Comments by Steve Zara

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

Comment #224019 by Steve Zara on August 4, 2008 at 2:01 am

Comment #224012 by 27b-6

Yes we should be sceptical about the appearance of design - but if your view is that we should automatically regard all appearance of design as false then you have an unfalsifiable i.e. non scientific hypothesis.

That is not my point at all. It is that we should automatically be skeptical that the appearance of design implies a designer.

Science isn't about automatically declaring things true or false, it is about keeping an open mind, especially when it is known that designers are very complex things indeed, and almost always far more complex than the apparently designed thing you are trying to explain.

The universe is basically very simple indeed. All the complexity we see in terms galaxies, stars, planets and so on can be explained by a long-range attractive force (gravity) working on very minor and just about random fluctuations in what was left over after the Big Bang. Pure physics. No need for any creator or designer.

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

Comment #224004 by Steve Zara on August 4, 2008 at 12:38 am

Comment #223867 by 27b-6

Open your eyes and ask the question "why does the world operate in the way it does â€" i.e. in the way that science indicates it does?" Does that question not fascinate you? If not then for goodness sake why not!

There seems to be a good reason why the world operates in a way that makes science work: it is incredibly simple. Things generally behave the same no matter where or when you are, and no matter how fast you are moving, or how charged up you are with electric fields and so on. There is not the slightest indication of anything "magic" beyond this simplicity.

It is reasonable to believe that the world is simple in this way because science is effective. No-one claims that science has all the answers, but even though it doesn't, no-one has come up with any alternative process for exploration of reality.

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

Comment #223865 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Comment #223845 by 27b-6

Have you any idea about the level of complexity that is involved in even the simplest mind, let alone one that is supposed to be omniscient?

The argument for simplicity is easy - it is about how we deal with things in our everyday lives.

If you lose your car keys, you look for them down the back of the sofa, you don't assume some vast complex alien plot to abduct your keys, or that they have been snatched away by angels.

It is really bizarre how theists suddenly abandon this kind of rational thinking when talking about universes rather than car keys.

Some infinite objects are infinitely simple. But one thing we know for sure is that minds aren't simple.

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

Comment #223791 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #223768 by 27b-6

More nonsense:

There are three cases to consider:

You have missed something crucial. That there have been things that appeared designed in the universe, but that we now know where not designed (such as evolved features)

This means that we should be deeply sceptical about saying that anything else that appears designed in the universe really is designed.

His objection to the designer argument seems to be based on his horror that there might not be an explanation of everything that humans can access â€" but this is an emotional objection to the design argument not a rational one.

Rubbish. It is the designer argument that is based on the horror that we are alone in the universe. The honest response is "we don't know".

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

Comment #223777 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Comment #223773 by AllanW

As you didn't mention me, I won't hesitate!

Comment #223768 by 27b-6

The key argument in The God Delusion is the "Ultimate 747" one. It is quite simple, but utterly devastating. No matter how complex or fine-tuned the initial state of the universe may apparently seem to be, it is utterly insignificant in terms of complexity of a creator of any kind.

Explanations of complex things are expected to be simpler. Adding God involves infinite complexity, so can't be a useful explanation for any phenomenon.

456. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223772 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #223770 by decius

Please, let's not start that debate.

Incidentally, does anyone else think that the picture shown with the article looks remarkably unlike Richard Dawkins? Or is it just me?

457. Breeding for God

Comment #223771 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 11:57 am

Comment #223767 by hawt4dawk

Would you mind if I PMed you? I have serious concerns about what you have posted, but I don't want to start even more debate here.

458. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223765 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 11:42 am

Comment #223763 by Nails

4oD will have it after tansmission

I find it annoying that the 4oD software won't run on Linux. I can watch all BBC programs on any platform that has realplayer and flash.

459. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #223744 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #223741 by decius

I noted a previous problem (the site was down for a few hours). The error messages I was getting back suggested this was a disk space problem, and it seemed to be fixed quickly.

The kind of DNS problem you mention doesn't sound like it is to do with the site - if you can get to it by at least one method.

460. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #223736 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 10:08 am

I find it hard to say exactly why I like Charlie Brooker - basically he is a bad-tempered ranter. But I adore his writing, and "screenwipe".

461. Breeding for God

Comment #223694 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 7:30 am

Comment #223684 by hawt4dawk

Steve -- getting to your answer.

Thanks, but there isn't any need to bother. I am kind of exhausted of this subject for now!

462. Breeding for God

Comment #223658 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 3:45 am

Fanusi-

I pointed out that such a gamble wasn't smart, and that the idea that they'd do this isn't likely. No response.

Of course there was a flipping response! I pointed out that you simply asserted that such people would not take action - that they could not be persuaded, that they were all basically a lost cause.

