculus, then why can't they decide on god? I'd certainly made my mind up on god before calculus.

4. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #276293 by Lemniscate on November 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Approval voting is an interesting option to consider. It manages to encompass some of the best features of other systems, with an improved resistance to unpopular outcomes. It's not without its flaws, however.

It's explained well in this article: http://plus.maths.org/issue48/features/brams/

5. New Simonyi Chair appointed

Comment #273619 by Lemniscate on October 29, 2008 at 2:04 am

A mathematician is a smart choice, in my opinion. Mathematics and mathematicians have a bigger image problem - especially with youth, maybe not with fundamentalists - than scientists, and this provides a harmful barrier to science and logical quantitative thinking.

Let's hope Marcus du Sautoy can change people's perspectives on mathematics.

6. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272655 by Lemniscate on October 27, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I don't see how we can talk coherently about classical causation with respect to the beginning of time. A caused B implies A preceded B, and how can something precede time? It's like being 'located' out of space. They're stolen concepts.

Similarly, I've never understood how people can talk about supernatural entities existing outside of time and space, that nevertheless still retain spatio-temporal influence.

7. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #269581 by Lemniscate on October 23, 2008 at 6:49 am

Steve Zara:

Let's hope the success of this campaign will show those journalists that there are plenty of their audience who don't want to pander to ridiculous religious sensitivities. I think breaking the double standard in the media is absolutely critical for a more secular future. As soon as people start caring more about the truth of an argument than its tone, we've won.

8. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #269559 by Lemniscate on October 23, 2008 at 6:21 am

Well said, Dr. Doctor. Let's hope the insanity such a mild-mannered atheist message can inspire makes some of Britain's apathetic atheists wake up.

What never ceases to amaze me is how little 'our side' has to do to engender mass outrage, while spurious excuses are made for the manifold religious insanities occurring all around us. The media has some unspoken double standard; even my mother, a lifelong atheist, thought Dawkins was some sort of manic cult leader from reading the papers.

9. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #268702 by Lemniscate on October 22, 2008 at 6:41 am

Having read physics at Durham, Edwards probably has sharper thinking skills and scientific literacy than most fundamentalists.

I am, however, pleased not to have him preaching on local TV any longer.

10. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268282 by Lemniscate on October 21, 2008 at 4:16 pm

ONLY ONE RELIGION CAN BE CORRECT, BUT THEY CAN ALL BE WRONG.

GOD? WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

FAITH SCHOOLS AND RELIGIOUS COURTS MEAN A FRACTURED FUTURE.

I'd certainly put a lot of support behind a campaign against faith schools.

11. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268265 by Lemniscate on October 21, 2008 at 3:52 pm

How about:

THINK FOR YOURSELF: ATHEISM.

Or:

FAITH IS FUTILE. SCIENCE AND REASON ARE THE FUTURE.

12. Death for apostasy?

Comment #266464 by Lemniscate on October 19, 2008 at 2:37 am

I don't see how Nesrine Malik can call religious freedom a noble endeavour, while saying that the threat of death for apostasy, even if not always enforced, isn't that bad, especially when it's more likely to be enforced on those who are politically active and have a chance of making a difference to religious freedom.

13. Ecological Flea

Comment #264718 by Lemniscate on October 15, 2008 at 5:24 am

Please not more (logarithmic spirals in nature)=God.

14. Richard Dawkins at Conservative Party Conference 2008

Comment #264082 by Lemniscate on October 13, 2008 at 4:18 pm

I wonder how the situation with faith schools would develop, given David Cameron's plans for education, which involves supporting schools run by non-profit organisations, which compete for the contract. Would this not provide an open door for faith schools?


I am, however, extremely pleased with the welcome given to Richard Dawkins and his message by a section of the party that will probably form the next government. Worries about partisanship are a little hysterical and myopic.

15. Cross purposes

Comment #262970 by Lemniscate on October 10, 2008 at 12:15 am

Rowan Williams reminds me of a theologian great uncle I had, who was a wonderfully pleasant chap but more concerned with social intellectualism than valid propositions.

16. Two new fleas are discovered!

Comment #261706 by Lemniscate on October 7, 2008 at 8:48 am

The cover of Hahn and Wicker is good, but reading the excerpt on Amazon just revealed another religious polemicist who doesn't understand probability.

