1. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #190978 by SteveN on June 10, 2008 at 3:08 am

This sort of thing makes me so angry. Coercing a child already brainwashed by religion into carrying out murder and suicide is simply sickening. Notice also how the Mullahs never volunteer to do the glorious work of Allah. Evil, twisted cowards.

2. Scientists reshape Y chromosome haplogroup tree gaining new insights into human ancestry

Comment #189056 by SteveN on June 5, 2008 at 9:47 am

In answer to Flajpi's question (#21), mitochondrial DNA is (almost) only passed down the female line, whereas the Y-chromosomes are of course passed on through males. There is no reason for the ages to match, therefore. Mitochondrial Eve (the female most recent common ancestor of us all) and Y-chromosome Adam (male MRCA)are thought to be separated by 10's of thousands of years.

3. Random Acts of Evolution

Comment #188383 by SteveN on June 4, 2008 at 3:11 am

In answer to j.mills question (#18) and to add to kleb's answer (#20), I expect that, with the exception of the few occasions in which a piece of integrated junk DNA provides an actual benefit to the host, the use of resources needed to replicate all that DNA is indeed a significant disadvantage that would normally be weeded out by natural selection over time. The problem as I see it is that the host's molecular machinery has no way of distinguishing between 'good' and 'bad' DNA. The potential gain in efficiency by randomly deleting chunks of DNA is far outweighed by the high risk of doing harm.

By the way, the recently published sequence of the platypus genome has revealed that about 50% is comprised of interspersed repeats derived from transposable elements. This, the authors claim, is higher than for any other previously characterised metazoan genome.

4. We happy hooligans

Comment #188332 by SteveN on June 4, 2008 at 12:33 am

Eric wrote in #42:

I still think there is a basic distinction between people seeking explanations and understanding, and those seeking meaning and purpose. For many, on both sides of the divide, the inspiration is the search itself, not necessarily the end, or what's being sought.

I guess that if the actual act of seeking some meaning and purpose in life is what someone decides to devote their life to, and that makes them happy, then that's fine, of course. I will therefore concede your point ;-)

It does seem to me, however, that if someone is approaching the end of their life without having found this elusive purpose or meaning, then this realisation might be a bit upsetting. It would be doubly a shame because there are today so many fascinating, awe-inspiring and (moreover) real aspects of 'life, the universe and everything' that one could provide a 'purpose' in life and that would yield real results in the end.

In this respect, I think the way to 'bridge the divide' is better education to let people know how really cool and awe-inspiring reality is and how shallow the promises of religion and New Age pseudoscience are.

Cheers,


Steve

5. A New Step In Evolution

Comment #188182 by SteveN on June 3, 2008 at 10:13 am

This is sooooooo coooooool! How are the creos going to argue that all mutations are negative given such a detailed series of precise experiments, I wonder?
Ah, of course. By totally ignoring or misunderstanding the data. Silly me.

6. We happy hooligans

Comment #187877 by SteveN on June 3, 2008 at 12:23 am

Eric wrote in #39

I think you may have read my post too quickly. I'm not suggesting scientific types don't have moments of awe or wonder but that their reaction to their feelings is different - as you seem to agree.

I may well indeed failed to grasp the point you were trying to make, for which I apologise. It was this sentence that I reacted to primarily:

The scientist will describe the sunset in mainly empirical terms, though he/she may also note the feeling it seems to evoke, but the feeling will be secondary.

This seemed to paint a picture of a cold, analytical scientist who looks at a sunset and thinks first about refractions and reflections through atmospheric dust and incidentally notices that the combination of colours etc activates certain pleasure centres in the brain. It was against this stereotypical view of the scientist that I was responding.

My point is that a scientist or informed layperson has precisely the same feelings of wonder and awe as any other human and that knowing the physical basis for the phenomenon enhances, rather that detracts from, this wonder. A good example might be the wonderful pictures of nebulae produced by the Hubble telescope and others. The pictures are in themselves simply beautiful but knowing that they represent the remnants of an exploding star and that they cover areas light-years across just enhances the awe felt.

Concerning the need that many have to find a universal (or God-given) 'meaning' to their lives, I would maintain that it is liberating to accept that such an external purpose does not exist and to rejoice in the freedom we have to choose our own. To spend one's only life in a fruitless search for something that does not exist is, in my opinion, a tragedy. I therefore feel quite strongly that 'the only purpose life has is what we give it' is indeed a far, far better answer than the 'vague notion of God presented by theologians'. I think this because a world-view based on reality just gets better every time we push the limits of our understanding a little further whereas one based on fantasy is doomed to confusion and inexplicable contradiction when it conflicts with obvious reality.