You seem pretty close to religious in your attitudes - you have your dogma about Muslims and about Sharia, and everyone else has to prove you wrong, and when people give examples and evidence you seem to put your fingers in your ears and just ignore it.

Is it any wonder some people can't be bothered to debate with you?

463. Breeding for God

Comment #223654 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 3:23 am

Fanusi-

Finally, I can't shake the feeling that Goldy, and, I'm sorry to say, Steve, have decided the thing is to score rhetorical points of me.

I can't speak for Goldy, but I take this matter far too seriously to play games. I am deeply troubled by your scare-mongering and the scary and thuggish solutions you suggest. That is why I have been posting.

464. Breeding for God

Comment #223653 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 3:19 am

Comment #223643 by Fanusi Khiyal

What is happening is that you repeatedly respond to points that you seem to think I have made, but which I haven't.

I have been trying to explain how those who support mild Shariah principles could, in principle, react against those who want more extreme versions. But you don't seem to be responding to what I am posting. I really don't see how I can explain what I am trying to say any clearer. Others seem to have no problem understanding my posts (Bonzai for example).

Incidentally, you can compare the length of my replies to others points, with the length of, say yours, to mine. That says a great deal about who is not giving whom answers.

You think so? Shall I just mention the name wooter? Not that I think you post nonsense like him, but length of post does not mean anything.

Anyway, I don't think I have any more to contribute to this discussion.

465. Breeding for God

Comment #223641 by Steve Zara on August 3, 2008 at 2:38 am

h4d-

But you've definitely got a PR problem in this discussion now and you really need to deal with that, because you and Steve, at least, are just not "hearing" each other now.

I would be most interested to know what it is that I am not hearing. Fanusi's posts seem quite clear to me. What I am not getting back is responses to what seem to me to be quite reasonable questions.

Bonzai clearly understood what I was trying to say...

Comment #223551 by Bonzai

I am not laid back at all. I am seriously worried about the current state of education of certain religious groups in the UK, and about the issue of "hate speech".

All I am trying to say is that Fanusi's apparent understanding of the situation (such as assuming that all who "support Shariah" are fundamentally the same) is frighteningly simplistic, and his solutions (expulsion of citizens) are just plain frightening.

466. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223597 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Comment #223577 by Old Sarum

Good, I'm glad I've helped you achieve a more moderate stance on this matter :)

My stance has not changed at all. If you want to try and persuade the world that religion does not involve the supernatural, it is your time to waste.

I am just puzzled about why you want to bother. As what you are after clearly isn't religion by any current standards, why not just call it something else?

467. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223503 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Comment #223497 by Fanusi Khiyal

I find it a bit troubling to have to deal with your posts like those of religious fundamentalists.

Please deal with issues posted on other threads before you post further here.

468. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223487 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #223486 by Fanusi Khiyal

Will you please stop posting this kind of nonsense until you have dealt with issues posted on other threads?

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

Comment #223464 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #223444 by Oystein Elgaroy

My wife's philosophy of photography is that if she can make me look good, she can make anyone look good.

My husband is a (good) photographer. He did the best he could with me by hiding half my face... with "The Hat"

470. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223455 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #223448 by Peacebeuponme

What I mean is that I am happy if someone wants to put in the huge amount of effort to ensure that the majority of people are willing to use a term in a different way.

If someone wants to spend decades changing the general meaning of the term "religion" throughout the world, I am not going to stop them. But until they do it, they have to deal with the way most people understand it now.

471. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223439 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 9:20 am

Comment #223434 by J Mac

I am fine about someone trying to redefine religion. What I have a problem with is someone not accepting what the current definition is, and implying that anyone who does not accept the new broader definition is somehow a limited thinker.

Changing the meaning of common terms takes effort. You can't just declare the meaning changed.

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

Comment #223437 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 9:18 am

Comment #223429 by Oystein Elgaroy

I didn't know that. Sounds like you are right. It is really very sad.

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

Comment #223427 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 9:07 am

Comment #223425 by decius

Well, he is a new poster.... as for "boy", it is impolite to ask about age.

474. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223426 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 9:06 am

Comment #223279 by Old Sarum

Several posters have insisted that for a religion to be regarded as a religion, it must require a literal belief in a deity and/or supernatural realm. I'm not making it up - read the thread :)

This is a bizarre statement. It implies that such a definition of religion is extreme. It isn't. It is what virtually everyone who is religious believes.

