551. Fleabytes

Comment #144800 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 6:51 pm

mixmastergaz, about a year before that book, I think Cornwall wrote a letter to Dawkins from the perspective of God.

BTW, you might check out the Aqualung album.

Y'all are in rare form tonight.

552. The atheist delusion

Comment #144790 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 6:26 pm

TOCT: Yes geoff, but the desired result could be the way society is run at the moment. "the greatest good for those in power" Namely corporate capitalism.

I'm the expert regarding my feelings and desires. I'm not the expert regarding your feelings or the feelings of the powerful.

You don't identify who desires the result you describe, namely corporate capitalism.

553. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144781 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Bonzai: Let's say by some disaster the creationists are allowed equal time in the biology class room what are they going to say? I mean, it would only take a few second to finish their syllabus because it is just one sentence "God did it."

I think most teachers would ignore creationism. But the Christian teachers would feel empowered. They'd fill up the time with half-truths, Bible readings, From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo, and AIG tripe. The marginalized literalists would enjoy a social acceptance that would make them giddy. You'd start hearing "Praise the Lord" at the grocery store.

And kids would form the general impresson that the details about life on earth --about the many species of birds and their songs, about butterfly migrations, about the great ocean mammals, the tiniest insects, and the apes who won't be with us much longer-- aren't particularly interesting or important. Man is the crown and purpose of creation. The rest is a temporary prop to be discarded when Jesus returns.

Fundie talk radio loves to laugh at "the liberals" who get upset at the extinction of some beetle or flower. Ugh.

554. The atheist delusion

Comment #144749 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Bollocks on the passive voice.

555. Two More Fleas

Comment #144744 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 5:12 pm

How can a 'selfish' gene, acting selfishly, promote the co-evolution of all the other players within the cell that are necessary to this particular gene's survival into the next generation?

If the gene interferes with the organism's capacity to reproduce, it will not get passed to the next generation.

556. The atheist delusion

Comment #144733 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 4:54 pm

^Whose desired result? Yours?

557. The atheist delusion

Comment #144721 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species.

I think this Gray guy is poking at strawmen. Can't speak for Grayling, but I don't have a utopian vision I'm working toward. Seems a waste of my time, like trying to predict the weather Tuesday March 12th 2013. I just can't see the future that clearly. I'd like for the Earth's species to continue to survive, particularly the humans. I'd like some form of cooperative civilization and learning to continue. But that's about as detailed a vision of the distant future as I can manage.

Of course I'd like humans to stop believing lies and nonsense. That's not "utopian." Jesus H Fucking Christ on a Stick.

558. The atheist delusion

Comment #144706 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 4:14 pm

...science is only one facet of a society.

You really are saying the things that trigger my alarm bells. I don't know what you mean exactly, but it smells like the usual misguided nonsense that screws up ordinary conversation.

Either I've got a cup of coffee on my table, a cup of arsenic, or something else. Using methodological naturalism, also known as "science" or "reason," I'm betting it's coffee.

Sure, science alone can't dictate to me what I'll be doing tomorrow, or what I'd like to be doing ten years from now. But without science I've no hope of deciding those things. To set goals I need:

1. an accurate understanding of reality
2. feelings

I'm pretty much the chief authority for what I feel, so that bit is easy to sort.

559. The atheist delusion

Comment #144688 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Science is a-everything. It can only be used as a method for discovering facts. How best to organise societies, live your life etc cannot be interrogated scientifically, because the desired result is a value judgement.

True. But values change as our understanding of the world changes. If it were proven, for example, that spending more than a few minutes per week on the computer leads to Alzheimer's disease, people would change their behavior accordingly. Little boys wouldn't ask for computers for their birthdays. They'd want or value something else.

If the BNP are claiming that aggregate data regarding IQ and race, for example, means the UK ought to treat the races differently, they're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic statistics and evolutionary theory. They're suffering from a deficiency, not an excess, of scientific reasoning. So don't throw tomatoes at the scientists for that one.

560. The atheist delusion

Comment #144665 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 2:40 pm

It is the belief that the sort of advance that has been achieved in science can be reproduced in ethics and politics.

Scientific progress can mean ethical progress, insofar as an accurate understanding of the world is a better basis for making value judgments than a superstitious or false understanding of the world. Beyond that, I'm not sure I know what "ethical progress" means.

561. The atheist delusion

Comment #144651 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Different dude, crazy4blues.

