451. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224036 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:49 am

Mord,

I vaguely recall reading a "philosophy basic readings" book which mentioned the "Solzhenitsyn Principle", which was something like: Don't do immoral things, even if something worse will happen if you don't.

Well, it might not have been exactly that. The example I remember was the old one about the anthropologist visiting a tribe. The leader of the tribe gives the anthropologist the "honour" of killing a criminal (or something). If he does not, however, kill the criminal, then 5 other criminals will be killed instead. Solzhenitsyn's argument was that we can still be moral by refusing to get involved, even if bad things occur as a result.

(Of course, now MPhil et al will tell me I am wrong, but I'm a physicist not a philosopher, goddamit!)

452. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224033 by Sargeist on August 4, 2008 at 2:44 am

Dammit, I go away for a bit and discover that the thread has whooshed along.

Just for now I'll say that Steve summed up everything I was trying to say - with his keys argument - and did it far more succinctly than I.

Damn!

453. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223836 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 1:46 pm

I used to go to a cool cinema in Birmingham (UK) called The Electric. Used to show a huge variety of stuff, mostly arty foreign-language things, but they found that the patronage was not sufficient to fund them, so they shut down. Eventually reopened but now they only show mainstream stuff. Not that there is anything wrong with mainstream stuff, but that cinema used to be different.

I mean I saw "Angel at my table" there. 3 hours long, not much happening. And "The Cement Garden", and "Ichi the Killer" and all sorts of others. Ah, good times.

Oh yes, and they once showed Spinal Tap. Which is the film I quote from most often.

454. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223827 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Cheers, Oystein.

When I was being taught about Dirac's relativistic wave equation and discovered that he had come up with it when he was the age I was while learning it, I got a little depressed. :( Oh well. I used to take comfort in the stories of Dirac's social ineptness. This is my favourite (copied and pasted from a quick Google result):

My personal favourite Dirac anecdote concerns a sea voyage to Japan, on which he was travelling with his friend and colleague, Werner Heisenberg. Heisenberg was the exact opposite of Dirac. Talkative and flamboyant, he used to the take part regularly in the weekly social events on the ship, including the dances. During these events, Dirac used to quietly sit in a corner, if he came at all that is, and watch. Once, just before a dance was going to begin, he asked Heisenberg, "Heisenberg, why do you dance?". At this typical Diracian question, all that Heisenberg could say that time was "Well, when there are pretty and nice girls, then I feel like dancing with them". Dirac fell silent. After a long time, he called Heisenberg and asked him, "How do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?"

455. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223823 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Brazil is superb. It is glorious. It is the best film in the world. I know this to be true. Others may disagree, but they are wrong so I pay them no heed.

The soundtrack is also glorious. Buy it. Buy it.

The Wiki article about the film is confusing. A scene it says is missing from the UK version is one that I remember seeing years ago. Hmmm.

(sorry to be off-topic)

456. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223820 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 1:13 pm

TOCT: I inadvertently saw that version in a cinema many years ago. Thank "god" I have the proper version on DVD. My video was getting worn out (but not just at "that bit" I'll have you know...)

Oystein: Yes... that thing about Dirac worried me, too. My first reaction when someone disagrees with me tends to always be: "Oh, I thought I had got that right", but with Dirac I was pretty damned sure he was a non-believer. One of the nice anecdotes I had heard about him.

Actually, you'd know this: Are there any biographies of Dirac around? Feel free to PM me with any comments etc etc.

457. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223811 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 12:56 pm

I really love the uncut interviews that were released from the Rough History of Disbelief that Jonathan Miller did. Superb.

458. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223807 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 12:48 pm

TOCT: Something for an executive?

459. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223792 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 12:26 pm

It could just be that the programme was only scheduled for 3 one-hour (including adverts) episodes, and so something had to be left out.

With Alister McGrath's interview in TROAE, we at least didn't miss much. Or, rather, if I were asked if we had missed much, what I would like to respond by way of beginning to answer that is, if I may say so, something akin to... oh, bugger, lost my thread now.

460. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223788 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 12:21 pm

I don't understand.

Dawkins' book is not about, I thought, a proof that there is no god. Just an argument that suggests (very strongly) that it is almost certain that there is no god. And this is based, in part, on showing that there is no evidence at all for the claims of god's existence that people have made. Yes, those same people who claim that Dawkins has missed out all the really very good arguments (nay, "proofs"!) of god's existence while they also manage to entirely fail at spelling out what they are.

So, take a bunch of god beliefs. Look at them very closely. Extract from them the supposed evidence content, and subject that to scrutiny. Discover that the alleged evidence is nothing of the sort. Draw reasonable conclusion.

What is wrong with that approach? Can anyone tell us (I mean *actually* tell us, not just tell us that they *could* actually tell us.)

By comparison, the techniques that Dawkins and others use to back up their arguments that science can provide answers to (dare I say) everything are the same techniques that everyone uses on a day to day basis for dealing with everything from their milk being out of date, to knowing who won the Ashes, to... well, anything else that you want to mention.

Science isn't rocket science! (well, not all of it)

Come on! Open your damned eyes and look at the way the world operates. It operates in the way that the successes of the scientific method indicate that it does. Just stop with the postmodern "oh, but it's just faith isn't it" bollocks. Is it faith for me to believe that I am sitting at the dining table right now? If so, "faith" as a concept is essentially meaningless.

*...And breathe!*

461. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223708 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 9:18 am

And while we're still on the topic, I agree with the idea that "those things are good/bad for you" can sometimes seem very oversimplistic.

For example, fruit is supposedly pretty good for you. But if I eat nothing but fruit for a few months I doubt very much that I would be in good shape.

462. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223707 by Sargeist on August 3, 2008 at 9:16 am

Although I am not a smoker, and I think that those who do smoke are rather, er, stupid, I am always tickled when I recall the following exchange from Third Rock From The Sun:

(To Dick, who is smoking like a chimney):
"Those things'll take years off your life, you know"

Dick: Yes, off the end of your life. And those years are crappy anyway.

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

Comment #223494 by Sargeist on August 2, 2008 at 2:40 pm

I expect that a nice, high quality version will eventually available on DVD through the RD.net shop.

Or so I hope.

The clip with the boy and his "holy book" staggers me, even though I should be used to such nonsense by now.

"So the reason you believe it is that was the one you were told first?"
*chortle*

464. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223475 by Sargeist on August 2, 2008 at 2:07 pm

J Mac,

When I used to go to Sunday school (back until about the age of 13) I remember being told a story about a man who set out to prove that god (or Jesus, or something) did not exist, and ended up discovering all sorts of wonderful amazing great fantastic evidence that it was all true, and so he became a Christian. I believe that was supposed to have been CS Lewis, although his name was not mentioned.

It was only many years later that I realised that holding that up as a reason for believing was a bit scuppered by the examples of believers who became atheists, or believers in religion A who swapped to religion B.

465. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223473 by Sargeist on August 2, 2008 at 2:04 pm

J Mac:

Jews do seem to have a much better image than priests and Imams. Take the wonderful Krusty the Clown episode of The Simpsons, for example - I bet no one was threatened with being blown up as a result of that being written/shown. And the comedian Lewis Black also shows that Judaism can stand a bit of humorous bashing.

466. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223461 by Sargeist on August 2, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Catholics piss me off, but usually make me laugh.
Muslims just scare me.

467. Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights

Comment #222995 by Sargeist on August 1, 2008 at 7:59 am

Xavier,

Thanks for scaring the hell out of me this afternoon!

468. Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights

Comment #222836 by Sargeist on August 1, 2008 at 1:37 am

The difficulty nowadays seems to be that people see so many news stories about people getting away with not having to do parts of their job that they suddenly object to (pharmacists, supermarket checkout staff, marriage registrars) that they may think, "Well, this person is obviously not doing their job properly, but if I reprimand them, they might sue, I might lose, and I can't afford the risk."

