1. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179006 by Robert Maynard on May 12, 2008 at 11:29 am

hungarianelephant

[Prolonging life indefinitely] is not only impossible, it is also ruinous. Health economists reckon that 90% of health spending goes on the last 10% of lives. In the days when it could still count, the NHS reckoned that two thirds of its budget was spent on people in the last two years of their lives. To put that into perspective, it is 5% of GDP, or about the same as spending on education.

Right, but who said life-prolonging medicine should only start when you're old? What if we developed technology that allowed people to literally stop physically aging at, say, 30? Now think of the money we might save. :P

It's impossible? Says who?
Exactly how far out do you think you can project to conclude exactly what is and isn't possible?

2. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177969 by Robert Maynard on May 10, 2008 at 4:45 am

As Spinoza mentioned, the venom in peoples responses to this is kind of weird. Read the headline again and think about what you're lashing out against.

I thought the article was an interesting outline of an approach to how we can change the conversation about science, in a culture which doesn't trust science as much as it used to. It's looking at why that is and what science may have done (unintentionally) to lose that trust, or rather to have it snatched away from them by cranks.

The reference to the space shuttle was simply an example of how laypeople can lose trust in science, because his argument is that public trust in science has historically been based on the results science yields, rather than the superiority of the worldview and methodologies which produce these results.

All he seemed to be saying with regards to Dawkins is that many religious people haven't taken to his arguments very well - they're blunt and no-nonsense, and many people have a similarly blunt reaction to them. Dawkins himself has agreed with this, admitting he doesn't expect to convert "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads".
We might say, "Crude, unsubtle? You snob. He says it simple because it is simple! People just need to accept it!" Just like parents need to accept that vaccinations work, eh?
Saying "They're stupid and just need to get over it and accept that they're wrong" is a goal, not a plan, and if it's all we have to offer all we can look forward to is the non-proliferation of atheism and the scientific worldview, and the spread of sneering, post-modernist, anti-establishment sentiments.. and also measles. :|

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

Comment #177304 by Robert Maynard on May 8, 2008 at 10:28 pm

I guess it's just important to keep in mind that trends are highly uncertain projections based on current momentum.
I also found the passage about young people practicing Islam pretty depressing too, but ultimately, just look at the numbers.
1.96 million Muslims today, in a country of 58.8 million people. 2.6 million in 2050?
Oooga-booga-boo! I'm so scared!

[hopefully no one stumbles on this comment in 50 years when The United Caliphate rules the planet with an iron fist and is in the process of systematically erasing history, else they might get a chuckle] :P

4. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175258 by Robert Maynard on May 5, 2008 at 3:21 am

lol
A Holocaust denialist in the hiz-ouse!

Move along, nothing to see here..

5. Beware the Believers

Comment #165385 by Robert Maynard on April 21, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Dang, Quine beat me to it.
What a.. what a fitting postscript for all the smug idiots who patronised me and others back when it was first released (less than a month ago), saying we just needed to develop a sense for irony and satire, and that we "just didn't get it" if we thought it was made for the ID side. "LOL to all the people who think this was made by the Expelled guys - there's no way anyone who disagrees with us could be talented, or would know historical references!" etc.

How deliciously ironic.
Okay.. phew.. that felt good. I won't gloat any further. It's still a funny video :)

6. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159255 by Robert Maynard on April 11, 2008 at 6:59 pm

I agree with BFKate, Bonzai and Russel Blackford. :)

I'm just confused as to why everyone is getting all butthurt over this. A public apology? Really? Would that make you feel better? How about a widdle kissy kiss where it hurts?
Davis's statements don't deserve vengeance, they deserve ridicule.