But then again, I could be wrong ;-)

7. Random Acts of Evolution

Comment #187216 by SteveN on June 1, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Spinoza wrote in #4...

Referring to 'junk DNA' as "Useless junk" is a bit of a mistake.

Teleology anywhere in a biological description must be very carefully considered...

SINE and LINE copies are useless in terms of the strict biological function of the particular organism they are in, but that does NOT entail that there's nothing evolutionary 'useful' about them...

Especially since they do seem particularly useful to themselves. (i.e. from the gene's eye view).

I think that this is the whole point of PZ's post. Integrated (endogenous) retroviral sequences exist for the sake of themselves, not for the sake of the host organism. They are basically parasitic genes. Interestingly enough, there is considerable evidence that the human (and other mammal) host has co-opted some of these human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) genes to suppress immunological rejection of the 'foreign' (i.e. foetal) tissue at the placental/embryo interface. We might carry a lot of junk, but sometimes we make good use of it!

8. We happy hooligans

Comment #186781 by SteveN on May 31, 2008 at 9:58 am

I'm sorry Eric (#37), but what you say is simply wrong, in my opinion. First of all, as a scientist, atheist and dyed-in-the-wool skeptic I can tell you that I am as moved as anyone by the beauty of a sunset or a piece of music. Understanding something does not in any way detract from the wonder of the thing. To the contrary, in only enhances the feeling of joy felt at being alive in a universe such as this. You should read Richard's 'Unweaving the Rainbow' for an excellent, book-long investigation of this theme.

Second, there is no 'meaning' in a sunset any more then there is meaning in a rainstorm or a fall of snow. Indeed, the only 'meaning of life' is that what you make of it. Your post seemed to be repeating that old refrain "Science addresses the 'how?' but only religion can tell us 'why?'". This is, again in my opinion, a false dichotomy. Questions such as 'Why are we here' can be answered very well by science when this is interpreted as 'what are the events that led to our existence?' but nothing, be it science or religion, can answer 'what is the purpose of our existence' because there is no 'purpose' other than that what you yourself make it.

Sorry for the rant, but nothing irritates me more than Gould's non-overlapping magesteria argument.


Cheers


Steve

9. We happy hooligans

Comment #185919 by SteveN on May 29, 2008 at 4:52 am

##Dammit! Post lost in cyberspace. Try again...##


Reply to brainsys (#26):


Yes, sorry about that. I assumed you were referring to PZ's article posted at the top of this page. 'Lying leeches' is indeed not ambiguous.

However, if you read the article by PZ in which he makes the 'lying leeches' comment (here), which is one of his best, by the way, it is clear that he was referring to those who deliberately attempt to manipulate and distort history to give religion credit for everything good (end of slavery, science etc). Anyone who does this is worthy of the label 'lying leech' in my book.

Actually, I think Underverse is guilty of a subtle bit of quote-mining here. Of course, PZ might actually believe all theologians and moderate church-goers to be part of a 'con game of lying leeches', but I don't think that was his original intention, when the quote is taken in context.

10. We happy hooligans

Comment #185906 by SteveN on May 29, 2008 at 3:34 am

Brainsys (comment 24).

PZ accuses the theologians of 'perpetuating lies', which they surely do irrespective of whether they believe them or not. I see no problem with that.

11. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181780 by SteveN on May 18, 2008 at 8:43 am

To ADParker: Actually, it was rgpratt who wrote, in answer to my question, what you quoted in post #39.

I must admit that I'm rather grateful, in a totally selfish sort of way, that Richard has been coerced to first write a book for adults rather than for children.

12. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181161 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm

rgpratt, thanks for the information and the link (#20): that is really kewl. Sounds like it's going to be lots of science specifically directed at debunking the creos. Excellent!

13. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180976 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 8:22 am

Tezcatlipoca asked:

Would those be wooden baseball bats made from trees SteveN?

When I can tear myself away from doing evil experminents in my dungeon, I mean laboratory, I actually spend my time woodturning, i.e. the art of turning large trees into small useless items. Wooden baseball bats are therefore a distinct possibility!

14. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180971 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 8:13 am

j.mills wrote

...in having mostly biology in the first half and much more emphasis on hard sciences in the second

Now wait just one doggoned minute there JM! Are you implying that we biologists are a bunch of softies or that biology is a cushy number compared with physics? I'll be sending round the boys with the baseball bats if Richard doesn't get you first ;-)

15. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180967 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 8:05 am

Jiten said "But I can't wait for Dawkins's own next book."


I agree. As much as I have been so thoroughly pleased with events since Richard released "The God Delusion", it's his popular science writing that I enjoy the most. Does he have such a book in progress, does anyone know?

16. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #180950 by SteveN on May 16, 2008 at 7:41 am

I'm about half-way through this book at the moment and am enjoying it thoroughly. Richard's introductions are short and to the point, and the selected passages are also relatively short (usually one or two pages). I'm steadily making a list of authors whose books I must now read in full.

17. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179955 by SteveN on May 14, 2008 at 3:10 am

From the quotations provided by Mind Rebel, I get the impression that Einstein indeed wasn't an atheist in the commonly held (but wrong) definition of 'I believe there is no God' but was an atheist in the correct 'I don't believe that there is God' sense, a position sometimes described (wrongly, in my opinion) as agnosticism.

18. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179912 by SteveN on May 14, 2008 at 1:40 am

Mind_Rebel

Your quotes don't actually say anything to indicate that Einstein wasn't an atheist. It sounds like he's criticising fanatical or 'professional' atheists for being too dogmatic or intolerant. Many atheists today do the same.

19. God seekers go public

Comment #179442 by SteveN on May 13, 2008 at 8:50 am

I had a quick look through their list of selected publications. The first thing that I notice is that none of the papers (judging by the titles, at least) have anything to do with ID. The second is that they have listed papers by scientists that were produced when working elsewhere. For example, there are seven papers listed by G. Gonzalez, but if you check his bio, he is presently a prof at Ohio State University.

Oh, and one of the few people listed as actually employed at the institute is the infamous Richard von Sternberg who was responsible for the shameful peer-reviewed ID paper scandal and who is featured in 'Expelled'

What a bunch of tossers. All bluff with no content.

20. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178775 by SteveN on May 12, 2008 at 3:02 am

I'm not sure if this has been commented on before (I didn't spot it with a quick scan of the posts), but although I can believe that (but not understand how) a man's mind can be so twisted by the sickness that is religion that he is actually proud of murdering his own child, and I can believe that other such sickos at the police station would congratulate him, I fail to understand why he is not being prosecuted anyway. I am assuming that it is illegal in Iraq to commit murder, but is 'honour killing' a legal exception? Is there no legal system in place in Iraq to make sure that self-confessed, proud murderers like this are arrested and tried?

21. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177493 by SteveN on May 9, 2008 at 7:24 am

When Catholicism is involved in a debate, you should highlight the current Pope's 'Stalin like control freakery'.

Just because the current Pope looks like Emperor Palpatine (from Star Wars) doesn't imply that he's an evil overlord who causes untold suffering and who desires to control the entire human race, does it?

Oh bugger.

22. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177489 by SteveN on May 9, 2008 at 7:16 am

It does strike me that many of those who are criticising Richard for the Hitler comparison are ignoring the whole point of the letter above. Richard was only making reference to the oratorial style used by Boteach, which is valid, I think. If I say someone has a laugh like a foghorn, I'm not implying that they look like, or have the brains of a foghorn. Nobody feels accused of being a cigar-smoking, gin-swilling, overweight member of the upper class if their style of speech-making is likened to that of Churchill's. If, as has been pointed out earlier, you sport a square mustache and a particular hair style, being accused of looking like Hitler would not imply that you are a bigot and a murderer and the comparison would not be shameful and childish - it would be justified. I think some people are being a little overly sensitive about using the 'H' word here. As an Englishman who has lived the last twenty years in Germany, I have a certain feel for this ;-)

23. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177475 by SteveN on May 9, 2008 at 6:46 am

Although I happen to agree with Richard on this one, I must say that I find it very refreshing that so many of us here are more than willing (and able) to openly criticise him if we think he slips up. So much for the sycophantic bunch of sheep many of the visiting faithful accuse us of being. I wouldn't be surprised if Richard were to concede sometime in the future that using the Hitler reference in the first place was probably not a good idea, strategically.