17. Have-a-go deaths are never a waste

Comment #258694 by Lemniscate on October 2, 2008 at 9:41 am

I think the problem is too much litigation and bureaucracy and not enough visible police.

They could legalise cannabis to free up some police and funds to stop violence. It might also restore trust in the police amongst the millions of otherwise law abiding users. Plus, it would cut significant portions of the funding for organised crime, which provides an economic structure to violence.

Hoping for more public intervention is not a long term solution I would like to propose. Most antagonists are better equipped to deal with a fight than the general public. There's always the good-willed fool who'll pointlessly sacrifice himself in those situations, too.

18. The God Delusion's cameo in season premiere of 'Family Guy'

Comment #257050 by Lemniscate on September 30, 2008 at 1:34 am

Lucas, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of American self-criticism we 'get' over here, especially the younger ones amongst us, who've grown up with the Americanised internet. Sometimes I feel like I know more about what's going on in American than Britain, especially with the credit crisis and election going on.

There are plenty of people who'd rate South Park or Family Guy as their favourite shows over here. Personally, I think American Dad is better - I love the episode where Stan tries to convert his atheist friend.

19. Hail, ceaseless complexity: Review of 'Reinventing the Sacred'

Comment #256881 by Lemniscate on September 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Those later chapters on God sound to me like Kauffman wants a Templeton prize.

20. The God Delusion's cameo in season premiere of 'Family Guy'

Comment #256857 by Lemniscate on September 29, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Lucas, Family Guy and South Park are very popular in Britain. They're not as popular as the Simpsons, though.

21. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255907 by Lemniscate on September 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Nazism was also different in purportedly putting the nation - well, what the Nazis thought of as the nation - ahead of the state.

22. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255740 by Lemniscate on September 28, 2008 at 5:04 am

According to an Amazon review, Keith Ward manages to cover these arguments in 160 pages:

the New Design Argument, Causality, Certainty(practical and theoretical), Chance(two meanings of), Common Sense, Complexity and the improbability of God, Conciousness, The Cosmological argument, Eternal things and causality, Eternity of God, Evidence for God, Faith, Final explaination, First cause argument, Five Ways of demonstrating God, the God hypothesis, Goods(objective and intrinsic), Idealists and idealism, Immortality, Intelligence, Materialism, Matter, The difference between the scientific and metaphysical hypothesis, Mind, Morality and reigion, the Multiverse, Necessity and contingency, Occams razor, the alleged paradox of Omniscience and Omnipotence, Ontological argument, Personal explanation, Probability, Proofs of God, Purpose in the Universe, Reductionism in science, Relationship as an intrinsic good or perfection, Revelation, Self-transcendance, Simplicity of the laws of nature, Simplicity (three senses of), Simplicity,complexity and probability, "Skyhookery", Theory of everything, Timelessness of God and Transcendance.

Looks to me like a lot of claiming things are too wonderful and/or complex to have come about by the chance and uncertainty described in quantum physics; therefore Goddidit. I wonder what comes under evidence for God, however...

23. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255731 by Lemniscate on September 28, 2008 at 4:45 am

Hitler's politics really don't have anything to do with this, apart from highlighting how ineffectual bodies like the UN (League of Nations) can be at tackling difficult situations.

24. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254424 by Lemniscate on September 25, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Steve Zara: I don't share your optimism. Goverments are willing to support "faith groups" as some kind of unified influence.

I wouldn't say I'm optimistic, but wouldn't a disintegration of Christian dominance in America help blunt the wedge? (Although I wouldn't desire them all convert to Scientology, Islam, etc.)

Steve Zara: ...my view is that no evidence can ever support the supernatural, as there is always the possibility that the apparently magical is the result of a simulation in a natural system.

Or advanced aliens with a twisted sense of humour.

25. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254259 by Lemniscate on September 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm

While I agree that a conversion from Christianity to Wicca or new age spirituality is no victory for rationalism, at least it divides the influence of spiritualist nonsense.

26. 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

Comment #252791 by Lemniscate on September 23, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Yet more proof we need Poe's Law.

27. Natural selection

Comment #247790 by Lemniscate on September 15, 2008 at 5:26 am

Bill Bailey is a national treasure and the greatest stand up I've ever seen, although I never did see Bill Hicks.

Talking of natural selection and comedy, did anyone see Dara O'Brian's stand up the other night that had a pretty funny piss take of creationism?

