Comments by Steve Zara

501. 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.

502. 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.

503. 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.

504. 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.

505. 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.

506. 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.

507. 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.

508. 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.

509. 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?

510. 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?

511. 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.

512. 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.

513. 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?

514. 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.

515. 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.

516. 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"

517. 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.

518. 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?

519. 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?

520. 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?

521. 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.

522. 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.

523. 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.

524. 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?"

525. 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.

526. 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.

527. Breeding for God

Comment #223011 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 8:49 am

It's very rare I can find myself on a thread where I agree with both Al-rawandi and Bonzai at the same time, but this is one occasion.

528. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222983 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 7:26 am

Comment #222977 by irate_atheist

If it involves the supernatural, yes. If it doesn't, I can't see how it can be called religion.

529. Breeding for God

Comment #222982 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 7:25 am

Comment #222980 by Fanusi Khiyal

I am sorry, gentlemen, that I will be obliged to save your goddamn necks along with my own.

You really are a self-important fellow, who clearly has no respect for democracy.

You don't get to define policy, thank goodness.

530. Breeding for God

Comment #222966 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:58 am

Comment #222964 by al-rawandi

Your ideas are a greater threat to my liberal way of life than any Muslim.

I say the same.

531. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222965 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:57 am

Comment #222962 by Old Sarum

For those who genuinely respect both truth & humanity, encouraging religion to creatively evolve so as to better serve human needs, is a lot more constructive, makes a lot more sense, & has far more hope of success than some theatrical "fight to the death" which no side will ever win.

I would rather eradicate the virus of superstition so people can have a clear view of the wonders of Nature. I don't support just making the fog of delusion a little less opaque.

532. Breeding for God

Comment #222963 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #222961 by Fanusi Khiyal

I will read it and comment on each in turn, to the best of my ability to do so.

I am sorry, but I am afraid I just don't believe you any more. I don't see it as my task to summarise this thread because you seem to refuse to accept what people post.

533. Breeding for God

Comment #222960 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #222956 by Fanusi Khiyal

I am sure Al will answer for himself eloquently, but I have a question for you - are you ever going to accept "no" for an answer, or will you simply keep calling us evasive, and asking us again and again until you get the answer you want?

534. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222958 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:51 am

Comment #222953 by ForestMist

I can't blame you for getting lost :)

There can be supernatural beings, but no single supreme one. Or rather, for Buddhism, the issue of a supreme being or create is just not relevant.

535. Breeding for God

Comment #222955 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #222950 by Fanusi Khiyal

Have I or have I not said, repeatedly, that if I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I will change my views? Well?

Yes, but when presented with evidence to the contrary, you have not changed your views.

So I consider your statement here to be economical with the actualite.

536. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222954 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:46 am

Comment #222949 by Old Sarum

Um, by deciding to?

You don't get to use words as you wish. Religion involves the supernatural. That involves unverifiable claims about reality.

The only people who would say, "These people aren't really religious" are those who regard such outrageously creative thinking as too upsetting to contemplate. This would include not only unimaginitive atheists, but plenty of unimaginitive religious conservatives.

This is where my niceness and patience start to wear thin. This is just fluffy nonsense, but with an offensive core. You are calling people like Dawkins and Sagan, Gould and Hawking "unimaginative atheists".

537. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222946 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:33 am

Comment #222943 by ForestMist

How can you have a religion that doesn't require believing in some kind of celestial super-being?

Buddhism requires no God or Gods. But it is still a religion in almost all forms because it requires a believe in the supernatural.

538. Breeding for God

Comment #222945 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:32 am

Comment #222941 by Gregg Townsend

Yes. As Al says, it was a "do this or we are all doomed" choice.

Many of us did not wish to go along with his plans even if we were all doomed.

For me, a society that resorts to deportation of its own citizens simply because of their views is already pretty wrecked. If we are going to have to be wrecked anyway, I don't want to be part of the process that does this.

Al says-

It is the same old tune, some fascist tries to scare the shit out of people to they will hand over their rights. And anyone who disagrees gets labeled a traitor... or the equivalent here "irrational". It is the old Nazi tactic, Goebbels detailed it most precisely.

I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, but I get the impression here that there is an insistence on using scare tactics, even when there has been good evidence that the scare is exaggerated, to justify an outcome - expulsion. I think there is truth in Al's words here.

539. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222939 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:20 am

Comment #222936 by Old Sarum

Believe me, if you stop being habitually "anti-religion" even for a couple of hours, it's easy to perceive a creative future for religion that doesn't require "religious people" to be defined as "people who believe things that aren't true".

No, it isn't. The human imagination is not a reliable guide to truth.

540. Breeding for God

Comment #222938 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #222935 by Gregg Townsend

I think it's basically that because muslims are planning to take over all of Europe and force Dawkins' daughter to wear a burka, we should sort out those who Aren't Nice (I guess we just ask "are you nice?") and dump them all in Sudan or the Antarctic (I hear penguin-meat is tasty).

Confused, me?

541. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222931 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #222928 by Old Sarum

The mistake-free religion would be for those are already inclined to want a mistake-free religion.

Because religion requires use of the imagination to decide about truth, the only mistake-free religion is no religion.

542. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222927 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #222924 by Old Sarum

Who are "they"?

Most religions.

And why they are they forever doomed to fulfil this prognosis?

Because religions (by any reasonable definition of the term) require a belief in the supernatural. The supernatural can't be accessed by reason and science.

I promise you, Steve, that if I start up a religion, it will insist on recognising the intellectual authority of science & reason in the sphere of "objective truth" :)

So what is left? And how will you convert others?

543. Breeding for God

Comment #222923 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:45 am

Comment #222920 by al-rawandi

I think it's worse than that. It also includes

"Agree with me or you are irrational"

544. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222922 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #222919 by Old Sarum

Religions will always make mistakes because they rate human imagination over rationality and science.

The problem with religion is the privileged position it gives intuition and imagination as ways to understand reality.

EDIT:

Quetz. There is an easy solution. All we have to do is set up a religion that is mistake free, and then convince everyone that is the right religion. Ummm... how do we do that? "My imagination is more reliable than yours?"

545. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222910 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #222905 by Old Sarum

If you want religion to be more than just an exercise of the imagination, then it overlaps areas of science and reason, which is inappropriate. If you remove it from those areas, then it is nothing more than just imagination, so it isn't religion.

546. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222903 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #222902 by Old Sarum

You seem to want to define religion as simply the exercise of the imagination. That just won't do.

547. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222900 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:57 am

Comment #222898 by Old Sarum

Religion is not the imaginative nature of spiritual experience.

Please see Comment #222838

548. Breeding for God

Comment #222899 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #222890 by Dr Doctor

Yet more baseless assertions. If I don't get browbeaten by page after page of insults, what makes you think I'll be browbeaten by you trying to do unto me what Steve Zara was doing unto you?

I am not sure I can untangle the meaning of this...

549. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222896 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #222893 by Old Sarum

We certainly do, but we'd be making a sad mistake if we assumed that the cognitive constraints of reason & science need to dominate all our engagements with the world, even in those spheres where they're both irrelevant & self-defeating.

That is nothing to do with religion. Religion is not about things like art appreciation.

550. Breeding for God

Comment #222895 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:50 am

Comment #222887 by keith

I have no problem with reasonable immigration controls.

I have no problem with sending people who come here and try to cause problems back to their country of origin (as long as they are in no danger there).

But expulsion de-humanises because it is irreversible, and says that certain people are unable to have their mind or behaviour changed. It gives them (and us) no hope for their future.

No doubt all of this does have 'overtones', as someone on this thread vaguely put it. Precisely what these overtones might have been he didn't say. He clearly thought that it was enough to simply say the word to conjure up pictures of Nuremberg Rallies on the one hand, contrasted with his own liberal credentials on the other.

It was me. Let me be specific. I was being vague to see if I could draw out the implications of what expulsion meant from Fanusi.

This reminds me of the Bosnian situation. It is a form of "cultural cleansing", in which no debate is allowed. Express the wrong idea, no matter how mildly and you lose your citizenship and human rights.

Still, as Fanusi in this case rightly said, sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils and you really can't afford to be too fastidious when the democracy of a whole continent is at stake.

If we reach a point at which natives of a country are dragged from their homes and sent off to foreign lands, simply because of what they propose, then Western democracy is already dead, and we will be the ones who will have destroyed it.