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #176737 by SteveN on May 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm

txpiper:

Whether or not a mutation is beneficial or not depends on the circumstances. For example, the mutation causing sickle-cell anaemia would normally be deleterious, but heterozygosity for the mutation is highly beneficial in areas plaqued by malaria. As a result, the mutation (actually, it's more than one) has been highly selected for in such areas and has spread throughout a considerable proportion of the current population. This is evolution in action.

Another example is the production of escape mutations in HIV during antiretroviral therapy or in the face of a controlling immune response. Viruses with such mutations are usually less able to replicate than their predecessors in the absence of the drug or immune response, but in their presence they have a huge advantage and basically completely replace the susceptible population. What then often happens is that the resistant virus population throws up a further mutation that compensates for the deleterious effects of the first, resistance-inducing, mutation, rendering this double-mutation as 'fit' as the initial virus but still maintaining resistance. This, again, is evolution in action.

Finally, you might want to consider the profound effect that artificial selection of variation, including many random mutations, has had on domestic breeds over a really very short time (think wolf to chihuahua). Non-random, cumulative, selection of random mutation, given enough time, can clearly have an enormous effect. This is not something that can be disputed.

25. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176387 by SteveN on May 7, 2008 at 8:16 am

Seeker of Truth [sic] wrote:

304 billion - 75% adults - 40% YEC'ers come to 91 billion. My 80 plus billion was off the top of my head and damn close I might add. Now fuck off with your stupid ass shit.

Uh, Dude. that would be 304 million. You're out by three orders of magnitude. But hey, for people who are mistaken about the age of the Earth by almost six orders of magnitude, that's pretty good, I guess.

Edit: Hmmm, looks like a load of you beat me to it

26. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175366 by SteveN on May 5, 2008 at 10:11 am

Excellent article by Sam, as usual. It did strike me that many of the arguments used and points raised by Sam have already been used by Pat Condell in his excellent rants. Of course, Sam is a lot more restrained and eloquent in his style - but Pat is much, much funnier!

27. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #175248 by SteveN on May 5, 2008 at 2:18 am

It occurs to me that IF the 'pixie dust' research were to progress to the stage that the regrowth of severed limbs became possible, the website http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/ would have to change its name. After all, if believers can attribute recovery from cancer (after months of intensive chemotherapy and hospital care) to the will of god, I'm sure they can do the same with pixie dust.

28. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175244 by SteveN on May 5, 2008 at 1:58 am

I have just finished all four surveys and, really, to the vast majority I had to answer "Strongly disagree " or "Strongly agree". There was only some degree of ambiguity with personal questions. I assume that this is a deliberate set-up to get some weak responses in the fMRI.

One question made me pause however: "There is too much innocent suffering for there to be an all-powerful God." On the face of it, I would select "Strongly agree", but of course, there may be an all-powerful but malevolent god who enjoys the suffering of innocents. I suspect the authors of the survey meant ""There is too much innocent suffering for there to be an all-powerful, benevolent God."

29. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174681 by SteveN on May 3, 2008 at 8:15 am

I, too, am a great fan of Pat. I think we need the full repertoire in the fight against irrationality and while I think Shermer too soft and Hitchens sometimes a bit too abrasive, someone like Pat who isn't afraid to be politically incorrect while being funny is like a breath of fresh air. Ridicule can be a potent weapon, IMHO.

I was, however, a bit concerned by Pat's comment in his latest rant "The curse of faith" that went something like: "There has to be a life-force in the universe, otherwise there wouldn't be any life". I hope he's not implying that there must be a non-material, animating force (be it a soul or a Star Wars 'Force') that is needed to explain life. If so, he needs to read a few of Richard's books.

30. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174618 by SteveN on May 3, 2008 at 1:47 am

lievemebe wrote in comment 54:

I lost the tip of my finger in a wood planer, the tip was sucked off with the saw dust.

Heh. I did exactly the same thing. Sometimes I amaze myself with my stupidity. I had a signficant chunk of flesh missing and I am quite surprised how well it's regenerated - just a faint scar there now to distinguish the injured finger from the others.

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168405 by SteveN on April 25, 2008 at 5:52 am

...even can SPECULATE that MIGHT be evidence of POTENTIAL transition...SPECULATIONS to support their FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution. ...open to SPECULATION, then they could INVENT scenarios...mere 100 FOSSILS... FAITH...BLIND FAITH.