I reckon Dawkins should get some of these comedians to help promote evolution with him!

28. Talk at today's meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science

Comment #246374 by Lemniscate on September 12, 2008 at 8:37 am

While this was written with a drooling respect for religion, I don't think mentioning ID/creationism in class is a bad idea. Students with strong anti-evolution convictions may better understand why their religious myths are not accepted by science if they're challenged about them rather than prevented from discussing them. Perhaps in an introductory lesson this could be used to soften those hostile to the theory while clearly defining terms such as 'scientific theory'.

However, I think just actually spending more time on evolution would help. I remember doing some general theory to be memorised and a couple of banal examples, but there was nothing grand and interesting like the history of the evolution of species, especially homo sapiens. For the fundamental theory of biology, it didn't appear often or in detail.

29. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #235782 by Lemniscate on August 23, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Cartomancer, I think a lot of the opposition to ape rights comes from the implicit admission that humans are not quite as uniquely moral and emotional as many think. This feeling of the wondrous uniqueness of human morality is a well ingrained one, unfortunately for the apes.

30. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235224 by Lemniscate on August 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm

How much more respectful to religious fundamentalists do the broadsheets want Richard Dawkins to be? They are, after all, working to subvert science education and dishonestly discredit his life's work.

I don't think I could have stayed as calm as Richard Dawkins did when faced with Concerned Women for America member Wendy Right's crocodile smile and mindless rhetoric.

Perhaps some of the confusion arises from the bubble of moderate faith these critics reside in, where evolution is not preached as an atheistic and immoral doctrine, as it clearly had been to many of those school children.

31. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227202 by Lemniscate on August 9, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Why does everyone find it so bizarre that Dawkins mentions God or religion when explaining evolution? It is the reason so many people don't accept evolution.

I also think it's justified to say that it is not God at work in the "squalor and suffering of nature," as this was the part of Darwin's message that made it so revolutionary, that nature is not the way it is because of direct interference by a central authority.

32. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225280 by Lemniscate on August 6, 2008 at 11:47 am

I don't think this is much to worry about. I doubt there will ever be enough support to push creationism into the UK science curriculum.

The smart creationists have already taken advantage of the faith schools initiative and PFIs, sneaking creationism in the back door. If the Conservatives get into power and implement their education plans, it will allow for even more religious schools.

33. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225059 by Lemniscate on August 6, 2008 at 6:31 am

beeline, there is no direct experience of many facts which scientific theories explain, and they don't generate the distrust that evolution does (general relativity, for example). Direct experience is also possible. Look at the HIV/homo sapiens evolutionary interplay in this documentary. Also, speciation has been observed, along with Lenski's E. Coli which evolved the ability to digest citrate.

Why should we bang on about evolution by natural selection being a theory? The common understanding of what a theory is is so weak that it would be helping creationism. There's nothing wrong with stating the facts and evidence without a theory. By your definition of a fact, virtually nothing is a fact. Are the fossil record and common ancestry not facts? If they're not facts, what is a fact? These facts directly contradict the literal reading of genesis. This is the first step to getting people to be receptive to one of 'man's theories' instead of 'God's word'. (Here comes the explanation of how we have arrived at and corroborated our theory.)

I guess my approach would be more tough-love than yours, although I appreciate a softer tact may be necessary for some. However, I worry the way you're approaching it may be misconstrued - even to the non-religious - as implying religion has something to say on evolution, or that evolution is a more contentious topic than others within science.

34. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225014 by Lemniscate on August 6, 2008 at 4:50 am

beeline: I think you are missing the point, and you are wrong that everything in our knowledge is a theory.

Richard Dawkins, quite necessarily, pointed out the fact of common ancestry, extinct species and the over 4 billion year old Earth. These are undeniable facts, and they alone are enough to destroy the creation myths of religion. It's an important message that whatever you think of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the facts contradict the holy books.

I think your suggestion to avoid words like fact, truth and belief is worrying. Why shouldn't the people who actually deal with facts and truth be allowed to use the words? Better than the preachers, who only appear to deal in wild beliefs.

The comments on the Telegrath review show that Britain is not as warm to religious bullshit as is commonly believed. Most commenting there understand better than the journalist that it's really not acceptable that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not as accepted as any other scientific theory with a similar amount of supporting evidence.

35. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224844 by Lemniscate on August 5, 2008 at 6:50 pm

What anodyne twaddle those 'reviews' are.

