551. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125778 by Styrer- on February 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

Happy Darwin Day!

There are some really fantastic e-cards - what a creative bunch you really are!

Darwin would surely have been delighted.

My fave - priest and reflective chimp!

This has turned into a really cheerful Tuesday - thank you all!

Best,
Styrer

552. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125176 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 am

I'd much rather be "Richard" to you lot.

Thank you for the kind words, but the thread is not really supposed to be about me but about suggestions for my successor and especially about Charles Simonyi's wonderful manifesto.

Richard

That's a tall order, Richard, as your accomplished work has more or less made the manifesto your own since its inception.

There is a welcome - and unfortunately prophetic - warning on not 'dumbing down' in the words 'The public's expectation of scholars is high, and it is only fitting that we have a high expectation of the public.' At least Richard has rigorously stuck to this, if not others. Would it were always so, in every field.

Steven Pinker is my suggestion.

Best,
Styrer

553. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125139 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 2:41 am

...surely words will fail them.

Wouldn't count on it. They'll bang on as is their wont, and at least keep the Hitch happy with fun-filled hours of disputation.

As for Richard, his temperate language (however much the faithheads wish to continuously remind us of their ignorance by terming it 'shrill' etc.) is more required in the public arena than ever. I'm looking forward to his taking his 'stridency' to a whole new level!

Best,
Styrer

554. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125131 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 2:29 am

Don't worry, you are not getting rid of me that easily! Retirement from the Oxford Chair will free me up to be even more strident, shrill etc etc etc. I expect to be busier than ever, with two Foundations to run (the British and American branches of RDFRS), books to write (I have already started the next one) and who knows what else?
Richard

Excellent! The shriller and more strident, the better.

A whole new generation needs your attention, and it seems to me you've never been more in your stride. You certainly opened my eyes, and I hope you continue to perform the same service for many others.

Thanks for everything so far, and Happy Busy Retirement!

Best,
Styrer

555. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124906 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 12:07 pm

What happened to the string of obscenity laden ranting you engaged in last night. Today you sound downright temperate. :)

Ah, but was it really... a string? :)

Perhaps. But I think you'll find that I didn't abuse a fellow member's intellect quite as we've seen here.

In any case, I'll be the first to try to fight against an untenable proposition if I can. I'm sure you'll join me, at least here. :)

Best,
Styrer

556. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124893 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 11:53 am

Scooternyc

Steve Zara is one of the reasons why this site is such a joy to me. His posts are consistently educational and incisive.

I must tell you that I learn far more from him on most issues than I have learnt from you on reading your posts here.

I think you should re-consider your erroneous and unfair position on this - you are coming over extremely poorly in this thread, and are weakening the import of anything worthwhile you have to say.

Styrer

557. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124845 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 11:06 am

Absolutely superb. Typically thrusting opinions, magnificently expressed.

Keep up the good work, Pat.

Best,
Styrer

558. Blasphemy

Comment #124825 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 10:34 am

Re: gr8hands' comments:

You are in error at numerous points in your post.

You are wrong about the use of ad hominem:

'An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.'

Your earlier comment 'I do not think anything in Dennett's letter was "disturbing." In fact, the only thing "disturbed" appears to be Styrer' is a text-book example of the above definition of an ad hom.

To be 'on the piss', as you inaccurately quote, is quite different from 'taking the piss', which means 'to be joking'.

Your refusal to point out why my ideas are wrong, and your attempt to make a virtue out of such refusal, when you are challenged, to provide a proper account of your disagreement, are intellectually risible and unworthy.

You have unfortunately shown yourself utterly incapable of either 'putting up' or of 'shutting up', as I invited you to do. As a result, you have unfortunately simply confirmed to me that neither your comments nor your approach can be taken seriously and can hence safely be dismissed.

Styrer

559. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124793 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 9:19 am

a) Procrastinatory value in the face of impending thesis deadlines.
b) So that they don't think they can get away unchallenged with spouting such drivel in public.
c) An relish for being patronising to people that is entirely unworthy of me.
d) Lack of sleep.

I think that just about has it covered....

Points well taken!

Work away! :)

Best,
Styrer

560. Blasphemy

Comment #124264 by Styrer- on February 9, 2008 at 1:21 am

By the way, took a quick look at your profile - have you read The God Delusion yet?



No, other than a number of online excerpts, and a few dozen video interviews with Prof. Dawkins. I'm sure I will learn something when I get around to reading it, but judging from the repetition in the interviews and debate videos, I'd guess I have the general flavor already.



If not, why not? :)



Well, for starters I strongly dislike paper. Paper is not quite as destructive as motorized transportation, but it is quite a destructive technology, something like the third or fourth largest contributor to greenhouse gas if we can believe Al Gore's book (itself written on paper), and paper is horribly obsolete compared to what we can do with wikis.

I also hate paper because it represents an inflexible dead end medium for information. Having lots of information on paper tends to force people to build large offices to store and process it. This in turn forces people to drag their brains around in motor vehicles so they can get at the paper. Paper is part of the obsolete communication regime that we must entirely invert in the post-Peak Oil world. Instead of physically transporting brains to information, which will continue to become ever more expensive, we must redesign our processes to transport information to brains, thereby chaining human progress and value generation to the exponentiating goodness of Moore's law. Moore's law is the winged horse waiting to fly us off the dismal backside of Hubbert's curve.

