Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Quine


551. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120327 by Quine on February 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

When speaking to the public, one simple thing needs to be repeated in every address:

It is a fact that species evolved, as proven by the fossil record. How that happened is the subject of the theory of evolution.

Any gaps or flaws in the current theory (understanding the 'how') does not impact the fact that species evolved.

552. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120134 by Quine on February 1, 2008 at 9:33 am

What the Pope will not mention is that, under natural conditions, only about one in four embryos will carry to birth. With a world birth rate of 120M/yr this gives us a rough estimate of 30 million embryos every month that do not make it to become "someone." Perhaps he should have a little talk with his deity about this problem.

553. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119133 by Quine on January 31, 2008 at 10:40 am

Thanks for everything you do, Josh. Have a great day, just for you!

-Q

554. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118163 by Quine on January 30, 2008 at 12:34 pm

The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology.


Absolutely the case. As biology moves slowly into the explanation of thought itself, it will provide the basis for the understanding of belief, and why we have these susceptibilities to imaginary beings.

555. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110522 by Quine on January 11, 2008 at 12:28 pm

In other words, it might turn out to be that the constants of nature really couldn't have had any other values. I don't think that, if we discovered this to be the case, it would count as evidence against the existence of God, only because I don't think that our present understanding of these parameters counts as evidence in favor of God.


This is a very nice refutation of the so called "fine-tuning" argument. Even if it is the case that we cannot (now) account for the observations that we make, that is no evidence that something supernatural "made" them that way. The whole "fine-tuning" debate boils down to an argument from ignorance.

556. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110020 by Quine on January 10, 2008 at 10:02 am

One of the most useful aspects of discussion on this site is the opportunity for the rest of us to hear the inside story of religious tactics to hold members. My admiration goes to all who must pay a family price to speak truth.

557. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105179 by Quine on December 30, 2007 at 8:29 pm

windweaver, here it is but I don't believe it will ever stand up to a double blind test.

P.S. I liked what the other caller had to say about not believing in the Loch Ness Monster, but I have to say that, given the supernatural requirements for deities, Atheists are orders of magnitude less likely to be found incorrect than are Anessieists.

558. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105114 by Quine on December 30, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Billy, you are so clueless that you have no idea how deeply you have stepped in it. And, of all the folks around here to call uninformed, Steve was practically the worst choice.

559. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104774 by Quine on December 29, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Denials from the Vatican? Where is Father Guido Sarducci when we really need him for the inside story? (Also, if you need an education but have only $20 to spend, catch his 5 Minute University.)

560. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104595 by Quine on December 29, 2007 at 1:21 am

The man has gone over the edge.

[Edit: Looks like they keep adding a couple of inches to the hat each year; maybe the weight has compressed his brain.]

561. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #104579 by Quine on December 28, 2007 at 9:25 pm

D'Souza makes the Beast 50 worst list (29th):
http://www.buffalobeast.com/122/50mostloathsome2007.html

The blurb is refreshingly accurate.

562. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104307 by Quine on December 28, 2007 at 10:03 am

It's the way we live that carries the message.

563. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #99721 by Quine on December 17, 2007 at 12:22 pm

For many years there has been a push among a branch of developers of molecular nanotechnology for a path through synthetic biology. Whereas the nanotech folks struggle with a very difficult problem of how to make the first replicator, biologists already have replicators (virus, bacteria etc.). (Although some Grey_goo worriers are pushing for the no-replicator nanofactory approach.)

Synthetic biology does provide a mind-blowing space of possibilities, but it also provides the ability to substitute inorganic molecules for components. Some natural bacteria do build things like magnetic field direction sensors out of inorganic materials. Progressive substitution over generations is a path to completely inorganic replicators (inorganic life forms). Even near term hybrids, such as substituting symbiotic nanochondria for symbiotic mitochondria would produce benefits mind-blowingly ahead of mind-blowing synthetic biology.

[Edit: Also see developments in which DNA itself is used as a programmable structural material or even computer.]

564. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99227 by Quine on December 16, 2007 at 1:38 am

ADH, before you go quoting Joni, you should check what she says about religion lately:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/24/joni-mitchell-lashes-out-_n_65587.html

565. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99139 by Quine on December 15, 2007 at 6:01 pm

What we saw, here, was a wonderful example of four extremely intelligent and well informed people operating in a state of rational thought. Notice the contrast with the "debates" in which folks on the other side (esp. D'Souza) throw out emotionally inflammatory statements just to get the audience out the "rational state" and into a mode of "rah rah" appropriate to cheering at a football game. This "witnessing" of rational people may be more powerful than we know.