This creeping acquiescence to religious attitudes is coming entirely from the wrong side. As others have said, if I want to be a butcher then I ought to find out what I might be required to do in that profession. If I don't like the idea of handling pork, well I should either start up own pork-free butcher's shop or change my career aspirations.

I am colour-blind. This means that my childhood dreams of flying fighter planes or being an astronaut were very unlikely to be fulfilled. Is this discrimination? Should I have been allowed to demand that people let me do any job I want, regardless of how well I can satisfy its requirements? Well, maybe if I wasn't white, made enough bleating noises, and threatened to kill people.

469. Richard Dawkins interviewed about 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #222825 by Sargeist on August 1, 2008 at 1:10 am

Hmm, the comment about drinking and religious belief is an interesting one, but I'm not convinced. Many people who drink are no doubt aware that many people die from it, in the same way that my father knows that many people die from smoking but he still smokes anyway (though, thankfully, not as much these days.) I think that they simply don't care, or they just think it won't happen to them. But this is not the same as simply ignoring the evidence. And ignoring evidence is what the religious do.

Just my two penn'orth :)

470. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222524 by Sargeist on July 31, 2008 at 1:54 pm

I vomit when I hear the call to prayer, does that make me Satan?

Actually, a Catholic friend of my (nominally) Muslim girlfriend once said that I had been possessed by Satan.

But she was an idiotic brainwashed fool.

471. Is Killing Liberals a Hate Crime?

Comment #222482 by Sargeist on July 31, 2008 at 1:12 pm

kkelly:

To which I retort: "Why not give everyone probation of a month's imprisonment for assaulting anyone?"

Not enough iron rod action these days.

472. Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights

Comment #222439 by Sargeist on July 31, 2008 at 12:33 pm

J Mac, although I agree with your main point, I differ in that I think that religious beliefs and ethical beliefs are strongly overlapping and correlated.

473. Is Killing Liberals a Hate Crime?

Comment #222434 by Sargeist on July 31, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I also don't see the point in labelling something a "hate crime". If I attack someone because he is black, and I am not, or because he is Muslim, and I am not, or because he is fat and ginger, and I am not, what difference does it make? I'd still be an odious tosspot who needs shooting.

I also don't understand why there should be separate crimes for, say, attacking police officers, as opposed to the intrinsic badness of attacking anyone.

474. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222015 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Also, 81. Al, sorry I didn't respond to this. I clearly don't have knowledge of the history of Islam (or very much else) but I still hope that things will change just because of the inertia of civilisation.

I'm just guessing, naturally, but I'd bet that in the days of Augustus Caesar people would have seriously expected the Roman Empire to last forever. Nothing has to, though. The American power will pass away, China will rise, and then pass away. I'm hoping that these things won't hurt me and the people I do and will care about. And so I also hope that Islam will change.

475. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222012 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Al (96): I have often wondered if the first step to being controlled by people is to allow them to convince you that you have to admit to a problem only they can see.

476. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221966 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

That avatar is from a disturbing film made by, I think, some Israeli film students. It's on Google Video somewhere. Freaks me out.

477. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221964 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 11:34 am

al,

I am inclined to agree with your "they don't behave the rules that are set down, so they are not Muslims" attitude. But I also think that the rules might change if enough people want them to. Just because the book itself says that it is the eternal word of god means very little, I think, if enough people want to, say, argue that that bit was a lie put in afterwards.

Now, naturally, I would prefer it if people didn't believe any of it, but given that it doesn't seem that that is going to happen very soon, it might be best to hope for the congnitive dissonance of still believing in because a book tells you he exists, while removing the essential divinity of its provenance.

478. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221908 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 9:34 am

al,

I'm slightly bothered by your claim that you've never heard a Muslim say that Adam and Eve never existed. Is this because no one who self-identified as a Muslim has/would say it, or is it because we would assume that anyone who said it could not be a Muslim?