I'm completely spoiled now by the ease of reading heavy prose on a site like Wikipedia, where all the jargon terms have hyperlinks that define them. (And if they don't have links, I can just add them, for the benefit of all other readers!) My brain fully expects hypermedia now, which I am free to improve, and having to go back to flat static paper feels pretty oppressive to me. If I see some word I don't know in paper, or an author alludes to some subject I need a refresher about, I can't just click on it to get the details.

For example, I recently had a go at the Ancestor's Tale, as I felt a need for another Dawkins fix. It's an excellent book, of course, but I found myself running off to Wikipedia to see what Prof. Dawkins was writing about so often that after a while it just became fatiguing. For example, the book mentions the foxes that were bred into dog-like creatures. My powers of imagination are just not sufficient to do justice to the topic from words alone; I had to get the full story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_silver_fox

No amount of reading mere text about the tame silver foxes can equal the impact of seeing the photo of them when you click the link. In my opinion, anyway.

I agree with Prof. Dawkins on the wonder of science, but much of that wonder is not reducible to prose. We need to look at stuff. On a wiki, everyone is free to enhance the presentation by uploading photos and illustrations.

It's getting hard for me to settle for mere paper when the whole time I'm mentally shouting at the author: "This needs to be a wiki! This needs to be a wiki!"

Even so, I will suffer through the paper version of The God Delusion when the rather large number of copies in my local library system work off their impressive request backlog. I figure if all those other people have requested the book, presumably some of them are not as far along with the doubt process as I am, and they deserve the first crack.

Perhaps someday I shall write The Paper Delusion.
Just after I finish The Automobile Delusion.

Other Comments by Teratornis

Are you taking the piss?

If you're not, then Christ, you are in for some sorry pseudo-educational years ahead of you.

Wikipedia's good stuff is equal to its crap content.

You simply MUST buy and read books, Teratornis.

You don't read books simply for the knowledge content of them. You learn from them the value of form and content; you learn how better to express those ideas you wish to express.

You acquaint yourself with style.

Is it simply a co-incidence that your posts here are amongst the longest? No. You are taking copious amounts of e-paper to express your thoughts.

Your pro-environment, anti-paper stance has made a long-winded writer of you, my friend. I wish you well in ensuring that this never extends to your thinking, too.

Get some paper out, lad. Start writing a few notes. And read a fucking book.

Please.

Best,
Styrer

561. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124261 by Styrer- on February 9, 2008 at 12:40 am

dkv

Thank You, but I am trying to get in this circus idea for changing, you tell me how, I will thank you for. Godless site and I know you will help me to please this, as I no longer atheist, I am not happy here so I can, of course, without problem simply do this, I am making to you my last ditch effort to find God.

Please help me to answer my question, however, will my God hate me forever? I hear all you choose to do so, you will stand before God as your adjudicator during Final Judgement and He will recall your failure to answer my question. Please no hell for you, my friend! So please answer my question.

Someone told me that I meantime find the Word of the Almighty, and be blessed with the promise that I may sit by His side in Heaven, you may find that your failure to show me the initial way and path is dictated by God as a failure to serve when you could. Is this true?, please and you may experience His eternal wrath through His separation of you from His presence.

Please help me, Wooter, ok yes, help to do what you can.

Ystrer

562. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124256 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Cartomancer

Indeed, a pleasure to read.

For a fellow atheist. But because your comment is filled with reason, sympathy and nicely-turned phrases, it is bound, because of all these, not to reach its target on a faithhead.

Why, may I ask, do you fucking bother?

Are you still really holding out hope?

Why expend so much thinking-time and key-pressing on those for whom your wise words are proven to fall flat?

You worry me.

Best,
Styrer

563. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124242 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Shrommer

I am making to you my last ditch effort to find God.

If you don't answer my question, however you choose to do so, you will stand before God as your adjudicator during Final Judgement and He will recall your failure to answer my question. Should I meantime find the Word of the Almighty, and be blessed with the promise that I may sit by His side in Heaven, you may find that your failure to show me the initial way and path is dictated by God as a failure to serve when you could, and you may experience His eternal wrath through His separation of you from His presence.

Are you really going to risk it?

Answer my question, or else, sunshine.

Styrer

564. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124241 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Let Shrommer answer my twice-repeated question, please, folks.

Don't scare him off.

Styrer

565. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124236 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Last chance, Shrommer.

Can you answer - in one sentence, of no longer than three words, the following question:

Is it possible that your god does not exist?

Best,
Styrer

566. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124232 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Shrommer

Just in case, I'll give you a go.

Can you answer - in one sentence, of no longer than three words, the following question:

Is it possible that your god does not exist?

Best,
Styrer

567. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #124223 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 8:51 pm

In principle, this is absolutely fantastic.

What the hell in principle is there to disagree with?

Am I serious about getting the anti-theist anti-supernaturalist message out there? Hell, yes.

Are not you all?

Full marks, Sam. In principle.

But I'll need a stern sit-down with you if you've any intention of banging on about the word 'atheist'...

Personally, and in practice as distinct from principle, I could not possibly be associated with an organ which cited as no. 1 in its submission guideline priorities 'Please avoid material that is too topical or trivial.' I find that my considerations of the more weighty issues of the day stem from both these latter, prohibited areas. But that's just me.

I'll simply stick to the principle of the thing, as a result.

I nonetheless look forward to seeing how it pans out for you. In practice.

Best,
Styrer

568. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124221 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Not so with Dawkins, who has little time for such pandering, and who gets straight to the facts.