I think this is a great example of 'conversational intolerance', of restricting what is okay to earnestly declare in public without being hounded as a crazy person, which is exactly what happened here. She wouldn't have done anything if people weren't roundly criticising her for saying it. She'll think twice before saying something like that again. I'm not really convinced that individual resignations are going to shape the public discourse as much as plain old ridicule.
Keep those "Worst Person in the World" segments coming. :P

7. Beware the Believers

Comment #152526 by Robert Maynard on March 31, 2008 at 7:39 am

I was going backwards through the comments, so this is a little out of date, but in #300, Bonzai said:

It is so typical of some people here, religion is only about making truth claims, love is "just" electro-chemistry; art is only about its "message" and whether it is "with us or against us",

Try to challenge your linear, mechanically rational mind a bit. Not everything has a point to it, and sometimes what is intended to be the point is not the point at all. It is often ambiguities that make life interesting,

That's necessarily true, if you believe in a world without ultimate agency. But I really have to disagree if you're using that argument to refer to this video. All media is communication, which necessarily involves agency, intent, and information. This thing would have taken days to make - weeks if you counted the pre-production planning that must have gone into it. You're fooling yourself if you think anyone would just waste that much time on something without any communicative intent.

Art is nothing if it isn't messages. It's worse than nothing if it doesn't speak to you, even if what it says has no connection to the authors intent (that's simply part of arts endearing clumsiness as a form of communication). We all have reasons for finding this entertaining or not. We feed it to our senses and our brain goes PING and we smile and laugh - or not. Just because you are eager to not think about why that may be, does not mean there aren't messages and ideas here worth discussing. There are - 8 pages of comments should have made that clear. :P

8. Beware the Believers

Comment #151725 by Robert Maynard on March 29, 2008 at 8:57 am

I'm not sure what to think at this point - I made the point on the Pharyngula thread that the imagery of the growing machine is a clear reference to the notion that scientific academia has developed to ideologically target and remove dissidents, the favourite argument of ID proponents and the movie Expelled, and that the chorus carries thick condescension and argument from authority. But others have made the good point that this is very much in line with rap as typically being a.. er.. self-aggrandising mode of expression - that the ID metaphor of persecution is being subverted for laughs, as if Dawkins is responding to this complaint with "Yes, we're totally doing that... biaatch!"
I can definitely see merit in that argument, but I'm still unsure.

What's been most peculiar about this is that even after repeatedly mentioning that I really enjoyed it (mostly as an animation, mind you), I've been accused of being humourless because of my interest in analysing the intention and the message behind it. The maddening conceit is that some things are 'just entertainment' and that unpacking and exploring this video is a waste of time. As though 'entertainment' describes an innate property (presumably magical) that we can't break down and talk about rationally.
Who made it?
Who is it made for?
Who benefits?

Even if it was 'on our side', these are questions that deserve answers besides, say, "lol, you're cracking me up. It's just comedy! 'Comedy' means I get to stop the braining .. thing. Where am I?"

EDIT: aaand a huge dialogue covering this topic has popped up in the time I spent writing this. :P

9. Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience

Comment #149567 by Robert Maynard on March 26, 2008 at 12:00 am

O/T, but that's a great photo, EnlightenedBlasphemy. :D

10. Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience

Comment #149564 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Well, I suppose it depends on how you wish to define 'objective'. I think we can use our brains as a pretty useful starting point for talking about morality in as 'objective' a sense as we require.
Sam Harris has put this more lucidly than I could hope to, in Letter to a Christian Nation (p.23-24)

"For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality. While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of its primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is. This is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world."

In a very indirect but real sense, our genetic trajectory has prescribed our morality. There is no use arguing with the organ responsible for all your thoughts, whose evolved cognition devotes energy to generating empathy for other moral agents, and a distaste for their suffering along with yours.

"Hey brain, is oppressing people bad?"
"Do you like it when people oppress you?"
"No."
"Oh gee. Wow. I don't know what to think."
"..."
"It's bad, stupid."

11. Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience

Comment #149554 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 11:06 pm

corruptmemory

I don't think he is necessarily referring to 'secular morals' as a cohesive, codified moral law embraced by all secularists, let alone secular liberals. His references to secular 'morals' throughout the interview could often be interchangeable with words like 'values', or 'principles', from which individual morals might be derived.
There are certain non-religious (ie. secular) precepts of liberalism that I think can be agreed upon as a 'bare minimum' for calling yourself a liberal, and we can derive moral arguments from these principles. There is no mention that our conclusions need be in agreement from the start - what is important is that we appeal to evidence and can hash these arguments out openly, and we can change each others minds.
What is especially important to Dacey here is that as secularists we aggressively argue for the superiority of discourse in producing moral arguments. The argument might be summed up as 'Honest uncertainty is better than dishonest certainty.'
Off the topic of morals, he also seems to be saying that ideas like postmodernism and relativism have poisoned our willingness to argue that liberalism is better than competing political and cultural ideologies that oppress liberty, when it comes to yielding human happiness. That when someone like George W. Bush argues for promoting freedom and democracy, some liberals have decided to say "No, freedom might be good for someone like me, but totalitarianism is better for some other people" rather than say "Absolutely, but I think incompetently invading two borderline third-world countries was one of the worst possible ways of doing it."

If we have secularists on both sides of the abortion issue and both sides have established "testable" and "objective" basis for their views then how can we be talking about "secular morals" when for a given issue no well-defined "secular morality" can be articulated?

The fact that secularists are on both sides of an issue, and both appeal to evidence, doesn't mean the dispute is at an impasse. That would be like saying that two contradictory scientific theories are on level footing because they both include data. Bring on the sudden death round, the penalty shootouts.
Simply, one is more right than the other, one synthesises all the available data better than the other - at least one of them is wrong.

12. Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience

Comment #149519 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Fantastic PoI podcast as usual. This is actually the first time I've immediately ordered a book after hearing the interview. I was enticed by the article(s) about it that were posted here, but this sealed the deal. :D

13. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #135203 by Robert Maynard on February 28, 2008 at 5:37 pm

This is good news.

14. Missing link found in Sydney Harbour

Comment #130972 by Robert Maynard on February 21, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Sydney represent!!

...
er, sorry.

Neat discovery.

15. Good people doing evil things

Comment #125716 by Robert Maynard on February 11, 2008 at 10:49 pm

It is an ethnic conflict, but I don't know of any religious factor (which is probably why religious leaders aren't going to solve this). Essentially the incumbent president is from the largest 'tribe' in Kenya, and his opponent rallied strong multi-tribe support against his re-election. The opponent was declared the winner based on early results, but then the gap closed and the results changed, and lots of people got angry, accusing the party (and by proxy the tribe) of rigging the election.

Wiki sums it up:

* voting in elections has widely been along ethnic lines in most of Kenya's communities
* there is a widespread perception that the count of the presidential election was modified in favour of Kibaki (the incumbent)
* during colonial times Kikuyu people were displaced from their fertile highlands and after independence they were settled outside their traditional areas especially in the Rift Valley.
* there is a belief among other tribes that the Kikuyu community in Kenya has dominated the country since independence.

16. Good people doing evil things

Comment #125087 by Robert Maynard on February 10, 2008 at 11:55 pm

It warms my heart to see that the effect The God Delusion is having on religious discourse extends beyond your average industrialised democracy.

EDIT: This newspaper is published in Kenya, which is an industrialised democracy (despite the current problems). My narrow knowledge of Africa's diversity has made a fool of me. Maybe I should have said beyond the Western world.. but that term has always seemed out of date.. anyway! This article makes me glad.

17. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

Comment #121728 by Robert Maynard on February 4, 2008 at 3:35 am

A follow-up: Is it also an act of God, Mr. Huckabee, that you haven't had any wins since the Iowa caucus?

18. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120677 by Robert Maynard on February 2, 2008 at 9:44 am

It seems some of you are, much like Galloway, having trouble drawing connections between cause and effect, or misdeed and proscription. Economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait, an actual "sovereign state". Sanctions were not imposed in order to punish the Iraqi people, nor was the 2003 invasion intended to do so. Iraq was sanctioned, battled, and invaded, in response to the errant behavior (or, in 2003, perceived behavior) of the state regime. You aren't seriously suggesting that no action should have been taken against Iraq for invading Kuwait, are you? ..You are, aren't you?

I doubt anyone will volunteer to speak in defense of the pretext for invading Iraq in 2003, but I also despair for anyone claiming a moral high ground who would stoop to arguing that life in the "Republic" of Iraq under Saddam Hussein was acceptable enough that it should have continued unmolested, presumably forever.