What is it with fundies and caps? Is it because they are used to writing scripts for their sermons and use caps to indicate the bits that should be shouted?

By the way, Remnant, it should be obvious to even you that the vast majority of embryos carrying harmfull mutations don't even get born (hence, no fossils). Even those that do make it to term, if the mutation is signifantly detrimental the carrier is unlikely to have any offspring (this is natural selection, remember?). Individuals with obvious detrimental mutations will therefore only make up a very small fraction of the general population and are therefore highly unlikely to appear in the fossil record.

Edit: Another point, of course, is the fact that the vast majority of detrimental mutations do not in any way effect the bones and would therefore not be recognised in most fossils

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168391 by SteveN on April 25, 2008 at 5:35 am

Epeeist wrote in #4042:

Now, you claim a global flood. ... What I am trying to illustrate is that unless you can come up with a single explanation, or at worst a small number of explanations then your conjecture is pitifully weak.

But Epeeist, surely 'Goddidit' is a far simpler explanation than those complicated sciency equations. See, the bible trumps your fancy 'book-learning' every time ;-)

33. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167320 by SteveN on April 23, 2008 at 10:31 pm

TruthID wrote:

According to evolutionary theory, eukaryotic cells represent the beginning of the chain of more complex creatures. The simpler binary fission found in prokaryotic cells results in an exact replica of the original cell's DNA. Although a prokaryotic cell's DNA can mutate by some exterior means or by transcription, evolution needs some mechanism to bring about a substantial structural DNA change from one species to the next. Where did the input of information come from to cause these huge changes? What organized and diversified the the components of that first prokaryotic bacterium so that it changed into a eukaryotic cell, which has a nucleus and a sexual reproduction system?

Amazing lack of understanding of basic biology. Sad, really.

34. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159313 by SteveN on April 11, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Thank you Philip1978 for posting that link to Sam Harris' review of Collins' book. I haven't heard or read much from Sam recently, and had missed that review when it first appeared. His razor-sharp wit combined with his eloquence is always refreshing. I particularly liked:

In [The Language of God], he attempts to demonstrate that there is "a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony" between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity. To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts. He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes. His failure is predictable, spectacular and vile."

and

"It is at this point that thoughts of suicide might occur to any reader who has placed undue trust in the intellectual integrity of his fellow human beings."


Go Sam!

35. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159309 by SteveN on April 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm

So, what will the creos say about this, I wonder? Lizard amputee or deformed snake?

Oh! Oh! I know! It's the snake from the Garden of Eden. The one that God condemned to henceforth crawl on its belly in the dirt. Before that it walked on its hind legs. Once again science confirms the truth of the Bible. Hallelujah!

36. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153121 by SteveN on April 1, 2008 at 4:59 am

Hear, hear Russell Blackford (Post 314). This whole "Wilders is a racist pig, so his film should be ignored/demonised" argument reminded me of the "Hitchens supports the Iraq war, so his book should be ignored/demonised" approach taken by many, including some here. With the possible exception of the blanket 'Stop muslim immigration' message towards the end, I found little to factually condemn in the film, despite it being a clear agenda-pushing, one sided piece of propaganda (which is also true of Michael Moore's films, by the way, regardless of how much I enjoy them). Scientific theories, books, films and works of art or music should be judged on content, not on the personality of the creator*.

Cheers,

SteveN
*and I don't mean 'The Creator'

37. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152485 by SteveN on March 31, 2008 at 6:19 am

AllanW wrote:

'And that is yet another reason for complete, non-negotiable freedom of speech.'. I agree. You'll be as worried as I am about this then;

http://www.iheu.org/node/3123

Good grief! Assuming that the International Humanist and Ethical Union can be relied upon in their interpretation, what they report really, really sucks. Why isn't this major news? We're talking about nullifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights here.

38. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152434 by SteveN on March 31, 2008 at 2:39 am

Fanusi Khiyal said (#63):

And there you have it. Whenever someone speaks out against Islam, you can count on the useful idiots howling 'racism'.

Um, with "I have to agree with ateu luso on this one" I was referring to his statement "...I have to concede he has struck a chord. Our liberalism, our freedoms, our willingness to bend over backwards to accommodate the cancer of multiculturalism, are all being exploited by religious bigots in order to slowly but very surely introduce their middle-age values into our society." If you taken the trouble to read the rest of my post that would have been obvious.

39. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152411 by SteveN on March 31, 2008 at 1:39 am

I have to agree with ateu luso (#59) on this one. Although I abhor in general the type of politics pushed by the likes of Wilders and although the film is clearly showing only one side of the story, he is correct in believing that Islam is a clear and present danger to our way of life in Europe. Of course, the extreme fanaticism displayed in the film represents only a very small minority of muslims living in Europe and of course most would prefer to live a peaceful life with their non-muslim neighbours, but the deafening silence of the 'moderates' gives tacit approval to the extremists. Like Richard's attempts to raise the conciousness of the general population concerning their unwillingness to criticise religious beliefs, I think we need people like Pat Condell and even the likes of Wilders who have the guts to be politically incorrect in order to awake people from their passive acceptance of Islam.

40. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151261 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

I am SOOO not getting involved again in this discussion about moderates, but I have to point something out to Steve Zara:

Steve said in post #273:

It seems to me these are the kind of mental knots one gets tied up in when one tries to protect moderate religious belief.

Seems like a waste of time to me.

Aargh!! Steve's caught the McGrath meme!

41. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151003 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 1:53 am

Richard Morgan wrote:

Next time I suffer from insomnia, I'll clean out the "it seems to me" from A.McGrath's presentation, which will probably reduce it by about a third!

If you take out all instances of "...and this is a very important question", you can probably save another third.

This reminds me of an event in one of Asimov's Foundation novels in which a highly complex but admired document (I think it was a treaty or something similar) was subjected to a mathematical or logical process to remove the waffle and contradictions from the important parts. The remaining content was precisely zero.

42. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150991 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 12:13 am

Greyman wrote in post #207:

Uhm, SteveN, the question actually was "is belief in God a dangerous delusion?". It was a debate about the utility of religion, not about its truth. Although this point didn't seem answer that either, as far as I can tell.

Well, I seem to remember McGrath saying at the start of his opening statement something like "There are two questions to be addressed here: "is God a delusion?" and "is belief in God dangerous"" and it was in answer to the first question that he made the remarks I paraphrased earlier.

OK. I've now gone back and listened again to the beginning of the statement, (and I will never forgive you for making me do that, Greyman, ;-)), and I find that my memory was not letting me down. It's at 27:15.

43. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149601 by SteveN on March 26, 2008 at 1:41 am

Since our rapid-fire and somewhat off-topic discussion (mea culpa!) concerning intellectual dishonesty was resolved so satisfactorily, I actually found the time to listen to the debate. For the umpteenth time, I had the urge to shout at McGrath "Address the point! Enough of the woolliness, already!" Apart from his extremely irritating rhetorical style ("it seems to me", "this is an extremely important question" etc) he categorically fails to answer the questions that he poses himself. He said in his opening that he would address the question of whether God is a delusion and then provides no evidence whatsoever. His argument was simply (paraphrasing) "unlike 2 plus 2 equals 4, we can't prove most of the important beliefs in our lives, such as democracy is better than facism". How on Earth does that even begin to address the question of God's existence?

Another point. I can now understand why he switched from science to theology early in his career. He would probably would have made an awful scientist. Although many of my team are religious, I wouldn't employ someone with his profound lack of objectivity in the lab as a technician, let alone as an independent researcher.

44. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149384 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

bonzai wrote:

...steve and steveN here are trying to argue that there is some merit in being a fundamentalist,--"intellectual honesty" which means an absence of intellect, as it turns out.

NOOOOOOO! That's like saying that I believe there is some merit in being a Nazi because they had snazzy uniforms. With the sole exception of the intellectual honesty bit, I have a massively higher regard for moderate theists than I have for fundies. Like I said earlier, some of my scientific colleagues whom I respect very highly, are also religious.

Edit: I'm off to bed now. I hope there's not a million posts to read when I get up ;-)

45. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149369 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Bonzai,

Part of our going round in circles has been due to speed of this thread. I haven't been able to keep up to date in some cases. I think that we can agree (have agreed?) that intellectual dishonesty requires some intellectual involvement. In this regard, the ignorant and deluded fundie (through no fault of his/her own) is not dishonest. I also agree wholeheartedly with Riley that the charlatans at AIG and the DI are orders of magnitude more dishonest than the moderate theist.

Concerning your question...

So how am I dishonest if I knowingly interpret the bible because I genuinely believe that the Bible is meant to be understood in its proper context and that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time?