Precisely. Well said.

That other 'Horseman' Dennett, after his latest piece, could well do with taking a leaf out of the Professor's book when it comes to intellectual honesty.

Best,
Styrer

569. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124216 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I think the morality argument is being missed here. The point is that we have this fundamental sense of right and wrong. There really is no justification for this if we got here by slaughtering each other for millions of years (or whatever the story says), having concerned ourselves simply with passing our genes on. We could possibly have instituted such morals for the benefit that they offer us, but then there is no justification for giving them any importance beyond this. But I would wager that many atheists, just like many believers, truly believe that it is wrong, for example, to kill somebody in cold blood, or to scam someone out of their honestly earned income. I would wager that these atheists believe this not simply because they think such moral notions are important in order to keep peace in society, but because it is inherently wrong. This is the essence of the argument. Where did this moral sense - this moral intuition, as Margaret Sommerville emphasizes so much - come from? I don't think you can argue that it came out of the context of "survival of the fittest". But this is precisely what Darwinians must argue. It is neither here nor there that any particular atheist feels this moral sense to a greater extent than a believer in Christianity does. The point is that we ALL feel this moral sense, to a greater degree in certain cases, to a lesser degree in others. This is what must be explained, and Darwinism cannot do it.

I make no apology for repeating my idea in rebuttal of your comment, which may assist you:

The realisation by Chomsky (much developed by Pinker) that human babies are born with brains which have a 'universal grammar', before expression of it manifests in one particular (native) language, suggests to me that morality may have similar evolutionarily adapted origin.

If so, it is likely that there is a 'universal morality' embedded in our material brains in the same way as 'universal grammar' is embedded there. This embedded, evolutionarily developed 'universal morality' may then manifest itself (as with language) as a morality based on the more specific environmental and cultural influences (e.g. Japan as distinct from North Korea) of the place where the material brain engages with the world.

The foregoing, based as it is on evidence, is a reasonable candidate explanation of humankind's morality.

Would you not agree that this is more compelling than the notion that holy texts are the ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong? If you disagree, pray explain your preference for certain 'holy codes' over others. Is it not the case that you bring to bear upon your chosen holy text an independent judgement of what is good and bad, quite independent of the text itself? Your decision to grant more power and authority to one 'moral lesson' in your holy text over another shows that you are, flat out, bringing your own moral values to the party.

You will notice that they are brought to any such party without any recourse whatsoever to the supernatural. Darwin is very much more in the moral picture than any notion of theism can possibly be.

Best,
Styrer

570. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #124199 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 6:00 pm

PZ Myers is by far a better writer than he is a speaker.

His written turns of phrase would leave promising Nobel Prize-winning writers in their tracks, contemplating where they went wrong.

But how atrocious he unfortunately is at public speaking.

Put him in front of an audience and, oh my word! How different he appears from Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. (It is my sorry duty to say that he is not so much worse than Dennett on appearance, but Dennett can take solace from the notion that Myers is, at least, worse.)

His continuous movement from one side of view to the other, his breathlessly enunciated sentences, his absolute lack of engagement, physically, with the audience before him - all make me relieved that, for one reason or another, no place for a 'Fifth Horseman' has yet been made available.

He would actually do the atheistic cause an enormous disservice, I am very sorry to say, if he continues to rise above his most beautifully elegant prose and present himself in public to enunciate such fine letters.

Best,
Styrer

571. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124184 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I see that "Darwin" and "Dawkins" have now become one and the same person according to krisking here. Maybe in a couple of thousand years' time we'll all be talking about the biological works of the prodigiously long-lived Charles-Richard Darkins, and radical revisionist historians will be shouted down for trying to suggest that he was actually two different people.

Well spotted, Cartomancer.

I've just aborted my own comment in this regard. Yours is far funnier, in any case. :)

Best,
Styrer

572. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124166 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

19. Comment #124149 by Big City on February 8, 2008 at 1:37 pm

I hate to agree with Styrer (cos more often than not he's a pretentious douchebag), but in this case I do agree that it is best to address the issue. This is why we look to humanism for morality and not to an observation about nature.

Big City

Pretentious? Moi-meme, monsieur?

Pray elucidate the thesis of your proposition with alacrity, sir.

Seriously, why pretentious, and why a douchebag? If you disagree with me, speak up! Tell me why I'm being such a wanker, when you think it. I don't want to be the High Twat of the site, so I'll welcome your comments, even if I don't finally agree.

Fair?

Surely your agreement with the idea that Dawkins is using words precisely as they should be used is more central here, in any case.

It is when the Prof uses his well-earned public prominence to communicate with the masses as he does here that I think there may be a chance for superstitious supernaturalism to be delivered a blow which the likes of you, Big City, and I are unable to do.

Certainly the Prof does not give me 'faith'; but he does bring me hope. Long may he continue to do so through his words, without so-called adherents of rationality ceding, all too often, possible ground to the pro-supernaturalists by cowardly backing off from the words, properly used by the Professor, we need to refute their pernicious and irrational propositions.

Best,
Styrer

573. Blasphemy

Comment #124154 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Teratornis

Thanks for that. Very educational. Nothing with which I disagreed.

By the way, took a quick look at your profile - have you read The God Delusion yet?

If not, why not? :)

Best,
Styrer

574. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124146 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm

just screams �quot;quotemine�. Expect to see bastardised versions of it on the ID blogs any day now. Like a couple of earlier commenters - and like Charles Darwin himself - I am not happy with the Spencerian connotations of the word ‘fittest’. I wish the great man had listened to his instincts and avoided it.