The Iraqi people have unfortunately never been a part of the equation when it comes to dealing with Iraq precisely because they've never been a part of the process of running Iraq. They have alternated between being the literal pawns of a brutal regime which stretched the definition of "sovereign" so far as to be meaningless, to being the victims of chronic US bombing, to fodder for a murderous insurgency (who people like Caldwell grimly exonerate when they seem to blame the chaos in Iraq on the occupying force who are struggling to contain it - and losing). Everything that has happened to the Iraqis, in not just the last five years but perhaps the last twenty years, has been a humanitarian tragedy.
This does not therefore make the UN sanctions wrong, or the Gulf War wrong, or the no-fly zones wrong, but it's appealing to condemn them when you lose sight of what they were intended to do (put pressure on Saddam to discourage his annexing of Kuwait, remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and protect Kurdish and Shiite interests), rather than the effects they had - which, besides achieving these goals, all involved many people dying unnecessarily. The fact that the Iraqis faced the terrible repercussions for Hussein's decisions, and this did not move him to change his attitude in their interests (which is what leaders are supposed to do), makes the constant use of the word 'sovereign' to describe his rule just a little disgusting.

On the other hand, the 2003 invasion, in the context it was carried out, was wrong, and Hitchens was wrong to support it. Hitchens finds solace in the moral case for regime change, and retroactively describes the invasion as being conducted with the best intentions - this is the same kind of revisionism the US administration now indulges in, in the absence of WMD. I sympathise completely with Hitchens idealistic rationalisation, though it does nothing to smooth over what actually happened and why. As for the invasion being criminal, I am quite hopeful we'll witness several war crimes tribunals in 2009 or 10, but that's neither here nor there (unless 'there' is referring to the future).

None of this makes George Galloway any less of an ally to extremists and a gigantic radical douchebag.


Oh, and CHWWer?
Grow the fuck up.

19. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120546 by Robert Maynard on February 1, 2008 at 11:51 pm

It's a little hard to believe this book was written by a forty year old.. he's only a year younger than Harris, but it's remarkable to compare their control of language and their ability to communicate ideas.

20. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120461 by Robert Maynard on February 1, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Simply awesome example of preparation and cool-headedness. Really well done PZ, I am positive it must have had a positive impact on at least some creationists listening.

I'll second SmartLX's motion: PZwned. :P
(How is that pronounced? Pee-zeewned? Peh-zoned?)

21. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120418 by Robert Maynard on February 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm

As I scrolled through this mess, only one comment really stuck out to me, the 'fascist buffoon' bit. Now I've seen the debate with Galloway too, and I can't think of anything that Hitchens said which was fascistic - he did however have to spend considerable time demonstrating (repeatedly) how radical and reactionary leftists like Galloway often end up supporting the grossest causes in dizzy opposition to "Western colonialism", causes which are often reminiscent of fascism.
If you think that criticising the use of cheap moral equivalences makes one a fascist, you are a crazy person who has arrived in a time machine from the 70s. Thank you.

EDIT: And before yet another leap of thought-free, monochromatic transference is made (Robert's defending Hitchens, Hitchens defends the invasion of Iraq, Robert defends the invasion of Iraq!), there is a broad spectrum of positions one can take on Iraq, and defending Hitchens does not mean I stand with him.

Secondly, the claims of bias toward Hitchens are written on tissue. For those not familiar with the site, Hitchens Watch is an anti-Hitchens blog, whose contributors are routinely critical of his "Islamophobia" and journalistic integrity. A five second perusal of other posts would show that it is biased against Hitchens, and the fact that the review is positive despite the blog's slant should give an indication at how badly this went for Boteach.

22. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117485 by Robert Maynard on January 29, 2008 at 12:05 am

I'm grateful he's offering it for free - I would never pay money to read a flea book, but I am quite curious about what they fill all those pages with.

23. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #110691 by Robert Maynard on January 12, 2008 at 1:34 am

[Emily Condon thoroughly explains herself]

Well I hope you all feel terrible.

24. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #110656 by Robert Maynard on January 11, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Hey, I believe in conversation, not dumping links of old conversations on genuinely curious newcomers.

..Having said that, I've got it tracked now with that handy new 'favourite articles' tool. :P

25. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #110645 by Robert Maynard on January 11, 2008 at 7:03 pm

al-rawandi,

The leader of the Tamils is a lapsed Methodist (some say Baptist).

I see. And how many suicide missions has he taken part in? ..Oh, none? Okay.
Really, I am not particularly surprised that the leader of a secular, nationalist movement is a secular nationalist.
The ideological motivations of the Tamil Tigers are unambiguous. Importantly, this is not the same as understanding the motivations for believing that violent suicide is an effective furtherance of those goals. There are few states which have been formed out of an 'impressive' campaign of self-destruction.

The discussion is mainly concerned with the demographics of the individuals who take part in suicide bombing missions, which are by no means the only weapon the Tamil Tigers use to further their agenda.
Are you contending that Velupillai Pirabhakaran would quite willingly carry out a suicide bombing mission himself? My suspicion is that he and his ilk are manipulative intellectuals who see religious beliefs (and until recently, children) as resources to exploit.
On that note, I am glad that the discussion is forcing me to stop caricaturing the members of the Tamil Tigers (and indeed the Tamil people in general) as a singular consciousness with identical beliefs. Again though, I am yet to be convinced that the revolving door of unfortunates taking part in suicide missions are as secular as the people that recruit, instruct, equip, and inspire them.
That of course splinters into the realm of discussing instances of so-called 'evil' secularism, but that steps away from being at least tangentially related to the original article.

26. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #110235 by Robert Maynard on January 10, 2008 at 4:59 pm

weavehole,
It was an article comments thread from early last year - quite difficult to find. :|
In any case, as I qualified for gawddawg, suggesting that beliefs about life after death play a really important role in suicide bombing is as simple as what Dawkins does in that quote - it's just a rational argument.
I must do the modest thing here and stress that I have no empirical data on the demographics of the LTTE or their suicide squads (though 90% of Tamils are Hindu), and I am by no means a student of the Tamil Tiger's history.

27. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109376 by Robert Maynard on January 8, 2008 at 11:49 pm

AndreG

Can you, please, provide me with the purely scientific formula to test the existence or non-existence of God? ;)

Wait, which god? I'm confused. Are you telling me you haven't already devised thousands of experiments to test the existence of the gods whose existence you reject?

28. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109368 by Robert Maynard on January 8, 2008 at 11:25 pm

gawddawg,

Is your contention that the LTTE's suicide bombing campaigns can be traced back to religious/cultural beliefs about afterlife, backed by any evidence or is that speculation?

Speculation. It was proposed as an argument against a quack here who had so blurred the notions of secularism and atheism that he was literally suggesting the LTTE were an example of non-religious (ie. atheist) suicide bombers.
I have merely said, there and here, that it's naive to suggest that the Hinduist beliefs of most Tamil's have had no influence on a willingness to commit suicide for their cause. I am not for a moment attempting to shift the primary motivation of the Tamil Tigers away from the secular goal of establishing an independent Tamil state - I'm just saying the belief that you will survive your body's destruction makes missions with a 100% fatality rate a lot easier to swallow. Certainly, it does nothing to sour the mood. This much, I would think, is indisputable.

Now, one could lazily pose the question, "If all Tamil's suddenly became atheists, would the LTTE cease their suicide bombing?"
Equally compelling questions would be, "Would they stop training children to be soldiers?" or simply "Would they stop murdering people?"
These kind of fantasy 'what-ifs' are about as bizarre as fan-fiction that explores the question "What if Luke Skywalker/Harry Potter and Han Solo/Draco Malfoy were totally gay for each other?" Without some kind of explanation for how they became atheists, how can we pretend to explore how an atheist Tamil Tiger might feel about her group's consistent ethical lapses and assaults on civil society?

29. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109303 by Robert Maynard on January 8, 2008 at 8:01 pm

AndreG,

I personally lived through the atheistic brain washing, government sanctioned in former USSR. Therefore, what is an urban myth for you, unfortunately was a reality for myself and other soviets.