The Guardian, the Independent and the Telegrath go for the boring canard of Dawkins as a mirror of theistic fundamentalism - Orr thinks "Dawkins has come to resemble that which he most despises." Each article that uses this appears to think it undeniably witty and insightful, too...

It's evident that the only criterion used for fundamentalism/extremism is being literal minded and passionate about one's arguments. Being so is only assigned the epithet of fundamentalism/extremism because of the atmosphere of unjustified respect for religious beliefs that moderate faith has cultivated for its own muddle-headed, metaphorical sake.

All of these articles show a basic lack of understanding and argument, further convincing me of the need for a national injection shot of unsweetened rationality.

36. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #223421 by Lemniscate on August 2, 2008 at 8:56 am

I can't believe I'm on holiday from the 11th to the 18th!

I'm glad to see Dawkins addressing the situation of evolutionary theory in the U.K. With faith schools, PFIs and funding from American creationists, this documentary and Dawkins' upcoming book on the evidence for evolution are exactly what we need.

I agree with others who have pointed out the insufficient emphasis on natural selection in Biology. I took Biology to AS, and the only memory I have of it is some vague, weak questions on changing colours of moths at GCSE. This appeared an implicit indication that natural selection was on shakier ground than other theories.

37. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221813 by Lemniscate on July 30, 2008 at 7:00 am

What does religious diversity have to do with the root causes of religiosity?

38. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion

Comment #213029 by Lemniscate on July 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

How can a poll which only has the backing of 49% of the population be used as support for this idea?

I think the idea of using a poll is preposterous, anyway. We don't ask the general public at what point they think a malignant tumour becomes untreatable.

America needs a healthy dose of pragmatic thinking, especially when it comes to matters of sex and reproduction. Although here in the U.K., you can be protected as a homophobic if you shroud it in religion.

39. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207103 by Lemniscate on July 9, 2008 at 7:39 am

The problem here is that actions like this really do play into the hands of religious reactionaries.

Pretty much all religions make a big fuss out of being persecuted; for example, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:10.

If atheists go about doing things like this, while they may highlight the highly strung absurdity of the religious reaction, they do nothing else but solidify the religious people's ideas about atheists and strengthen their piety.

There's a difference between criticism and invasion. Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens and Harris are critics; Cook will be seen as an invader, for actually going to disrupt their mass.

Pretty funny Jesus and Mo cartoon on this: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/09/wafer/

40. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207078 by Lemniscate on July 9, 2008 at 6:52 am

I think it's fair to say Cook was fruitlessly offensive. I'll respect the rules of any place of worship if I've entered voluntarily and the rules will not lead to harm. They may be nonsensical, but trampling upon the sacred plays into their hands.

This does not, in any way, excuse the ridiculous reactions this incident received, which far outweigh anything Cook did. That's what should be reported upon with surprise, as well as the original act.

41. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206968 by Lemniscate on July 9, 2008 at 3:15 am

I'm not sure about the pronunciation. A lemniscate is a shape of the type behind the Greek in my avatar. The word's origins are apparently from the Greek lemniskos. I'm a mathematician, not a linguist...

42. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206958 by Lemniscate on July 9, 2008 at 2:59 am

Transubstantiation = voodoo cannibalism. It's a recipe for craziness, although almost all faiths seem as eager as this to have a tantrum over nothing.

I don't understand how keeping a cracker constitutes more of a hate crime than the death threats and hate received by Webster Cook. It's appalling how the media is always blind to this mad, virulent hate and assigns all the blame to the blasphemer.

43. A trip to the Creation Museum

Comment #206621 by Lemniscate on July 8, 2008 at 2:58 pm

That place is a gigantic, revolting and fallacious appeal to emotion and authority.

Their anti-secular propaganda will do more damage than any amount of pornography or science...

More pics, info and vids in this article: http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2008/06/exploring-creation-museum-americas-new.html

I'd definitely want to go if it was free. It's a rare window into the dark depths of dogmatism.

44. Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices

Comment #204147 by Lemniscate on July 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

"I think we have just entered a new phase. We were in the prayerful phase, but now we're going into a more activist phase, because we feel that whole faith without works is dead,"

Even he doesn't really think prayer works...

45. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204142 by Lemniscate on July 4, 2008 at 8:28 am

"Dr Williams suggested that sharia could play a role in "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution"."