At its simplest natural selection is merely an unarguable tautology: those organisms best at producing the most offspring, produce the most offspring. (Or, in post-Darwinian terms - those best at passing on their genes, pass on their genes.) Phrasing it in that unthreatening way can get you quite deep into enemy territory before they even realise they’re under attack.

I could not disagree more with your 'back off, don't say it as it is for fear of offending or being quotemined' approach.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your criticism of Dawkins' words by supplying us all with a list of words we can use/avoid?

No. Your approach will never eliminate those disingenuous individuals on blogs you seem to fear simply by using different terminology.

Full marks to Dawkins for his unflinching and nigh-on heroic insistence on using words just as they are meant to be used.

Your fearful and cowardly response to Dawkins' precise and felicitous use of certain words does not do you, Dawkins and his ideas, or this site, any justice whatsoever.

Best,
Styrer

575. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124142 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 1:01 pm

This is just playing into the hands of propagandists who like to link these two subjects. I've never seen anything by Hitler that mentions Darwin. "Might is Right" is just fascism, not socialism of Darwinian or any other form.

Bollocks. Dawkins is doing precisely the opposite to 'playing into the hands of propagandists who like to link these two subjects.' He is attacking their argument at its very roots and saying it is a completely wrong-headed interpretation.

You are wrong to say that Social Darwinism is not a well-known and popularised piece of dogma - refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism if you're not convinced.

It's out there, and the Prof's reference to it is essential in an attempt to refute its claims.

Best,
Styrer

576. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124134 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Here though, Dawkins seems to imply that the theory of evolution has something to say about how life got started. Is it not better to keep these two questions separate?

Your own quote in your post surely indicates that the Prof is not talking about abiogenesis here? Does this quote not answer your own question?

In any case, how wonderful it is to be reminded that the Professor is right at the top of his game.

It's also great to see that he shows that language itself, and not only evolutionary theory, has the power to demonstrate the complex whilst based in the simple. Dawkins' use of language should be compulsory study in language classes around the globe to show the power it can hold.

Great stuff.

Best,
Styrer

577. Blasphemy

Comment #124077 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 9:47 am

Styrer: I've read your posts with interest. I concede that you make some persuasive points about Dennett's double-speak. However, I think we disagree by degrees. I think you're overstating the case a little. This article is clearly not written to an intended audience of Muslims. I'm not aware of the typical editorial content of the Boston Globe but I'm assuming it to be a left-of-centre oriented journal. If that's the case then it's conceivable that Dennett is addressing himself to those liberals who are somewhat reluctant to lift the bull's tail and look the facts of Islam in the face. I accept that Dennett has softened his usual line on Islam here, but I also think it's reasonable to address different audiences in different contexts in different ways. This is a brief article in a newspaper, not an academic contribution to a scholarly journal. Dennett's comments in 'Breaking the Spell' (which seemed to me to be the most painstakingly-careful-not-to-cause-too-much-offence book by a 'Horseman') are, in the main, generalised and not written with the consideration of how the remarks might contribute to the perilous circumstances of a journalist fearing for his life. This does make a difference to how we conduct the argument in public. I'm also unclear from your posts so far as to how you think we might best proceed in order to secure a happy outcome in this particular case. Do you propose intellectual honesty at all times in all cases, or would you concede that pragmatism might also have its uses?

Best,
Gaz

Thanks for your courteous reply and questions.

Pragmatism is of course important, and I would venture that this is the normal province of the politicians and diplomats, who are arguably going to have more effect in securing Kambakhsh's safety in this case than an article by a world-renowned and respected academic may have.

Is not at least one of the reasons for Dennett's reputation his career-long insistence on upholding, come what may, the principle of intellectual honesty? If my criticism of his piece here is even slightly valid, does this not threaten to undermine the one shining principle which has made his career so illustrious to date? When I read a report in this site's archives by the US's National Academy of Sciences endorsing the wrong-headed, appeasing NOMA idea, when I see the otherwise commendable Eugenie Scott addressing a hall filled with young minds with the same nonsense, I see a worrying equivalence with the tone Dennett has struck here. If our academic institutions and 'intellectual heroes' (Dawkins' own reference to Dennett) do not feel able to desist from 'spin' and to cling ever more strongly to the ideal of intellectual honesty at all times and at all costs, what purpose do they really finally serve?

gr8hands - if, sir, I am just an upstart punk twerp with poorly formed views, you're of course free to take those views to task and show them up for the bilge they may be. I would be the first to be grateful for your doing so, believe it or not. But simply resorting to an ad hominem does you, me and the ideas no good whatsoever, unless you explain clearly why my ideas should be dismissed. As the saying goes, either put up or shut up.

Best,
Styrer

578. Blasphemy

Comment #122814 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 6:24 am

The article starts of with complaints about occasions when there was appeasement.

Yes, it does. So what?

It then goes on to show examples of appeasement of its own. These fall late in the text - by which point any interested reader is really paying attention.

Do you really think, Steve, that the comment 'Friends don't let friends commit, or condone, evil' is a comment made by a friend, about a friend, to a friend, or in any combination of these? Do you 'let' your friends do anything? Do your friends 'let' you do anything? If you can answer 'yes' to either of these, you should get yourself some new friends.

No, we have friends because we have built up a relationship with them over time based on, at the least, mutual respect. Other factors can only enter into such a relationship later.