What I am challenging is the ridiculous straw man presented in this nonsensical folklore, not the reality of state-sanctioned oppression in the USSR, which I would indeed shake my fist at.

30. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109268 by Robert Maynard on January 8, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Sure that's just Pascal's Wager in Soviet Russian form.

In Soviet Russia, Pascal wagers you!



I'm.. I'm so sorry.

31. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109262 by Robert Maynard on January 8, 2008 at 5:00 pm

krisking, if a Wikipedia link is what passes for a response these days, I'm afraid I missed the thrust of your argument, unless you were simply agreeing with the assessment that essentially all historical examples of suicide bombing are inextricable from beliefs about life after death.

The page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze, contains numerous unambiguous references to the metaphysical beliefs behind kamikaze. I especially recommend the section "Cultural Background", in case you didn't actually read the article.

AndreG, I'd love to see a Snopes page for that one. Did you hear the one about the atheist professor and the Christian student? I don't want to spoil anything, but the punchline is: it was a fucking comic book.

32. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109221 by Robert Maynard on January 8, 2008 at 3:36 pm

weavehole said

"NO SUICIDE BOMBINGS"

Erm, Tamil Tigers, anyone?

The issue has been raised before [edit: in this forum], and it has been rationalised by myself and others that although the Tamil Tigers operate for a secular, nationalistic cause, pretending that their willingness to commit suicide is not the least bit influenced by their belief in karma and reincarnation (as hinduists) is ridiculous.

33. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103775 by Robert Maynard on December 26, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Evolution denial is actually relatively common among medical doctors

It may be because training as an MD has less of an emphasis on theory than practice.
I'm fairly sure it's not even necessary to have a science degree to be a fully qualified obstetrician, as Mr. Paul is.

I suppose it's somewhat similar to the difference between theologians and pastors - the former are steeped in the ins and outs of a religion, but as a result have mostly become dulled to the ancient assertions, while the latter are showmen who haven't had to wade too deep into what they preach.

34. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101052 by Robert Maynard on December 19, 2007 at 7:04 pm

For those who didn't know: besides being awesome, Brian Eno is also an atheist.

35. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100551 by Robert Maynard on December 18, 2007 at 9:45 pm

"Christians have always been used to being punch bags but I would have hoped that, in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense."

Rev. Edwards, please..
No, please.. don't be like this. Please don't cry, you're making us feel bad. Stop crying. Please stop crying. Okay fine, you can have this candy bar. Please don't make a scene. Stop crying. Come here, give us a hug. It's alright.

36. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99206 by Robert Maynard on December 15, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I agree with Bizarro that this is a silly thing to use as any kind of argument for or against either ideology, considering both parties were inebriated at the time, had the argument hours beforehand, and it was allegedly accidental. Oh, and the fact that there are very few articles that strictly identify the ideology of each party.
Of course, it is very easy to jump to a comforting conclusion based on information in some rag of a source you wouldn't trust on any other topic, but that's a slippery slope.

Bizarro Dawkins said:

"Turning it around, why is Hitler's interpretation of evolution wrong while yours isn't?"

Besides your automatic loss by Internet law.. :P
We can claim that Hitler's interpretation of evolution is wrong because there is no compelling evidence that
a) there are significant genetic differences between human 'racial' groups,
b) we can establish a scientific criteria for evaluating and judging the selective fitness of these groups, either in nature or an industrialised environment, and
c) that if we could, people with white skin, blue eyes and blonde hair would somehow rank pretty high, if not the highest, and also that people of Jewish descent would rank low, or at least below so-called "Aryans".

In any case, there was no need to call York's Christianity phony (if indeed he was the creationist), because the court decided it was not murder, but manslaughter - an accident, and to be plain, they came to know more about this case than anyone on this article thread. I have no interest in conspiratorial nonsense about 'taking it easy on the Christians'. The same kind of comparisons came up in the Pharyngula thread on this topic, and all it really highlighted is that people don't know that Australia is not as slammer-happy as America.

37. All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative.

Comment #98396 by Robert Maynard on December 13, 2007 at 2:46 pm

PO-MO9000: All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative.