It is like saying:

"Several posters have insisted that for a diet to be regarded as a carnivorous, it must require a literal eating of meat. I'm not making it up - read the thread :)"

or

"Several posters have insisted that for a man to be homosexual, it must require a literal fancying of other men. I'm not making it up - read the thread :)"

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

Comment #223422 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 9:02 am

Comment #223419 by Oystein Elgaroy

I have no doubt of that. I suspect that those who are doing this thought that taking him all the way to a Personal God would be too much to believe.

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

Comment #223417 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 8:48 am

Comment #223411 by Quiddam

In a way, it would be less troubling if Flew did believe in a personal saviour God. It would suggest that he changed his mind from personal concerns, rather than being manipulated by others.

477. Breeding for God

Comment #223408 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #223404 by Fanusi Khiyal

Er... Steve we were talking about those who said they wanted Shariah. I pointed out that these guys were, or at least were highly likely to, pull the lever for Shariah in any election of consequence. Am I missing something here? This seems to be perfectly straightforward.

We were not talking about how likely they would be to act against Shariah. We we talking about how they could act against Shariah. It was about mechanism, not intent.

Your statement that they would be unlikely to do this is just an assertion. It needs to be backed up by hard evidence.

And this comment is different from my oft repeated point of helping Muslims escape their mental prison how exactly?

Because you assert that those who "support Shariah" are unlikely to do anything about it. You also mentioned whether we should tolerate people who were in far-right groups.

I showed that far from such people not being amenable to change, their views may be altered by changes in circumstance and education.

In other words, your position that those who support Shariah should be deported is not reasonable. It neglects that such people can have their minds changed.

And there's a flip side to this. You seem to be implying that it'd be legit to vote for Shariah. Okay, then if a democratic referendum votes for expulsion, then that's okay too, yes?

That depends on the constitution. People don't vote for laws. They vote for law-makers. We have a representative democracy in the UK.

We don't have referenda on such matters. We have them on major constitutional changes, such as entry of the EU.

Yet again, you are describing a scenario that is beyond anything reasonable to consider.

478. Breeding for God

Comment #223377 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #223375 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve, but by definition these guys already support Shariah, and will pull the lever for it, even if they don't fully understand it. My parallel stands.

You don't make something true by declaring it true "by definition". You asked how those with a low attachment to Sharia could be persuaded to act against those with a high attachment. Now you respond by saying that no such action would happen. That is not any way to argue. I responded to your question.

We already treat neonazis and clansmen as pariahs, why not those who support something that is at least equally horrible?

There are good people here in the UK who used to be members of dreadful organisations. One of the best known examples is the now robustly left-wing actor Ricky Tomlinson, who, when young, was a member of the National Front. He now regrets this and says he was "politically naive and poorly educated". This shows the real possibility of a solution to such fundamentalist views - education.

Your attitude here is precisely why I say you are dehumanising others. People can change. They can be persuaded. You try and declare by definition that they can't, and then insist they need to be shipped out.

Such an attitude sounds dogmatic and fundamentalist to me, I am afraid.

479. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #223374 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 5:36 am

Comment #223372 by rachedi

This unfortunate historical
background created the false believe that religion is against science

Religion is profoundly against science. Religion insists that personal subjective experience and introspection have value as ways of determining the truth about reality. Science has shown that this is plain wrong - reality is far stranger and more wonderful than anything our imaginations could have conjoured up. Religion also stifles science, by replacing uncertainty with claims to know the answer - God.

The church's failed to understand that Evolution could simply be a way through
which God would create life and its diversity.

When a mechanism is fully understood, and when it operates in a chaotic universe, there is simply no need to involve any external influence. There is no space for God in evolution.

480. Breeding for God

Comment #223369 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 5:20 am

Comment #223365 by Fanusi Khiyal

How are those who 'kinda' support Shariah but don't really know what it entails going to stand against those who really do support Shariah?

The way we all stand against those whose views we don't support in a democratic society - through the ballot box, in votes for MPs and councilors.

One thing is certain - you don't persuade them to stand against those who really do support the worst kinds of Sharia by telling them that anyone who supports sharia is a pariah.

481. Breeding for God

Comment #223354 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 4:40 am

Comment #223345 by Goldy

There is also the question of motivation for saying that one supports Sharia, and the attachment one has to the idea.

It may be that, in many cases, declaring support for Sharia is part of identification with a culture rather than a deep attachment to a particular approach to legal systems.

482. Breeding for God

Comment #223335 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #223333 by Goldy

One thing that has puzzled me is this technique of calling plain disagreement "evasion". I have never come across that before.

483. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223330 by Steve Zara on August 2, 2008 at 3:37 am

Comment #223295 by txpiper

Yes indeed. That Hawking. Never thought much of him anyway. That means you with your Megabrain can easily beat him.

So, give us a bit of that magic. Some predictions of what will happen at the LHC please - will supersymmetry be discovered?