Dennett's use of 'friends' by-passes all normal methods and discourse of friendship establishment. His imposition of 'friendship' between non-consenting factions not only smacks of huge condescension; it also tastes of enforced propitiation. In short, of appeasement.

I have already quoted the other disturbing expiatory sentences from this article. I won't repeat them.

I cannot believe that you, Steve, of all members, fail to agree on this.

Best,
Styrer

579. Blasphemy

Comment #122802 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 5:38 am

I really have to disagree with this.

Please do.

Must I now elicit objections? :)

Waiting...

Best,
Styrer

580. Blasphemy

Comment #122799 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 5:31 am

Stryer:

I see what you are saying. But what should Dennett have written?

"I think you are all nuts, but please don't kill the student"?

Yes.

Is it not repeated here and elsewhere that it is improbable that Dennett's article, appeasing as it is to an extreme degree, will have any effect whatsoever anyway?

While criticism couched carefully, if not disingenuously, is granted as probably ineffective, please explain to me why full-blown, strident, loud and - my point - intellectually honest criticism should not be granted a greater chance to spout at the public podium.

It is the latter that I really thought this site was all about.

Best,
Styrer

581. Blasphemy

Comment #122794 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 5:12 am

Styrer - I've thoroughly enjoyed your comments up until now , but they're starting to appear a bit childish. Which is unfortunate, because you were making a lot of sense.

IMO, Mr Dennet has been trying to bring attention to this matter in a way that he thinks may possibly help. You disagree with the way that he is going about this. It is your right to let us know that you disagree with how he is putting across his point.

I feel that you would be better served getting in touch with your MP / Senator / local newspaper /whatever and letting THEM know how you feel, rather than bad mouthing the people in this forum who are all after the same outcome as you i.e. start by saving this one man, and then, hopefully sooner rather than later, wipe religious dogma off the face of the earth. Each journey starts with one step. (Unless you're driving... or taking the bus.... :) )

So you've made your point - now try doing something CONSTRUCTIVE about the situation.

As an aside - feel free to tell me to 'fuck off' if you get your jollies out of that - but then get off your fucking arse and do something to help.

GoNE

Ghost

I wonder if it would be either merely naughty or outright plagiaristic of me to borrow a reply from Dawkins on being admonished?

Hell, here goes: 'I gratefully accept the rebuke'.

Thoroughly enjoyed your post, I want you to know, before taking you to task on your unwarranted attack.

At no point have I ever said, dictated, argued or otherwise proposed that I hold answers which can be relied on to lead to action and, thereby, to an effect of any kind.

I wonder if you are really expecting too much of me, sir.

Having exposed to you my weakness here, may I submit to you that the larger percentage of this site's contributors are equally focused on criticism rather than on cure? And quite rightly, I submit.

For what it's worth, I carry what little weight I have in the reason V faith debate to my local Chamber of Commerce, to my colleagues in other Government (ACELS) approved companies such as mine, and to the local pub, the latter on a more regular basis. But I have never purported to offer solutions, and you do me wrong, I think, in expecting my criticisms of approaches taken by our most vocal speakers to imply answers, to imply strategies, to some of the pressing questions regarding reason's fight with superstitious supernaturalism.

But I would like to do more, certainly. Your suggestions are most interesting (though Ireland is rather short of Senators at this time). But I must ask you to appreciate that solution does not necessarily follow criticism.

The least I can do is to continue to elucidate this latter point for you while I'm a member here. :)

Best,
Styrer

p.s. fuck off

582. Blasphemy

Comment #122777 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 3:55 am

Styrer, you ought to keep your seemingly adolescent angst bottled in. You've done nothing but instigate throughout this thread while contributing nothing to the matter--in fact, the majority of your posts are whinny attacks on other posters. Considering your bias, care to lecture anyone on "intellectual dishonesty" after your unnecessary reply to my own post, which I take personally only on the level that I loathe when idiots aren't aware they are...idiots? You have various nonsensical posts, especially on this thread, so just Keep trollin'.

Beau

Oh dear.

Shouldn't have mentioned the notion of 'trolling'.

I have only once done this before, but be proud - you are my second reported 'troll'.

Why?

- Because, while you are welcome to criticise me as much as you want, you have not supported your attacks with anything close to evidence of my wrongdoing.

- Because your criticism of me seems to fall away into suspiciously poor English.

- Because you have not uttered a single intelligible thought that I, with all my 'Keep trollin'' abilities, can simply comprehend and reply to.

Got it?

Good.

Now fuck off.

Styrer.

583. Blasphemy

Comment #122759 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 1:57 am

Thought is to man as is each inhale and exhale; we can no sooner restrict or find accusation within the thoughts of men than we can limit the amount of oxygen he consumes. In Afghanistan, the execution sentence of Sayed Parwiz Kambaksh for blasphemy is perniciously reminiscent of a barbaric age. The underlying difference, yet simultaneous significance, between the plague of suicide bombing and this atrocious death sentence is that a country under the veil of democracy salaciously upholds its authority to end life; it is a concentrated effort without reason that sways from antiqued doctrine to ideologies of past struggling in the face of secularism. One could venture to say that such an inane sentence is immoral, but the point of the matter is the aggrandizing sense of morality the decision seems to acquiesce to. Absolute authority is maintained by following through with a death sentence of which the Afghan senate yearns to expedite before foreign interference. This solidifies their power by ingraining people with a fear of life reciprocal to Christian youth manipulated into a fear of Hell in our own country. An argument from a cultural relativist perspective treading carefully equally burdens life just as soon as is it at risk for progressive opinion. The bitter irony at hand here is the fact that there is no second guessing the repercussions for blasphemy, murder. It is a sentence passed upon someone’s existence as if funds were being donated to charity. This issue typifies the problem with Muslim fundamentalists and if there is little protest to a singular act of this nature then the entire effort to subdue radical fundamentalists fails and unabashedly supports Theocracy.