562. Two More Fleas

Comment #144649 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Think I better get my omniass off dis omnicouch and get some omnichores done.

Ta!

563. Two More Fleas

Comment #144646 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 1:58 pm

um, tree rings prove the young earth theory wrong- it's THAT rediculous

No, Yahweh created the world with about 20,000 years of pond scum already in place and trees with buncha rings, just sos most people would *think* the earth is older than 6,000. In addition to being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, Yahweh is also omnideceptive.

He's omnifunny, that Yahweh!

564. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144533 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 10:02 am

Yes, but it is going to be a battle, as it goes against so much tradition and culture.

I agree about the battle part. But I think that's down to the fact we've done a poor job equipping the public with the basic tools of argument. They don't know the rules or the boundaries of rational argument.

I got a book of magic tricks when I was about 10 years old. One trick went like this, "See this piece of rope? I'm gonna hold both ends tight, without letting go, and tie a knot in it."

I got the sleight of hand down perfectly. The grown-ups all went, "Wow. How'd you do that?"

Then I took the trick to school. I was disappointed to discover that most of my classmates weren't impressed. Why? Because it hadn't occurred to them that it's impossible to tie a knot in a piece of rope without letting go of the ends.

People can't distinguish a good argument from a bad argument, because they don't know the rules.

565. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144523 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 9:33 am

Yes Steve, science is difficult. Just as we wouldn't want to convey to the public the notion that anyone can practice medicine, we don't want to convey the notion that scientific training is irrelevant.

But somehow we have to stand up to this pernicious idea that science is merely "one way of knowing."

On the witness stand, I once argued that a patient wasn't competent at the time she bought a car. As evidence, I offered that she traded in a car she didn't own at the time of the sale. I opined that it's probably not legal to do that.

The opposing attorney said, "Dr Benway, are you a lawyer?"

"No," I replied.

He said, "Do you consider yourself qualified to render legal opinions?"

"No," I said, but I realized this bloke was trying to bamboozle me, so I quickly added, "But you don't have to go to law school to know you can't sell a car you don't own."

We should grant the public at least a common sense grasp of methodological naturalism.

566. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144500 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 8:41 am

bucketchemist: T.H. Huxley wrote a really nice article called 'We are All Scientists' drawing out the routine use we all make every day of the same ways of thinking which characterise science. I would say that getting people to feel ownership of the scientific method, and to recognise the power that it has in their own lives, would be a positive step.

Spot on.

Found a link: Huxley essay

I would follow up Huxley's point, that we are all scientists, with examples of the common reasoning mistakes we're all prone to make, e.g.:

1. Our feelings toward the speaker can warp our opinion of the argument being made.
2. We tend to cherry-pick data to fit a favored explanation.
3. We have a hard time weighing relative probabilities.
4. We're not good with second order equations - e.g., rates of change.

In short: all the logical fallacies and statistical errors. Then I'd mention the more psychological issues that can distort our understanding of reality as it exists:

1. Our brains can create illusions - e.g., of agency where there is none.
2. Our sense of self can include many things outside our own bodies.
3. We tend to divide our social world into circles of alliance and enmity.

I'd talk about the things we do to avoid the errors and distortions we easily fall prey to.

Finally, I'd talk about the institution of science and peer review, which establishes a means for us to trust the scientific literature generally. I'd talk about how we could undermine the checks and balances of our scientific institutions, and what life might be like then.

567. The atheist delusion

Comment #144493 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 8:21 am

tomwb: Proponents of this way of thinking tend to see all human activity (including science) as cynical tools used by those in power to dupe an ignorant population into accepting the status quo - so they can cling onto their power.

Yeah, I know the species well. Very difficult to talk to.

I approach most discussions by first trying to understand the "map" or set of propositions about the world the other party is offering. Then I test how well this map fits the "territory" or the world I'm familiar with. These people skip those steps. They go right to politics. They basically say something like "Look at how group A is being mean to group B! Let's throw tomatoes at the wankers."

It's very difficult to get them away from their tomato throwing hobby, back to the set of propositions about the world which may or may not be accurate.

Dinah: He replied the best thing to do was to choose the set of religious myths we were most comfortable with, and use these as a way of getting through life.

Much like Leo Strauss, the neocon he allegedly doesn't care for. Just with more masochism.

I think anyone who feels that defeated by human life ought to STFU.