It makes me think of the women I see wandering around the city here in their headscarf, tight jeans and painted-on t-shirts. They clearly think they are Muslims, but they cannot possibly be wearing the scarf for reasons of "modesty".

So, can we safely assume that people are what they claim to be, or do we tell them what they are? I prefer the latter, if only because I could use it as a weapon: "but aren't you inconsistent unless...?"

479. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221861 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 8:25 am

Of course it is superior! It is Sod's God's Law, after all.

480. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221841 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 7:48 am

My worry about Sharia is that it will be the people who already tend to suffer in society (i.e. minorities and women) who will suffer even more under that system. All it will take is for people to hide any prospect of recourse to the "real" UK law and to present propaganda of "look, even the government of this country says we're allowed to deal with Muslims in the Muslim way" and the lot of the disadvantaged will be miserable indeed.

481. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221745 by Sargeist on July 30, 2008 at 4:15 am

Zolomon,

The trouble is probably exactly that indoctrination of which you speak. Whities (like me) can have (and I do have it) this uncomfortable feeling that creeps up whenever we really want to say, "well, look, that's exactly the reason why our way of doing things is better than yours."

Which is basically what we are saying. It just always ends up sounding too much like, "and that's why we invaded your country, forced you into slavery and assumed you were all childlike imbeciles."

Anyway, I find it odd that I have met many Muslims and a lot of them seem to be quite (relatively) sane people, but all of the Catholics I have ever met and spoken to have been utter loons.

482. Host Desecration is Old Anti-Semitic Nonsense

Comment #210367 by Sargeist on July 14, 2008 at 11:11 am

Layla, your comments about what the Jews were accused of is similar to what I get on many occasions that my atheism comes up (or gets brought up, by me) in conversation. Most Catholics I meet have this odd idea that I know god exists, but that I'm just saying he doesn't to be awkward, or annoying, or something. Or they think that I know god exists but I don't like him, so I have to keep saying I don't believe in him.

483. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205491 by Sargeist on July 7, 2008 at 11:14 am

Mitchell:

You reminded me of an Alexei Sayle joke: I used to live next door to the Catholic Girls' School. Or, as we called it, the Virgin Megastore.

484. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205478 by Sargeist on July 7, 2008 at 10:48 am

What really pissed me off today was that I looked on a putatively informative article on the BBC website which was trying to explain all the issues and what the whole story is about. While managing simultaneously to contain absolutely nothing about WHY WHY WHY the bloody church actually thinks there's a problem in the first place. Makes me sick. These supposed news media are just content with saying that there is a problem, and that people are trying to resolve it, without daring (?) to delve into why these people are so knob-headed as to think there is a problem to start with.

grrr!

485. Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?

Comment #204613 by Sargeist on July 5, 2008 at 11:20 am

Just a sec. WHY is it unethical to get people to apply imaginary shocks of over 150 volts to people who know they are in no danger? Why, only this morning I didn't electrocute anyone. Clearly the Law must be informed.

486. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #204038 by Sargeist on July 4, 2008 at 4:06 am

Doesn't anyone ever just interview these people and get an answer to the question: "Why can homesexuals not be ordained?" Maybe this has been tried, but my main objection to news media these days is that there is too much focus on the edges of the story - what do you think will happen if this goes ahead?, how will you be able to reconcile things in the future?, and so on - rather than what I think is the actual meat of the issue. In this case: Why, exactly, do you think gay people should be treated differently?

487. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200832 by Sargeist on June 28, 2008 at 9:50 am

Layla,

I have exactly the same worries, which is why my comments here tend to have rather a large portion of parenthetical argument added to them. I'll start of writing something and then think of a perfectly valid objection to it, and then worry that everything I'm thinking is wishy washy half-arsed fence-sitting.

But, for me, this is better than simply being forthright and no more likely to be correct.

488. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #200659 by Sargeist on June 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

My comment seemed to have vanished, so apologies if this double posts.