Couldn't understand a word.

Say something understandable or piss off.

Styrer

584. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #122757 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 1:16 am

It is with real happiness that I respond to this clip. Not only does the Professor remind us of the wonders of the universe and of our place in it - these can sometimes go unmentioned, or unemphasized, by the other 'horsemen' - but he also shows up the despicable NOMA idea for its true worthlessness.

'A universe with a god is very different scientifically from a universe without a god.'

I can't stop thinking that this is the core to it all.

As for the morality issue - well, I am about as bored with this as the Prof must be in having to constantly address it.

Thank you, Professor. I wonder if you ever thought that sheer repetition would play as large a part in this as your teaching must also require at New College.

Thank you sincerely for having the stomach for it.

Best,
Styrer

585. Blasphemy

Comment #122748 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 12:05 am

He doesn't say it is a great faith. What he says is that it is time, for those who claim it is a great faith, to step up and prove it.

You have just placed your finger, unerringly, and perhaps unwittingly, on the reason that Dennett's piece falls as a re-establishment of secular values and as a condemnation of the treatment of Mr. Kambakhsh. The letter of its word is disingenuous. Its message to the moderates is flat-out insincere.

I submit that this piece is too cleverly ironic for its own good. It is also insulting - not as it should be, in simply and honestly condemning the run-away beast of faith - but in its apparent presumption that moderate Muslims are too stupid to see through Dennett's wholly unsatisfactory ruse.

Don't you believe it.

This article - I am reminded of a comment from Harris - has managed to betray intellectual honesty and ironic penmanship equally.

Best,
Styrer

586. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122727 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 10:00 pm

'Brothers under the skin' (Hitch, on receipt of some bourbon at the end).

Wonderful comment, and does anyone agree with me that this is the flavour we taste when any of the Horsemen are in debate with some of the more intelligent faithheads? That the faithheads engaged are but a hair's breadth away from slamming down their religious text of preference, crying out 'Ok, that's it, I agree' and heading off to the bar for a most secular round of drinks?

The crashing wake-up thunder to reality comes, of course, when we realise that this is precisely what the faithheads are thinking of us by return, contemplating the joy they can share in proclaiming to their fellow sheep: 'I got one!'

Careful there, folks. Don't succumb to the charms of a bottle of firewater as easily as the Hitch.

Always insist on two, at the very least.

Best,
Styrer

587. Blasphemy

Comment #122710 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 9:10 pm

When intellectually honest engagement cannot meet the requirements of non-violence, the central issue here, a strategy has to be formulated.

LorienRyan

Intellectually honest engagement is surely its own strategy.

It may lose a few skirmishes; it may be powerless, at any one point, to counter the horrific actions of the faithful; but a steady drip of the stuff has brought about so many concessions from the faithful (particularly in Christianity) in the teeth of their faith over the last century or so that it is surely worth sticking with as a means to achieving a rational worldview.

Heretical as it may seem, I do not think Dennett's piece has done intellectual integrity any service here whatsoever in its attempts to break down the wall of irrational religious superstition which separates many of its adherents from 'witnessing the world in truth'.

Best,
Styrer

588. Blasphemy

Comment #122698 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 8:43 pm

The difference of opinion is noted.

Thanks for noting the difference of opinion I noted.

Care to add anything more?

Your apparent churlishness surely stems from an unexpressed disagreement?

Go on, you know you want to... :)

Best,
Styrer

589. Blasphemy

Comment #122688 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 8:06 pm

LorienRyan (I didn't make a fuss first time, but now I must, on your second misspelling of my name!)

Ends justifying means? I certainly understand that the end here is to keep Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh alive.

But for how many others in the future, condemned by the tenets of a particular faith, will Dennett be prepared to pamper to the moderates in an attempt to bring on some kind of religious reformation, while forgoing wholesale a full denunciation and condemnation of those very tenets which an intellectually honest engagement surely requires?

How far will you yourself go, sir?

Respectfully, I think Dennett, and yourself, have gone too far already down the appeasement path. As have those posters here who have given wholly uncritical and effusive support to a piece which is not nearly as deserving of praise as they think.

Best,
Styrer

590. Blasphemy

Comment #122674 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 7:23 pm

LorienRyan

No projection. You have surely by now seen 'The Four Horsemen', and perhaps read 'Breaking the Spell', which, together with his other talks, refute your protection of Dennett's integrity in uttering the words 'Islam is a great faith'.

No - there is no integrity in these words when measured against his earlier pronouncements, and I am saddened that he continues to think that appeasement (and I am in the habit, as you may know, of qualifying this word on this site with the words 'historically dangerous') is a persuasive argumentative stance to take in what is, hyperbole notwithstanding, a war between reason and supernatural superstition.

Is it too much to ask that a figure of such intellectual eminence as Dennett not be granted an uncritical pass on all of his utterances? The same goes for the other Horsemen, of course.

You would do all of them an enormous disservice by not taking them at the letter of their accumulated words.