One of the things mentioned was that one can, sometimes, get religious people to hold something of a rational thought state, if you talk to them about somebody else's religion. I think this is important and leads to a constructive process of interaction. At Beyond Belief 07 Jeff Hawkins talked about just asking people what they really believed and working from there. It seems to me there is also an adjunct approach that gets them to stay in the rational mode while considering the nonsense that others believe. The proposed technique is just to ask them what they really believe (without any criticism) and then to ask them about the beliefs of others. Let them go on about how crazy such and such belief is, and then just let it go. The unconscious mind will make the connection.

566. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98918 by Quine on December 14, 2007 at 10:35 pm

This was wonderful. I suggest Richard read Tavris and Aronson's book on cognitive dissonance to get some added ways to describe what he has noticed about the capability of people to hold these contradictory positions.

567. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97978 by Quine on December 12, 2007 at 11:58 pm

The House of Representatives can pass a resolution to establish their favorite cookies, but those cookies will have no special standing outside the House. This resolution is neither a law nor allocates funds. They already have chaplains and partake in prayer. All of that should properly be thrown out, along with this resolution, but it may take some time.

[Edit: I wonder if the House considers Mormons as Christians (some Christians don't) given that they were not around until after the "history of the founding." Also, putting "Jesus Christ" in the resolution steps over the line, because Jews do not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as "the Christ" so this slaps them down as written.]

568. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #97975 by Quine on December 12, 2007 at 11:22 pm

AHA: "no angels whispering"

She just keeps getting better.

569. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97093 by Quine on December 11, 2007 at 11:52 am

thirdchimpanzee:

The celibate priesthood is weird, always has been, and our collective response should be disdain, not veneration, for someone who so egregiously turns their back on such a fundamental aspect of humanity.

No other modern church (of any stripe) continues to make this demand - and consider the origins of this absurd tradition.

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html


Thanks for this link; I was looking for this information just the other day. In any big organization it is always about the money. Follow the money. Celibacy has forced so much evil on so many for centuries, just to keep the money in the organization.

570. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97079 by Quine on December 11, 2007 at 11:19 am

Truthiness in Genesis, isn't that Steven Colbert's territory?

571. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96770 by Quine on December 10, 2007 at 10:11 pm

I agree that Prof. Dawkins should not give this the dignity of a direct answer. Perhaps if Pat Condell is not too busy ...

572. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96610 by Quine on December 10, 2007 at 6:46 pm

"When Stalin was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who said, 'You can petition The Lord with prayer ...'"

Yo, Guy in black nightie, see my Supreme Being post before you go talking for HIM (or more probably IT). And watch that equivocation of the philosophy of materialism with the pop usage of "he who dies with the most toys wins." ;)

So back to Stalin, why do you suppose, when young Stalin was on his knees petitioning The Lord to make him His tool, even foreseeing the vast damage Stalin was about to do The Lord chose not to send Stalin enough grace to hold his soul in the fold? :dunno:

[Edit: Perhaps, knowing the arguments Dawkins, et al., would make in the future, The Lord needed a vehicle to use to besmirch the name of Atheism, so He put Stalin to this use. After all, from His view, all those people were going to die, anyway, and we are talking about the deity who wacked all of humanity, save one family, with The Flood.]

573. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96053 by Quine on December 9, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Just let them decide for themselves when they get old enough for piercings and tattoos and other ritual scarification.

574. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #95665 by Quine on December 9, 2007 at 12:07 am

I went out and saw the movie, and was generally pleased. It was a bit choppy because so much material had to be compressed for time. However, some scenes were very well done, such as when Lyra tells her panzerbjorne where he can find his armor.

There is something new I am noticing about the blogs of the religious folks who are trying to get parents to keep their kids away from the movie and the books. It looks like kids are trolling these blogs and intentionally winding up the old folks. There was no real way to do this when I was a kid (and survive). If I had tried to write a nasty note to the editor of the parish newsletter, that would have been my mom.

575. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #95560 by Quine on December 8, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Comment #95513 by Communist

Did any of you see the whole Family Research Council conference video? The video was referenced at this side in the article with the headline ''Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer'. Here is the link:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/stream_it.php?format=rm&program_id=201624-3


Thanks for this link, it was terrifying. The out-of-context video of Richard Dawkins from Stein's movie was clearly used for propaganda purposes at this meeting. And Phyllis Schlafly is pure nightmare.

576. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #95499 by Quine on December 8, 2007 at 12:59 pm

There are actual reasons for Americans to be afraid. If you have not seen it, I strongly suggest you rent a copy of the DVD Hacking Democracy which is about the voting problems. One of my friends was on the team at the University of California that did voting machine analysis last summer, leading to the decertification of these machines here in California.

577. Secret Swami - About Sai Baba

Comment #95158 by Quine on December 7, 2007 at 1:15 pm

The acceptance of "holiness" as above natural human behavior sets this up. I strongly advise all to see the DVD Deliver Us from Evil in which you will see the very same things.

578. Highway to hysteria

Comment #94077 by Quine on December 4, 2007 at 6:02 pm

If they want to be on fire, that's fine, but let them not stand near flammable materials.

579. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93341 by Quine on December 2, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Thanks Kell,
I did send PZ a PM over at the RD forum and also started a thread there so folks could feed back info.

580. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93246 by Quine on December 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Please see my embryo deaths question from earlier today.

581. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93231 by Quine on December 2, 2007 at 1:12 pm

One of the questions that has been tugging at me lately is, "How many human embryos die every month?"

I turns out not to be so easy to answer, because medical science does not recognize this as being connected to "illness" except in some special cases of infertility. Here is my current thinking:

A very rough guess is that about 1 billion human eggs are produced each month. The vast majority of these billion eggs do not get fertilized and just pass on. Of those that do become embryos, some fraction develop into enough cells at the right time to attach and carry to term. Some cannot attach because of medical, IUD, genetic, etc. problems and so die. However, this still leaves a number that do not attach because fertilization was late in the cycle so not enough development could happen before it was too late. I would especially like to know that last number, which I suspect is still in the millions.

If true, I think it would be important for the public to know that under perfectly natural conditions, millions of human embryos die every month. It should put the relatively few lab stem cell extractions in context. Perhaps this is a question for PZ.

EDIT: I started a thread at the RD Forum so folks could feed back info.

582. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93206 by Quine on December 2, 2007 at 12:30 pm

... pray aloud for guidance, then use the Eight Ball to determine the right one.
Read: "Answer hazy, ask again later."

583. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92998 by Quine on December 1, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Well, my understanding is that the cosmological constant has to be tuned within 1 part in 10 to the 50th power to prevent the universe blowing up.


Steve, do you have a reference for this? I find it very hard to believe given that we don't have the capability to take any physical measurement to past about 12 decimal places of resolution.

584. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92771 by Quine on December 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm

D'Weasel knows the old saying from law:

"If you don't have the facts, pound the law. If you don't have either the facts or the law, pound the table."

585. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92572 by Quine on November 30, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Spinoza, I am sure you know I am on your side of this. I did, also, wince twice listening to Gregg. When Prof. Dawkins does these interviews, these days, I suspect he is also careful about the words in the questions he is asked. Clearly, in this case he was comfortable to go ahead and answer the question he suspected Gregg meant without either first correcting Gregg, or working the correction into his answer (although, he did on the first, skip over the erroneous categorization of the specific questions and just answered those questions).

The constant danger of being misquoted in the press has put pressure on Prof. Dawkins, and the others in his position, to have to be vigilant against a situation in which a questioner asks an erroneous question, gets the answer to the question that should have been asked, and then that is taken out of context to the detriment of the interviewee. I was gratified when Prof. Dawkins stopped Gregg and said it depends on what you mean by 'god.' Richard then went into a very nice description of the misquoting of Einstein. It was an excellent pushback against a gathering misquoting of cosmologists we see today.

586. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92534 by Quine on November 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Spinoza:

'Words' is serious business.
Yes, that is exactly how con men make their business.

587. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92462 by Quine on November 30, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Some believe that it would be "good" for humanity if Santa Claus did exist and did deliver toys to "good" little boys and girls. However, as has been expressed by others on this thread, even if true, it would not matter a bit about the truth of the existence of Santa. Get over it.

588. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91861 by Quine on November 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Frankus1122:

... as part of of Media Literacy (which is part of the curriculum in Ontario).

What a relief! I got the impression you were in someplace like Ohio, not Ontario. An appeal to critical thinking should, actually, have some traction for you there. I still wish you good luck, but will stop wondering why you stuck your neck out; you were just providing sensible education in a place that thinks all kinds of literacy make the world a better place.

589. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91671 by Quine on November 29, 2007 at 12:15 am

Check out Pat Condell's little video on polite debates:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/11/on_being_polite.html

590. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91540 by Quine on November 28, 2007 at 2:19 pm

D'Souza won't be able to use any of his silly claims of the great works of Christianity, as that has nothing to do with the central question of Gods existence.
Yes, well, don't be too surprised when he does anyway, also expect Hitler and Stalin to be dragged in as usual. If he did that to me, I would respond with: "Don't you believe that your deity created Hitler and Stalin?"

D: "Yes, but He gave them free will so He is not responsible for what they did."

Me: "So that is the same non-responsibility as when the bishop quietly moves the child rapist priest (who also has free will) to another parish?"

591. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91513 by Quine on November 28, 2007 at 1:29 pm

When D'Weasle makes his usual comment about the target rich room full of nudists, I hope Dan says something like, "Dinesh, there is really no need to compare yourself to a tiny blood sucking pest."

592. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91458 by Quine on November 28, 2007 at 11:10 am

Do you believe Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" insults religious values?

When the doctor tells you that you are sick, is that an insult?

593. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91259 by Quine on November 27, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Comment #91250 by Frankus1122

Help.


I admire you for your courage to do this in the 7'th grade and am sorry to say this, Frankus1122, but you are pretty much screwed. They are going to point out that God gets it at the end of the third book, and oblivion is okay for souls v. an afterlife. The teacher comes to mind who said Genesis was not factual a couple of months ago.

The best you can do is to start asking them as many questions as you can, as fast as you can, without making any comments back. Ask them if they know it is fiction, not based on any events (have they read it)? Do they know it is not about this world? What are the concerns in the first book that may be in the movie? Has anything from the screen play been printed that they object to? Try to get to the point where they start to hear themselves say things they don't really mean, and then they may become somewhat receptive to new information.

Keep drawing them out so they get the feeling that you care about what they think; probably you do, else how could you do your job. If you can blend and redirect them you will get the best result, but I can't see how that is going to be easy. I wish I could be more helpful, perhaps others here can do so. Good luck.

594. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90944 by Quine on November 26, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Yes, Steve, it is more interesting than I should spend time on. As far as answering the points that Davies was groping around, comment #90596 by BMMcArdle brought in Lee Smolin's comments by ref:

The link to rebuttal of Davies' article:
http://www.edge.org./discourse/science_faith.html

No way can I devote enough time to do better than Lee did (if I could at all).

595. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90929 by Quine on November 26, 2007 at 5:21 pm

From gr8hands:

That is the media's fault, not the fault of those in the sciences.


I am not really interested in exploring the applicability of "fault." Most of the media has been poor at explaining science to the people they serve, especially here in the USA. We have had great individuals who have worked hard against this, but the media does not see how this reporting is going to sell soap any better than the horoscopes.

What has changed in the last few years is the anti science political movement driven by religious literalists. The point I am trying to make, here, is that it is not enough for scientists to state what is correct as loosely known to their associates, but need to take some care as to how the statements will be presented, and even "spun" in the media.

I am sure you are correct about your associates, but would gather that Paul Davies is not one of them. Then, we know there are the Young Earth Geologists, who are working to bend reality to fit their map (Genesis). There are universities backed by religious organizations with faculties who are not a bit unhappy when the media writes in a little divine activity that they can't get away with themselves.

596. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90919 by Quine on November 26, 2007 at 4:51 pm

... but fortunately in physics even a very elegant theory would eventually have to face empirical tests.
Yes, yes, yes! That is exactly what I advocate, but see it less in this "fine tuning" approach that I feel does use "voodoo modelism." I make no invocation of metaphysics, and feel it is not fair to label scientists as lacking sophistication; I have not heard Dennett do so.

597. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90905 by Quine on November 26, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Bonzai,

Please be careful with terminology. If you go look up the math definition of "isomorphic" you will see that requires the property of being both one to one, and onto. Physical maps and models are not isomorphic, they bridge meta levels as in Russell's Theory of Types, making them essentially metaphoric. I realize you said "somewhat isomorphic" but actually the best you can get is "somewhat homomorphic." A map would be judged successful for my walks through the forest if it shows me the trails I could use even though it lacked the designators as to where I could drill for oil. Also, you can't expect to cut out the drawing of the apple tree and have it taste like apples when you eat it.

It is true that we want our models of physics to be so complete that we can use them to find things in the world that we have not seen before. I am all for this, and it shows one of the great powers of the scientific method over reliance on scripture. What I am against is the creeping tendency to "voodoo modelism" where the idea that you can make a model of someone (voodoo doll), empowers you to hurt that person by sticking a pin in the doll. Changing the value in a parameter of the model may correspond to some other condition in reality, but not necessarily. Conclusions drawn about some "conceivable" other space you can't get to from here (untestable) should not be given credence beyond speculation, no matter how pretty the math looks. A false premise implies any conclusion.

598. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #90889 by Quine on November 26, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Beautifully expressed.

599. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90644 by Quine on November 26, 2007 at 1:46 am

Any day, I expect to read that some former Theology-Physics double major has opened the First Church of the Holy Fine Tuning, and is gleefully fleecing the flock at the collection plate. This piece by Paul Davies is going to make more of this kind of trouble because it is placed as op ed where a big audience of people will be mislead. Others have gone after its deficiencies here and at edge.org, so I will not bother to go further, but I do wish to say a few things about what happens when scientists and other technical workers neglect the impact of language.

Fortunately, no one has tried to start the "Temple of Einstein's God" or the "Theological Institute of 'It Is Just a Theory'" or "Pascal's Mathematical Magisterium" but we have had to wait out popular misunderstandings. In politics, expert consultants run words and phrases past focus groups long before any candidate is allowed to use them in any speech or handout. Look ahead is essential to try to find how what you are about to say can be "spun" to make you look like you are advocating sticking pitchforks into babies. This is not the practice in science. No one came to Einstein before he wrote his personal letters and suggested to him that mentioning "God" would be a big help to religion in later years (should be worth a posthumous Templeton), nor did anyone suggest what would become of Pascal's unpublished musings after his death. And certainly, no one at the time of Darwin thought there should be a conference to come up with an alternate word for "theory" so that future generations would know this did not mean "wild ass guess."

This brings us to the word "law" as used by Davies. Not a simple subject. Over the last 500 years science has developed into a profession and in the process terminology has been adapted from ordinary language. However, as often happens with jargon of trade, "law" in science is nothing like "law" in common language, but gives the opportunity for some to "spin" it to imply the existence of a "Law Giver." (I was heartened to see Lee Smolin quote Charles Sanders Pierce, and I also recommend his 1878 writing: How to Make Our Ideas Clear.)

In fact, there is no existence proof for laws in Nature. These so called "laws" are actually just rules or heuristics that we have found useful in our models of Nature (the map is not the territory). We get very excited about them because they allow us to make predictions about what will happen in Nature under specific conditions, such as when we fire a rocket to take a probe to Jupiter, or when we build a bridge that is supposed to withstand the weight of a train. However, Nature does not care what we put in our models, it just does what it does.

As time has gone on, and we have made more measurements of what happens in Nature, we have come to depend on a few constants in our models that are now known to very high precision. This has come about by a process that looks at the difference between the predictions of the model and the observed results of measurement, and adjusts the values of the constants to minimize this difference. At any time someone may come up with a better model that reduces the number of constants, or replaces them with totally different concepts. The idea that the constants represent "knobs" somewhere that can be "fine tuned" is completely backwards. It can be entertained as science fiction, but is not a falsifiable proposition we can test. Riding this into a religious philosophy is just speculation. As for me, "Show me the knobs."

The piece by Davies muddies the water for the general public. That water will become clearer with time, only to be muddied by someone else, from time to time. I take some hope that the reaction to Davies in the scientific world will be to take more care to state what we know in more clear and unambiguous terms.


600. Man-sized sea scorpion claw found

Comment #89728 by Quine on November 21, 2007 at 3:43 pm

I wonder if they will now have to do a big animatronic claw coming out of the pond at the Creation Museum.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next