568. Fleabytes

Comment #144467 by Dr Benway on March 16, 2008 at 6:34 am

Check out music from The God Who Wasn't There. You can download mp3s here:

http://www.thegodmovie.com/cd.php

Good lyrics on the title track. Paraphrased:

God: "...when you saw only one set of footprints, that was when I carried you."

Human: " What the fuck are you talking about? My dog died. My sister got killed in a car accident. Maybe instead of carrying me you could have just stopped these things from happening."

God: "I fuck with you, then I carry you. It's just something I enjoy doing."

Amazing they got Stephen Hawking to narrate.

I also like "Is this the Real thing?" Our good friend Zak uses it in his famous YouTube video, which you can see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

That video needs a little updating. Might want to swap out James Watson under the "fool" section, given his foolish comments not long ago. Paul Boyer is another Nobel winner outspoken about atheism who could stand in.

Imogen Heap's "Sweet Religion" might work.
Laurie Anderson's "O Superman"
Tori Amos' "God"

569. The atheist delusion

Comment #144382 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 9:56 pm

But scientific fact is not the quixotic, beautifully clear thing it is often portrayed to be. In the hard sciences, but in the soft its a method that does not have the same clarity, and is open to manipulation.

The "yes physics and chemistry are very sciency, not so much the other stuff" line is not new. You are not the first to say this.

Some people like to draw a tight boundary around science, to represent it to the public as that stuff those guys in white coats do. Next comes, "the rules of evidence science insists upon aren't relevant to my favorite opinions, which I will share with you now..."

Well, actually, we can use methodological naturalism on just about everything.

Answer the points i raise rather than categorising my position as something sinister.

Sorry if you're not one of those "science is all fine and good for the white coat guys but..." Please exclude yourself from my rant.

570. The atheist delusion

Comment #144371 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 7:50 pm

I must be catching on because I nearly said what PZ said, when I compared "science" to "sciency":

PZ: Science is a kind of totemic word that is invoked by many, including John Gray, to represent all kinds of nonsense. Ask people what science means, and many will chant, "Television! The Internet! Airplanes! Perpetual motion machines! Intelligent Design! Quantum healing by the vibrational properties of tuned crystals!" As Gray and too many others use it, it's divorced from meaning and used as a prop to support any claim they want to make, ignoring all the evidence. Hitler was no more a fan of science than is Deepak Chopra. Both simply steal words and tack them to whatever unfounded belief they want to grant some incantatory pretense to validity.

The general method we use to examine claims is independent of the field of study. To recap:

1. Can the claim be corroborated?
2. Can it be falsified?
3. Is it self-consistent?
4. Is it the simplest explanation available that adequately explains the data?

Beware the "hard science" verses "soft science" talkers. Beware the "science is like a religion" talkers. These ploys are used to sell a lie. That lie is this: there exists some alternate method of inquiry that provides us with reliable information about the world.

After you buy that lie, you no doubt will be offered some murky new-age nonsense you don't actually need.

Oh, the other ploy: "There's more to life than science" or "science can't tell you everything."

Yes, some information is personal and very difficult to corroborate. That information says something about the person having the feelings or experiences. It's not information about the world generally, or God, or Chi, etc.

571. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144363 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 5:58 pm

TV ad:

Pam: Hey who's the new guy?
Jan: I dunno. But I heard he's got a small carbon footprint.
Pam: Really! giggles You know what they say, 'small footprint, big...
Jan: Shh! He's coming this way!

572. Fleabytes

Comment #144353 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I hope he does come back to talk to us, and I don't mind if he brings some cyber-friends with him.

Never would I seek to deprive you of a ride on the merry-go-round.

I took a look at Paula's links. Nov 2006's flea looks exactly the same as Mar 2008's flea. Self-promoting, doesn't answer questions, snide and insulting, playing the martyr when his tat gets hit with the expected tit. Fun for the whole family.

Any of you getting sick of this game:

Theist: Atheists say dodgy thing X.
Atheist: Maybe some do, but I don't. I say Y.
Theist: You can't say Y. Atheists say X.
Atheist: No, I don't say X. I say Y.
Theist: Well you can't.
Atheist: But I don't like X. I like Y.
Theist: X is stupid!

573. Two More Fleas

Comment #144345 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 4:52 pm

The world of the selfish gene is one of savage COMPETITION, ruthless EXPLOITATION, and DECEIT.