...it is, in my opinion, the methods you use to interpret the bible that reflect on your degree of intellectual honesty. If you have a genuinely objective method of interpreting the text to reveal the intention of the author (story or fact), something perhaps that a computer could be programmed to do, then that would be fine. Such a system would retrospectively reveal everything in Genesis etc to be intended fiction and perhaps a certain battle as intended historical fact. Until now, I am unaware of such analytical systems and decisions seem to be made by a bunch of guys arguing over some minor point or turn of phrase. Your statement "that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time" seems to indicate that you believe the texts should be interpreted to match what is currently known. If so, I'm sorry, but that does seem to be intellectually dishonest to me. The authors of the OT had certain intentions and beliefs when they wrote the passages and it is not appropriate to retrospectively change these perceived intentions. I personally think that it is highly probable that the authors believed every word to be factually correct and until relatively recently this has been the view of virtually everyone.

46. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149345 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Bonzai wrote:

So "intellectual honesty" honesty" to you basically mean the absence of intellect or reflection, Strange definition but in that case I agree 100% than fundies are more intellectual honest. It is not a compliment.

Yahoo! We have reached an agreement! I, in turn, in my post #103 agreed that:

If a fundamentalist were to be fully aware of the data and be educated enough to understand the reliability and strength of the data but were to still ignore it in preference for the bible, then I agree that such a person would be even more dishonest.

I guess that if we had, from the outset, restricted 'intellectual dishonesty' to those who actually thought about and were knowledgeable about all aspects of the topic, we could have saved ourselves a lot of misunderstanding.

47. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149335 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Bonzai asked:

Then so do the fundies who pray to the "Holy Spirit" to guide them cherry pick and they have no system at all. You think that is more honest?

Yes, because they are not knowingly doing the cherry-picking. As Steve Zara said (and what really sums up the whole point I was trying to make) "You can be honest, but also stupid, ignorant and wrong." People like McGrath do not have the excuse of stupidity and ignorance

48. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149331 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Bonzai wrote in post #113:

Theologians may not think that they are "cherry picking", they have systems and debates, The fundies cherry pick, but arbitrarily.

Indeed, theologians may not think that they are cherry-picking, and they may have big conferences and debates to decide what to accept as fact and what next to label as 'intended metaphor' but in the absence of evidence, all they're doing is cherry-picking.

49. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149323 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Bonzai wrote in post 103:

Fundies don't cherry pick? Do you honestly think even fundies believe in a flat earth?

Well, the references in Genesis to the 'Circle of the Earth' is vague enough that even the most ardent fundamentalist can safely interpret that to mean 'sphere'.

It is not like if you can accept one premise without evidence, namely that God exists, therefore anything goes. This is a point that the "rational crusaders" on this site often miss.

I would be surprised if many, if any, of the contributors here think that those who believe in God will automatically believe in anything. Many of my scientific colleagues for whom I have the greatest respect are also theists. Needless to say, I think that they are intellectually dishonest when it comes to their faith, but I don't expect them to believe in fairies or astrology any more than I do.

50. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149314 by SteveN on March 25, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Riley, I posted my comment #100 before seeing your post #98.

You said:

There is so much controversy because there is so little evidence.

Well, in the absence of evidence, the honest thing to do is to provisionally assume it's all myth until such time that supporting evidence becomes available

Yes it's intellectually dishonest to claim certain knowledge about something for which you have so little evidence. But isn't the degree of certainty with which a faith claim is held, the very thing that differentiates the "moderate" from the "fundamentalist"? If certainty is the measure of intellectually dishonesty, then by definition the "fundamentalists" are more intellectually dishonest!

As I stated in my post #100, it is the methodology of the moderates that I find intellectually dishonest. People like McGrath knowingly pervert the normal protocols of intellectual pursuit to shoe-horn the bible into their world-view. If a fundamentalist were to be fully aware of the data and be educated enough to understand the reliability and strength of the data but were to still ignore it in preference for the bible, then I agree that such a person would be even more dishonest. The 'intellectually honest' fundie I was referring to in my initial post was the home-schooled kind who honestly believes the bible to be a factual, historical document written by, or inspired by, God and who has been lied to sufficiently to reject what little knowledge he or she has of science. Such people are, in my opinion, ignorant and deluded but not intellectually dishonest in the way that cherry-picking moderates are.