Best,
Styrer

591. Blasphemy

Comment #122653 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Styrer, your distaste helps no-one.

Perhaps you are correct that my distaste helps no-one - my own is undoubtedly not a matter of significance to anyone besides possibly my family and friends - but you are surely wrong in thinking that distaste is not a call to re-consideration, to action, and hence to possible 'help' in reason's war with supernatural superstition.

I was quite prepared to grant Dennett political astuteness in his piece, but this in no way means that I endorsed its employment. There is a vein of dishonesty running through his piece, and no little condescension. Is he not really saying here: 'Of course moderates are as whacko in what they believe as the fundies, but the mods can surely be played to more effectively'?

As for your comments about 'respecting the sanctity' - are you quite sure you are posting on the correct site? :)

Best,
Styrer

592. Blasphemy

Comment #122505 by Styrer- on February 5, 2008 at 11:07 am

His approach is politically astute. If it weren't, there is absolutely no way on earth that I would not have vomited copiously at his comment 'The best way of showing our good will towards Islam', nor indeed at the contemptible idea that 'There is no need, yet, for anger'.

Political astuteness aside, I have no good will towards Islam, towards its moderate nor its fundamentalist adherents whatsoever.

And I became angry a good while ago.

Best,
Styrer

593. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119109 by Styrer- on January 31, 2008 at 10:25 am

Many Happy Returns, Josh, and thanks for all your great work.

Have a good 'un.

Best,
Styrer

594. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #118296 by Styrer- on January 30, 2008 at 3:19 pm

GoneGolfing

That's me in my place. Much obliged to you for straightening me out.

Though I assure you Cartomancer is more than equal to dealing with a presumptuous upstart like me.

Best,
Styrer

595. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118064 by Styrer- on January 30, 2008 at 9:33 am

By writing this article, Oakes has greatly contributed to the body of evidence that has persuaded many perceptive people that Jesuits are the most slippery and willfully dishonest of theists.

Undeniably. But why limit the scope of your comment to Jesuits? Its truth value reaches further.

The ridiculous beliefs of all theists render their pretensions to honest discourse slippery and willfully dishonest. I have shocked myself since joining this site by the sheer volume of instances I combine such words as 'disingenuous', 'pernicious, 'desperate' with 'theists', 'the faithful', 'believers'.

The bond between the two forces of such words is intrinsic to a proper explication of the faithful's engagement with the world. It's not just because I'm a seeker of confrontation. The sheer weight of evidence leads me, inexorably, to such a distinction, time and time and time again.

Thank goodness this site exists, to help me learn and engage while I simultaneously vent.

Best,
Styrer

596. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117905 by Styrer- on January 30, 2008 at 12:27 am

I find the style rather well suited to the message myself, but your point has been taken and noted. I have never been conceited enough to think that my appreciation of literary style is universally shared - certainly not to the extent I can go around ignoring other people's preferences on the matter...

Oh, tush and fie, Cartomancer.

If you can't see a compliment in a criticism, what the hell use is your language anyway?

I think you're interesting; you often take too long to say it; say it succinctly; my interest continues...

Got it, ace?

Best,
Styrer

597. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117900 by Styrer- on January 30, 2008 at 12:02 am

For they at least, unlike Dawkins, Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, can see that after Nietzsche a moral critique of the Christian God has become impossible, for it denies the very presupposition that makes its own critique possible.

Like Abraham asking if the Lord God of justice could not himself do justice, protest atheism must accept the very norms that Nietzsche showed are essential to the meaning of belief.

It's a heavy read, but these quotes seem to me to be the key to this verbose, hackneyed, pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

To paraphrase the whole piece:

'Believe in this shit, you'll get it. If you don't, you won't.'

Nothing new, folks. Were you holding your breath?

Ignore. (The ignorant faithheads won't understand a word anyway, so this 'piece' will not be a threat.)

Seriously. Ignore. Those tapping away fiercely to condemn and take to task this bullshit have already granted it too much importance here (including me).

Bugger off and read an informative archive or something.

Best,
Styrer

598. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117881 by Styrer- on January 29, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Styrer -

I have read and noted your preference for conciseness. I do wonder quite how repeating my entire post achieves this end in your own case, but that thought need not detain me further. I am sorry that my preference for thoroughness, my desire to illustrate my somewhat abstract point with concrete examples and my tendency toward high-blown rhetoric are not to your tastes. De gustibus non disputandum est I suppose...

Your enemy is not me, Cartomancer. It is verbosity.

I have read many of your posts and found some of them enlightening.

Your latter post lets down both message and language equally.

Sort out your meaning to word ratio and you may enlighten more.

Hope you do - you seem to have something worth my time.

Best,
Styrer

599. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117872 by Styrer- on January 29, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Ugh! Nobody seems to have made the crucial point about the whole gay rights / women's rights / abortion issue.

The religious apologists seem quite content with their position: "well we teach our faith's views on gay rights / abortion / the treatment of women, and we also teach the views of all the other faiths on the same matter. Then we have a big debate and the children can decide for themselves which view they subscribe to". I shall assume, charitably, that this statement implicitly includes teaching about rational, secular, scientific, non-religious views (though in reality I have severe doubts about that). Given this, what is so wrong with letting the children have their debate and decided for themselves what to believe?