You've misunderstood The Selfish Gene. Genes are selfish toward other genes, and out of this dynamic arises human altruism.

If the book were about human selfishness, Dawkins would have named it The Selfish Human.

574. The atheist delusion

Comment #144280 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Henri, glad to see you're still staging occasional Viking raids upon these shores.

I agree about the "values can't be proven" thing. But seems beside the point.

575. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144265 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 2:04 pm

It's probably too late, but a suggestion for the audio edition if one is planned: make it clear whose words are being spoken.

You can't see punctuation when you're listening to a book. Quotes need to be offset by switching narrators, or by adding, "and I quote..." or some other signal.

I got The Portable Atheist. The same narrator reads the preface and the article. It would have been better if Hitchens read his own preface and someone else read the article, or if somehow the transition was emphasized.

I can't recommend the audio version of The Portable Atheist.

576. Fleabytes

Comment #144256 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Dr Benway: I'm trying to imagine the mind of the publisher deciding to lift a quote from your review as a means of plugging DR's book. He or she must be either:
1. Thick as a brick
2. Desperate

3. Both

Or, as now occurs to me:
4. Uninvolved

I seem to recall one of Robertson's posts on this thread echoing those same faint praises from your review.

Two possibilites:
1. The publisher read your lengthy article and selected a quote that shockingly misrepresents your general opinion of his book
2. David took the initiative to feed the publisher a couple of comments out of context and they didn't bother to check.

577. Fleabytes

Comment #144249 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Hehehe. "I expected Robertson's book to win the dog ball sucking award..." might become

"Robertson's book 'expected to win awards'!"
-- atheists at RD.net.

578. Fleabytes

Comment #144240 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Paula, my brain saved the gist of your review, which I read a few weeks ago, as something like this:

I expected Robertson's book to win the dog ball sucking award until I encountered McGrath's book. Had I not seen it with my own eyes I never would have guessed that an Oxford professor's book could suck dog balls so passionately. Thus I'm forced to concede that, in comparison, Robertson's book merely sucks the dog's left nut.

I'm trying to imagine the mind of the publisher deciding to lift a quote from your review as a means of plugging DR's book. He or she must be either:

1. Thick as a brick
2. Desperate

579. The atheist delusion

Comment #144229 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Yes I agree. In physics chemistry etc, the scientific method works as it says on the tin. The hard sciences namely. In the soft sciences, its incredibly susceptible to bias.

Any claim about our shared reality, big or small, hard or soft, pink or purple, faces these questions:

Can it be corroborated?
Can it be falsified?
Is it self-consistent?
Is it the simplest explanation available that adequately explains the data?

580. The atheist delusion

Comment #144222 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 12:04 pm

The far right are using scientifically discovered facts and putting them into propaganda.

OK, but I wouldn't say that such political propaganda is science, although it may be seem sciency to a naive audience.

581. The atheist delusion

Comment #144217 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 11:38 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad:

Science and reason have exactly the same foibles as religion.

You're confusing two distinct problems:

1. Science as a method for separating fact from fiction.
2. Dressing up bold social agendas in lab coats and test tubes to fool people into believing dodgy claims.

#1 is the enemy of #2. You seem to see #1 and #2 as allies.

Racism is a prime example of this. Evolution suggests that race is important.

Quite the opposite, actually.

582. Fleabytes

Comment #144212 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 11:10 am

whatthe:

OK, this is what you wrote:

"Some people define atheism as the belief that there is no god. I prefer to say that God or gods have not been proven to exist. In this way I make it clear that I'm not asserting a positive belief. I concede that I cannot defend such a position."

You said (last line) "I concede that I cannot defend such a position". Now, either you mean you cannot defend the position of those who argue "there is no God" ie a "positive belief" or you cannot defend your position that "God or gods have not been proven to exist." If you mean the former then admittedly I have misunderstood you though it's a little ambiguous.

Fair enough. I appreciate the ambiguity now that you've pointed it out.

However, I'd clearly be talking self-contradictory bollocks if I meant the second part of your interpretation above. You're new so you can be forgiven for not realizing that I never talk self-contradictory bollocks. Ever. Well, unless there's a joke in there someplace.

After all, why reject theism because of a lack of evidence if non-theism also lacks evidence?

The rules of evidence are general and apply to all propositions. The default status for all propositions is "unproven," until a denfense or basis for the proposition is accepted. This default status requires no defense.