So they want to give Islam legal sanction for its misogyny?

We're bending over backwards to inculcate a culture where religious beliefs go unchallenged and different religious groups are shielded from each other.

On the surface, it looks like a victory for tolerance, but I doubt these steps towards legislation of sharia law are going to encourage integration, and I doubt it will placate the support for a more complete sharia law.

46. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #203819 by Lemniscate on July 3, 2008 at 5:40 pm

I don't think you can blithely throw memorisation out of the window.

If someone did an A Level, I'd expect them to have gained knowledge as well as skills. Some of this knowledge will inevitably have to be memorised and tested. For example, I'd be disappointed if no exams required one to know the laws of thermodynamics during the course of a physics education.

The problem occurs when memorisation takes the place of understanding. When memorisation is essential to understanding - e.g. memorising the laws of thermodynamics being essential to understand a physics course - then it is justified. On the other hand, memorising the colour changes from one co-ordinate compound to another doesn't add to the understanding; the explanation of the colour change is what should be tested. The bad sort of memorisation leads to unwarranted marks in exams, marks that do not reflect your understanding of the subject.

47. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #203773 by Lemniscate on July 3, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Good article. I think we need to be cautious, though, not to degrade science lessons to whatever is most fun. Sexing up science lessons could easily be done wrong; some of the boring bits are necessary, and concentrating too much on grandiose and exciting areas of science, without being able to understand specific areas and the fundamentals in depth, wouldn't prepare one well for university or employment.

However, laborious memorisation of inert facts should be minimised. Chemistry was terrible for that; what's the point in memorising the colours of ligand substitution reactions? I never found it difficult, just frustratingly pointless.

I think that a general background of each science could be taught, detailing its greatest achievements and achievers, and why they matter. This could be used to introduce the understanding of the scientific method, too. Have this on the cirriculum but not on the public exams - let the teachers concentrate on what they're passionate about from their subject for a bit. It'd be healthy for both the teachers and the pupils.

They could easily improve biology education by actually teaching evolution, the most fundamental theory in biology, properly. I went through 6 years of secondary school biology, and the only thing I can remember to do with evolution was the changing colours of moths example of natural selection. I had no idea about its power as a theory, and the light treatment it was given implied to me that it was not on an equal footing with the rest of what I was learning.

This article could have given a mention to mathematics education, which is in a pretty dire state too, although not as bad at university, because a mathematics course costs a lot less than a science course. However, maths makes science look cool, and the way it's taught reduces one to the functions of a computer algebra package. This needs serious attention, too, for the sake of science as well as maths.

48. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #201925 by Lemniscate on June 30, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Education is going to become a divisive force in the UK. If the Conservatives get into power, as looks likely, their plans for education will take the drive for faith schools and special interest academies to another level. This article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7469534.stm outlines their plans.

The fact that there will be no profit motive for whoever runs these schools invites religions above all other interests. Who else has such a vested interest in the molding of young minds as well as the resources to achieve such a task? A good deal more of the education budget is going to spent on promoting divisive sectarian education.

It's pretty pathetic that Christine Odone feels the need to play the victim when faith schools are probably going to become ever more prevalent and influential in the coming years. The real victim is going to be secularism, and she's already portraying secularists as gruff, brutal and anachronistic Old Labour socialists, who care nothing for education and "deserves to fail."

49. Philadelphia Set to Honor Darwin and Evolution

Comment #198538 by Lemniscate on June 24, 2008 at 8:23 am

Ken Ham and the creationist movement are given far too much space in this article about an event they have nothing to do with to promote their anti-intellectual and anti-constitutional viewpoint.

It's presenting it like he does competing work, like you can't talk about evolution without talking about creationism.

Nice to see them let Ken slip in, "Christianity versus the relative morality of secular humanism," as if acceptance of evolution will lead to the end of morals, without an attempt to criticise it. They could mention that countries with a high acceptance of evolution and secular politics win against the USA on matters Christian fear, like abortion, murder, STDs and teen pregnancy.

50. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198468 by Lemniscate on June 24, 2008 at 4:24 am

Whoever is won over by McGrath's charisma has a strange idea about charisma. Atkins has oodles more charisma than McGrath.

When asked a difficult question, McGrath physically squirms around while telling you how interesting and important the question is. That's the antithesis of charisma for an intellectual, in my opinion.