Robert: Isn't that proposition in itself a worldview? I'll wait while your head explodes, Mr. 9000.

*BOOOM*

Professor, running from offstage: My automated paradigm-subverter! No!

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen, the first human-robot debate has ended in forfeit-by-brain-explosion.

38. How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #98389 by Robert Maynard on December 13, 2007 at 2:41 pm

How do you explain the stuff between the gaps?

39. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #98341 by Robert Maynard on December 13, 2007 at 1:44 pm

It's asinine to suggest that our beliefs do not have consequences - that they don't explicitly inform (if not form) our actions. Our cognitions manifest in real, physical behaviour.
So you're asking "Why would you be concerned about people acting on a proposition you reject?"

Because your suffering is my suffering, or our suffering.

If I think your belief(s) are false, then from my point of view the actions that follow from them are probably foolhardy at best (believing crop circles are made by aliens, and holding lonely midnight vigils in paddocks), and life-threatening at worst (thinking you can cure cancer with the power of your mind, and charging gullible people for the service).
Our concern for your beliefs should scale smoothly from head-patting to cuff-slapping, based on the level of vicarious outrage we experience at the effects of your actions, on yourself and others.

40. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97440 by Robert Maynard on December 12, 2007 at 4:56 am

Thanks again Zzx1170. :)

41. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96582 by Robert Maynard on December 10, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Looks like the beginning of a science documentary on VHS tape. I can just hear the muffled, honking trumpets.

42. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94179 by Robert Maynard on December 5, 2007 at 1:16 am

Nuclearman
I was mainly concerned with the semantics of "discovery" - it was a philosophical conclusion, not an empirical enterprise. Democritus didn't "find out" that the world was composed of atoms, he reasoned that it is probably so (and happened to be sorta kinda right.. kinda)
I'm aware that Democritus didn't have a monopoly on thinking about the world as made of 'atoms' back then, and that Epicurus thought along the same lines, but come on.. he was born over a century after Democritus in the same country and was a student of philosophy. I think it's safe to say where he got these beliefs from.
Co-crediting Epicurus with the "discovery" of atoms is a double-whammy of flat-wrong.

43. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94149 by Robert Maynard on December 4, 2007 at 11:18 pm

It reads like a fiery blog entry by a teenage malcontent enthusiastic about his ancient history classes, and the line about Epicurus and Democritus "discovering" that the world is composed of atoms made me do a bit of a double take (Epicurus? ..I don't ..think so?), but I still thoroughly enjoyed reading this.

44. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93345 by Robert Maynard on December 2, 2007 at 7:19 pm

VanYoungman:

Mac users display the ultimate in cognitive dissonance, except, of course, for a few retarded graphic designers.

I'm getting the impression you don't actually know what cognitive dissonance means, but I could be mistaken.
What are they cognitively dissonant about?

45. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93329 by Robert Maynard on December 2, 2007 at 5:50 pm

"An atheist who wants to remain an atheist cannot be too careful about what he reads."

It is not that atheists (or anyone, really) should avoid reading books that might challenge them, but that we should avoid reading any book presenting an argument if we lack the critical attitude to engage with that argument.
Many readers have come away from books like Holy Blood and the Holy Grail or films like Loose Change, wholly convinced of the truth in their content, seduced by the manner of presentation because of the lowered defenses in their critical mind. We should be careful about what we read - not by way of a censoring process, but by analysing the information we're receiving.

Obviously Lewis was not 'careful' enough about what he read - his journey into Christianity was coaxed along by fantasy writers like Tolkien and George Macdonald, until he finally allowed himself to start being impressed by 1st century texts describing "facts" with no secular corroboration.

When you're ready to start crediting rhetorical acrobatics or unsourced assertions over facts, you've stopped being careful about what you read. What Lewis says is true, though not in the sense he intended.

46. Getting Overheated

Comment #89404 by Robert Maynard on November 20, 2007 at 3:17 pm

crazy old man:

Mr. Fry assumes that following the motive to believe in man-made climate change can only lead to positive results.