Imagine if I said, "whatthe raped a dog last night outside my garage." Lucky for you, no one should accept such a claim without convincing evidence.

But let's imagine there was a designer who set the constants of the universe at the moment of the big bang. Not much follows from that. It's still a long walk to "God hates fags" or "kill the infidel."

Granted, but I'm not defending either of the latter. Neither examples are biblical nor have I even mentioned them on this site. I'm getting a distinct 'red herring' alert here.

I didn't expect that you were claiming that God hates fags or that we ought to kill the infidel. You'd be a strange duck if indeed you were arguing both those positions.

To restate my point: even if I were to concede that God was involved with the Big Bang, any other claims you'd like to make about God would remain unproven.

But this has not been forthcoming because the alleged mechanism ie Natural Selection Random Mutation Time has no creative power.

You've been sold a bill of goods by the professional creationism peddlers.

First, you must define what you mean by "creative power." Do you mean more base pairs? Do you mean more alleles for a specific locus in the genome? We certainly do see mutations resulting in additions or deletions of base pairs and allele number.

Around 99% of mutations are harmful

1% mutation in the next generation is a lot of mutation.

... and those which are beneficial do not create new information or characteristics.

First, you must define what you mean by "new information" (see above).

...or characteristics.

Like blue eyes? Antibiotic resistance?

583. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144191 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 9:38 am

Thinking about that caller saying, "Why would they lie about the virgin birth? Why would they lie about the resurrection? Why would they lie? Why would they lie?"

Silly person. Lies are as common if not more common than the truth. That's why "trust me" is generally a bad argument. Lies are power over others. People like power.

My earliest memory of doubt: wondering why the Bible stories were filled with miracles but nothing miraculous seemed to be going on in my small corner of the world. Miracles seemed really cool and they would make the claims about heaven and hell more convincing. I wished I could witness at least a couple of miracles. Maybe a burning bush in the backyard with a glowing white beautiful angel materializing beside, saying "Fear not!"

I bought the line about this being a different time, blah blah blah. But the question never died.

Later I encountered the charismatics who seemed up to their ears in miracles. However, I noticed that these miracles were pretty small - headache going away, remembering where the car was parked, happening upon some money at the right moment.

Claims of "medium" miracles were common - someone given a prophecy about something that came true a few years back, someone who knew someone who's short leg grew longer during a prayer session, etc.

But no big miracles. Funny, that. Lots of big miracles in the Bible. Hmm.

I was told that wanting a sign or a miracle was bad juju. Evil people ask for a sign. Pisses God off, apparently. For if you luvs God, you would trust 'im. You wouldn't ask why he didn't come home last night and why he smells of perfume. And if you don't luvs God, you are bad and no one will like you.

I wasn't clever enough in those days to say, "So says you."

584. The business of natural selection

Comment #144179 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 9:13 am

"Fitness" isn't merely a function of an organism, but of the dynamic relationship between organism and environment. To comment upon fitness, these models must assume a fairly static future environment.

Heh. How likely is that?

When an article touts a new model sounding sciency and like a big breakthrough but omits any mention of the model's limitations, it's usually crap.

What amazes me: spammers sending out hot stock tips actually provoke enough people to invest to drive up stock prices a couple of points, so they can sell at a profit.

585. The atheist delusion

Comment #144171 by Dr Benway on March 15, 2008 at 8:43 am

Science and reason 'can' make all horrific kinds of things acceptable.

I think you're confusing "science" with "sciency." We all know sciency when we see it: white coats, test tubes, machines, maths, measuring instruments, etc.

Science itself is merely a method for separating fact from fiction. Everyone uses this method, crudely or carefully, when sorting out cause and effect. The set of facts accepted as true by application of this method provides a description of the world. But this description prescribes nothing.

The fact that it was justified by science, stemming from Galton's eugenics, is important...

Facts about the world are just that, whether those facts are established by scientists, historians, journalists, priests, or your car mechanic. Facts are either well established, somewhat established, or false. Some facts may seem more sciency than others. But branding a fact "scientific" adds no particular meaning.

We can pretend we are logical and rational but we just aren't.

We suffer certain cognitive limitations that we don't always appreciate and that likely will be with us for a long time. We invented rules of evidence to help us overcome these limitations.

586. Fleabytes

Comment #144006 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 9:08 pm

587. Fleabytes

Comment #143880 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 2:39 pm

steve:

From now on, religion can claim as God's work only what they can predict. They are supposed to have a connection with the creator Himself. He even speaks to them, some say. Well, let's hear the result of them listening.