Does anyone know when this programme is going to be on Channel 4?

489. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198713 by Sargeist on June 24, 2008 at 11:39 am

Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Tits
Motherfucking Cocksucking
God can kiss my arse.

490. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198706 by Sargeist on June 24, 2008 at 11:30 am

Tera, I thought you,
Were TeraBrat in disguise,
Do you think I'm wrong?

491. Evolutionarily Preserved Signature Found In The Primate Brain

Comment #198647 by Sargeist on June 24, 2008 at 10:46 am

I tend to be of the opinion that it's the old genie out of the bottle thing as regards genetic manipulation. If it's possible, someone somewhere will do it, and we'll eventually end up in a Gattaca-like situation. But, you know, things change, opinions change, and weird things eventually become normal.

492. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197721 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Overmann,

But the integers of God are not as those of man. For, see, how the subtractions of mere mortals pale when compared with the carrying of extra ones into the hundreds column. Praise be!

493. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #197719 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Having ploughed through the book: "Galileo: Heretic", which I found rather hard going, I was informed that Galileo was actually imprisoned because of his views on molecules, which contradicted the Aristotelian view that one could have an outward appearance of one thing, but a "substance" of another - thereby permitting the utter mindbollocksing nonsense of the transubstantiation.

I think, though, that Michael White's (?) recent book on Galileo may include some comments on this suggestion, but I don't know if it backs it up or not.

494. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197681 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Hey, hands off, mordacious. I've clearly been wooing Tera with my charming comments today, and I won't have you ruining all my hard work.

495. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197669 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 1:09 pm

MeIM:

That sounds dangerously like, "It is racism if the person being referred to thinks it is", with the added insanity of, "And I only think it is, because you told me so."

496. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197662 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Tera,

Hot and desirable, maybe, but not perfect...

497. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197656 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Could someone give me their opinion on this thought I often have (no doubt not original, of course):

Any minority group that has been persecuted seems to manage to develop an aura of "we're all perfect and do nothing wrong" once the persecution has (pretty much, not entirely) ended. So, you can't say anything bad about any individual homosexual, black, Jewish, Muslim, etc person (I'm doing this from my white male perspective, so please forgive me the personal angle) without being thought of as one of the persecutors. I mean, why would I ever think any black person is a knob-end unless I'm a racist?

I think that the white Western guilt for the sins of our ancestors is letting people get away with too much. Just because we used to behave like wankers doesn't mean that they should be allowed their go, too.

EDIT: typo

498. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197650 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 12:32 pm

The whole issue of hate crime seems to me to be similar to the oft-bandied word "discrimination". It seems that any rule that prevents every single person from being able to do every single action is presented as discrimination. Take Sikhs being allowed (in the UK) not to wear crash helmets when riding motorcycles because they can't get it over their turban. Surely saying to someone: "You have to wear a helmet like everyone else has to, and the fact that you have chosen to cover your head in a large piece of cloth does not mean you can avoid this rule" isn't discriminatory. Do Sikhs get a special rule not to wear hard hats on building sites, too?

The whole issue of religious dispensations is thoroughly stupid because no one can say what a religion actually is. A Sikh bangle might be an important part of some teenager's identity, but a silly diamond earring or a design shaved into the hair, or a hooded jacket might be just as important to someone else's identity. Especially if they're a teenager. In fact, the bleating of religious people about how they are being "discriminated against" sounds very much like the "it's not faaaaaaaair!" of a whiny teenager.

499. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197638 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 12:10 pm

That's a bit like how saying that not all Jewish farts smell like flowers would get you accused of antisemitism...

500. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197635 by Sargeist on June 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm

William,

As Barry and others have pointed out, the law as it stands allows one to ridicule, insult, abuse and otherwise pick on people's religious beliefs. But the world is so filled with imbeciles right now, that none of us would like to say for certain that nothing would actually happen. Just look at the boy who was told he would be prosecuted for calling Scientology a cult...