You can't expect us to just accept your statement that you are better at interpreting data and understanding that just about any scientist without evidence do you?

484. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #223234 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Comment #223231 by milleradam37

How does God manufacture DNA, so as to make a new species?

485. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223233 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Comment #223232 by txpiper

I want more than you criticising others. I want a demonstration of your super-powers. I am particularly interested in physics. As you can interpret data better than Einstein or Hawking, I'd like you to tell me - will the LHC discover evidence for supersymmetry? A simple yes or no will do.

486. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223226 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Comment #223224 by zenmite

I was careful to say "almost all forms". Zen and Theravada Buddhism can be quite free of any supernatural aspects.

487. Breeding for God

Comment #223087 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Comment #223085 by Fanusi Khiyal

The consequences of feline rule would be awful.

My real-world example is - have you seen a cat play with a mouse? Or had to deal with cat droppings in a flower bed?

488. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223086 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Comment #223083 by fizhburn

Don't worry. I understand the motivation to show that txpiper is being dealt with for the casual reader of this site, and I support that.

I just think it is worth pointing out to such readers exactly what txpiper is claiming.

489. Breeding for God

Comment #223079 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Fanusi-

Of course. But the statement I made to which you objected wasn't about the hypothetical

Would you kill all the kittehs?

I need to know, now.

490. Breeding for God

Comment #223074 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Comment #223072 by Quetzalcoatl

You must read Larry Niven!

I would start with "Protector", then "Ringworld"

491. Breeding for God

Comment #223073 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Comment #223071 by Nairb

Thank you for your calm and informative posts. I believe there is a real problem with radical muslims in the UK, but I see no evidence that this is an increasing problem. Muslims have been in the UK for centuries and have not attempted to overthrow society. There are significant problems we do need to deal with in these communities, such as scientific education, but these are nothing like the problems that Fanusi describes.

492. Breeding for God

Comment #223070 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #223058 by Quetzalcoatl

That is clearly a "cat-tail". Have you read much Larry Niven?

493. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223065 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 11:43 am

We seem to be going round in circles here.

What it comes down to is txpiper's claim to be a super-hero. He either has super-intelligence skills to out-think Einstein, or he has super-data-interpretation skills that mean he can see things that Darwin, Watson, Crick and Dawkins can't.

I think we have played his game too long. If he wants to be ranked alongside spiderman or catwoman, or the hulk, we need to see evidence of his powers. I suggest some kind of scientific prediction?

txpiper- are you prepared to put your super-powers to the test?

494. Breeding for God

Comment #223062 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 11:37 am

Comment #223058 by Quetzalcoatl

"Bandwidth exceeded"? You mean you would close down the Lolcat sites?

495. Breeding for God

Comment #223054 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 11:28 am

Comment #223053 by Quetzalcoatl

I am sure the great serpent God Quetzalcoatl would have no problem dealing with the little bundles of fur no matter what the spelling.

496. Breeding for God

Comment #223049 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 10:37 am

Comment #223045 by Fanusi Khiyal

Incidentally, I'll answer that one if you tell me what the consequences of feline rule are - I'm afraid I'm baffled.

That is the point. You have to clearly establish and convince us of the consequences.

497. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223042 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 10:28 am

Comment #222743 by txpiper

My objections to evolution and my acceptance of creation theory are two completely separate things.

Comment #223039 by The Reverend Dark

Only in the dark and mouse haunted regions of your underutilized, underfilled, brainpan.

I actually think you are being too nice. I really don't believe him.

498. Breeding for God

Comment #223040 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

Comment #223037 by Fanusi Khiyal

So, knowing full well what Saudi Arabia is like, you'd sooner see Europe become like it than expell Shariah supporters?

Please stop this. You have to first establish the validity of your premises.

Otherwise, I can play this game too:

"Knowing full well the consequences of feline rule, you would rather have ceiling cat theocracy than slaughter all kittens?"

499. Breeding for God

Comment #223029 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #223025 by Fanusi Khiya

My views about the expulsion of Shariah supporters are really more dangerous?

I would say yes, they are. The views of the others you mention are explicitly awful. Most people in the West would not tolerate them in any way. Your views are seductive to many who don't know how fragile democracy could be. We have seen in places like Boznia how easy it is to persuade people that some of their neighbours and friends are "other", and what horrors that can lead to.

500. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223012 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 8:54 am

Comment #223006 by Bonzai

My position is that it is that people hugely over-estimate the ability of imagination and introspection as sources of not just truth, but anything particularly useful. Any system of belief that relies on those is flawed.

I am not sure whether I would call what those people (who I would call religious) do harmful, but I would worry if they started to say that their "worship of the goddess" lead them to any particular view of what they, or others, should do.