I think what was explicitly stated and repeated is that it is a safer bet. Gamble. Wager. Action with uncertain outcome.

Clearly, you assumed you understood Mr. Fry's argument before you commented.

47. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88081 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Monosilabbiq (that's a cool name, by the way :)

The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".

But you just did.

I don't really have a problem with calling creationism a theory, though Creationism as a whole is more of a family of theories. It only becomes a problem when we distinguish theory as a term just describing a system of ideas, from theory as a particularly well established system of ideas in the scientific community. We haven't stopped calling Lamarckism a theory, even though it's been thoroughly overturned by Darwinism, and rejected as a failed idea. Every incorrect theory is still a theory - just a crummy one.

The problem with non-scientific theories, like conspiracy theories and creationism (which should not be counted as separate from conspiracies), is that they're practically cancerous - that is to say, while bad theories are generally stopped in their tracks by peer review, a null hypothesis result in an environment without peer review (and intellectual honesty) can instead result in NEW theories growing to support the original theory, necessarily formulated on the belief that the original theory can't be wrong.
So from the falsified hypothesis of "Earth is less than 10,000 years old", you get "Radiometric dating methods are unreliable (they must be because they falsify the previous hypothesis)", and "Scientific orthodoxy is atheistic and dogmatic (it must be, because they're quite happy to explain why radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable, falsifying the previous hypothesis)"
Inquiry rapidly degenerates into paranoia and delusion when you aren't ready or willing to derail certain trains of thought. :P

48. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88072 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm

1) Isn't the enshrining of physical laws (as opposed to prescriptive social laws) contingent on a fair amount of mathematical certainty regarding the process, a degree of axiomatic assuredness that allows us to set out principles like "IF THIS THEN THIS, ALWAYS (bitches!)"..?
Even laws in science are contingent on empirical evidence, and open to revision, so it's not as if we have to be 100% sure. But despite how profoundly well-established the basic idea is, the ongoing controversies regarding the details of rates, conditions, methods, etc. suggest that most scientists wouldn't be happy calling it a "law" until it was sufficiently diluted by committee, likely resulting in an overly vague, tautological mess.

2) While people say, "It's only a theory," to dismiss evolution, it hasn't been shown that they'll change their minds when it is "law" - at least, it doesn't become a matter of civil obedience, nothing bad will happen to them if they still refuse to accept it.
What'll more likely happen is that those rebellious, 'counter-establishment' creationists would parade this as an example of encroaching scientific doctrine, particularly when they exploit people who don't understand the caveat in my last point - that scientific laws are still contingent on evidence, and not immutable doctrine. There is already enough confusion about physical/civil law.. recall Al Sharpton dumbly (though jokingly) asking Hitchens if he "chooses to obey the law of gravity" every morning.
In a way though, they'll kind of be right about it seeming dogmatic, because

3) The use of terminology like 'laws' does seem somewhat antiquated in a paradigm of what you might call 'post-modern' science, where the limitations of induction mean we have to be humble about what we don't (can't) know. We really can't confidently declare something to simply be true - when the sun sets we can call it true for another day, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Of course, it's understood (among the science-literate) that what scientists mean by law isn't quite what the Vatican means, but the term is loaded with so much historical baggage.. the semantics of physical laws can seem (to me) like it's about reality conforming to our models, rather than our models to nature.

*shrug*
My last thoughts on this were a bit meandering.. basically, I don't think this is a great idea.

49. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84023 by Robert Maynard on November 1, 2007 at 3:03 am

Is it really a good idea to side with ceremonial burial over freedom of speech, Quetz? I mean, if I had to choose...
And again, what measurement scheme are we taking to these 'damages', which arrives at $11000000?

I think Jimill's made the best argument so far - that WBC's activities are more geared towards harassment than protest, and are therefore not protected.
Particularly in that they have no apparent interest in working to change American policies, in the sense that the Dominionists do, for example.

Still, I think that deterring the expression of certain opinions with gigantic fines is not a wise approach to washing those opinions (or those expressions) out of a society.

50. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84016 by Robert Maynard on November 1, 2007 at 2:38 am

More like 'crybaby fascism', am I right?