It's precisely the same as Professor Dawkins's argument as to why creationism should not be taught in school science classes. Creationism is not a valid part of science. Likewise, religious dogma is not a valid part of moral and ethical inquiry. What this approach is actually doing is setting up irrational, superstitious and unevidenced religious views as both valid standpoints to take and equally worthy of consideration alongside proper, secular, discussions of morality. This is bound to skew the subsequent "debate", and is of a particularly sinister character given a) the sensitivity of the issues involved, b) the fact that, implicitly, a faith school will be promoting one of the invalid viewpoints as its preferred communal viewpoint, and c) the rational debating skills of most children are not especially sophisticated. To the last objection it might be put that school is precisely about developing sophisticated debating skills, which is true, but it is still grossly unfair to sharpen these developing skills on the important issues they are to be used to fathom. Surely they should be let loose to make up their own minds once they have learned how to look at the evidence properly, rather than confused by muddying up the issue while their analytic toolkit is still incomplete, and bits of half-remembered poor argument can make a huge impact?

What does this look like in practice? Well, let's take gay rights, an issue close to my heart, and see how this method would teach it. A class of impressionable sixteen year olds in a Catholic school is told

"Right then, well, Catholics beleive that homosexual acts are sinful, objectively disordered and against nature. Some think they might be punished by eternal torment, others are more moderate and just think they should be avoided for the common good. Other Christian sects are broadly similar, though with a few liberal ones seeing no problems in it at all. Muslims all believe it is grossly sinful and punishable by death. Jews think it is an abomination. Eastern religions are divided, with as many tolerant of it as there are which shun it. Oh, and modern secular humanism says it's fine, natural, normal and nothing to worry about.

Right children, those are the positions you could take, which one appeals to you? Bear in mind that if you don't like a religion's stance then you have to go some way to abandoning that religion (and of course you have all been told that you are catholics in a catholic school, so implicitly you really are supposed to pick that one)."

What message is this sending out to people? Nothing less than the message that there are valid arguments for considering homosexuality wrong, that homophobic attitudes are perfectly justified by religious faith, that choosing to be a homophobic bigot is OK, and even implicitly supported by an institution of which you are, even though you have not chosen it, a part. It is nothing less than the state-sanctioned promulgation of homophobic attitudes.

What a burden to place on the shoulders of a confused gay sixteen year old! All his heterosexual counterparts won't have this problem. Nobody is saying to them "well, a load of people on this planet, and we technically count you among their number, think that your natural biological urges are wrong and abhorrent, and those people are deserving of respect for this". Even if nobody tells the boy outright that what he feels is wrong, the mere suggestion that it might be, and the assertion that the issue is still up for debate, will do tremendous damage to his confidence. Subtle suggestions and unseen biases are powerful, very powerful - unspoken claims of parity really are taken very seriously by children of all ages. This happened to me when I was this age, and I didn't even go to a faith school - I shudder to think what that kind of implicit labelling must do to exacerbate the problem.

What he really needs at this vulnerable stage in his life is reassurance that what he feels is normal and perfectly fine. Yes, he can engage in the study of comparative religion and learn that there are noisome, bigoted people out there who think differently to the way he does, but he must do so from a position of confidence in himself just as his peers do. Making this sort of debate over what is actually a rather minor point in the history of ideas into the cornerstone of modern ethical teaching runs entirely counter to the secular, liberal, inclusive values of British society. It is actively harmful and destroys the confidence of affected minority groups. It is standing up for the right of minority groups (e.g. catholics and muslims) to make the minorities within them (e.g. homosexuals and women) feel oppressed, worthless and discriminated against. It is state-sanctioned psychological torture in the truest sense.

So HOW DARE these people stand up and say that their faith school ethics lessons are fair, balanced and helpful. They are an utter disgrace to the educational profession and those who teach in this way should feel utterly ashamed. What we need is a standardised, compulsory modern ethics curriculum that focusses on tolerance, fairness, inclusiveness and building up the confidence of vulnerable people in our society - a curriculum that admits not one whiff of religious input and is entirely secular in character. This curriculum should be taught in all schools, irrespective of location, constituency or funding staus. Faith schools should be banned utterly.

Schools are vital to the propagation of communal values in modern society, especially given the corrective they provide to indoctrination at home. There really is no more important issue to our society than this.

Daunting.

Concision, sir. Please.

Best,
Styrer

600. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117852 by Styrer- on January 29, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Hats off to Jonathan Dimbleby.

In my numerous viewings of him, there is no debate to which he cannot bring the most profound intellectual inquiry, the most probingly incisive questioning and the most expert handling of both guest and audience.

Far better than his bruv, by the way.

Sadly, his abilities stand in stark contrast to the Professor's own rather dubious handling of his own appearance here. Jonathan made more of the points we would have expected Richard to make than the Professor was able to make himself.

Richard's continuous utterance of a very good point (religious labelling of children is child abuse) came across as an idee fixe, when there were bigger fish to fry at the time. Richard let that bastard Bishop of Bath and Wells off with nary a nay-say. Richard's 'sit back and wait' policy gave no assistance whatsoever to a nearly-convinced Sheerman. His attention to that poor child of religious conversion to Islam was diverted, immediately and incomprehensibly, away from her own person to that dreadful Mukadam, in order that a repeated question about apostasy be answered. Well done, sir, for finally getting the answer - but did its answering serve you well here? No.

That the Professor did not from the outset state the inherent problem of faith got him off to a bad start.

In this one, he never recovered. Poor show.

But there's always the next time. The Professor is, after all, the best I can cling to.

Best,
Styrer