Here, here.

No more science for you lot who reject the rules of evidence. Time to hand in the computer, the microwave, the cell phone. Oh, and no doctors for you lot either. It's all got to go.

Back to your prayers and holy books now!

588. Fleabytes

Comment #143864 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Elli:

Robertson is an asswipe.

Incisive, and unlikely to appear on the jacket of Rupertson's next book.

Knowing Rubenstein's penchant for quoting our comments here to the faithful in order to frighten them with our unwashed and rowdy banter, I'm inclined to talk dirty. Profanity is a win-win in this context, because either:

1. We imagine the congregation listening to Pastor Robinson saying something like, "I was called an 'asswipe'." This has amusement value.

2. Opportunities for out-of context quote-mining will be limited.

589. Fleabytes

Comment #143839 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Bonzai:

I read in a Chinese history book that describes a particularly brutal battle thus, "the battle field was flooded by a river of blood and even the heaven opened up and wept for the dead" Now I don't see any "cherry picking" if a reader believes the actual battle did happen while the narrative I just wrote are just literary embellishment.

I have no problem with people who view religious writings as literature. I wish all believers approached scripture in this manner. The in-group verses out-group battles would be easier to manage.

Imagine a person saying, "Our family is mostly into Christianity," as if the religion were a preference, like a favorite genre of music.

"The family across the street is more into Islam. Some Islam is pretty good, but I wouldn't want to listen to it all day long."

590. Fleabytes

Comment #143791 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Animals deal in raster files, like .bmp. Humans with language deal in vector files, like .cad. Far more efficient, but much detail is lost and a fair amount of distortion is added.

Get the right sort of head injury, and you can uncover your capacity for photographic memory.

Experience coded into language also is less emotionally intense. Animals likely feel and react to living more strongly than humans.

591. Fleabytes

Comment #143720 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 10:16 am

Paula: PLEASE can someone provide a translation?

The laws of physics did not make themselves.
Ceiling Cat (God) made them, but He did not eat them.

592. Fleabytes

Comment #143711 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 10:10 am

American Ornithology, by Charles Wilson Peale writing in the late 18th Century, describes the Carolina Parakeet, now extinct. They were easy to kill, as they had the habit of returning to hover over their fallen comrades after an initial shotgun blast:

"At each successive discharge, though showers of them fell, yet the affection of the survivors seemed rather to increase; for, after a few circuits around the place, they again alighted near me, looking down on their slaughtered companions with such manifest sympathy and concern, as entirely disarmed me."

593. Fleabytes

Comment #143686 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 9:56 am

594. Fleabytes

Comment #143506 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 7:06 am

Paula: Ooh, David, you are on such dodgy ground here! Because this is how I answered your post on your forum:

It's time consuming, isn't it, responding to Robertson's distortions? Just when you think he must concede that you've caught him in the act of bending the truth, he invents a new twist.

For people like this David Rubinstein bloke, winning is a full time career, a calling, a passion. They're a thousand times better at the game of winning than you'll ever be.

595. Fleabytes

Comment #143472 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 6:27 am

hungarianelephant: Once you go down that road, you probably also have to protect dolphins, elephants (Hungarian or otherwise), parrots and cockatoos. And possibly cats and dogs.

Yes, it's a knotty problem. Mammalian brains share the same basic structures. It's reasonable to assume that other mammals feel quite as we do.

596. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143280 by Dr Benway on March 13, 2008 at 9:23 pm

clearmind: I was banned; wooter name was banned second time. I created another name, clearmind TO LOG IN. This is really a shame and world famous scandal.

oh hai!

Ur LOLspeak needs wurk, srsly. U no haz teh funneh. Plz, trai moar jokez, oar u mus b BANNED 4 LIF!!!1!

Kthxbai!

597. Fleabytes

Comment #142885 by Dr Benway on March 13, 2008 at 7:19 am

A co-worker said, "It's getting so you can't say anything about anyone anymore. A teacher read to her class a story about a prince rescuing another prince, and the two going off to get married and live happily ever after. What nonsense!"

Now, that story sounds forced, like grown-ups trying to indoctrinate kids into politically correct speech. It sounds like conservative talk radio going on about "the homosexual agenda" rather than reality.

For one, in my limited personal experience, the knight in shining armor /damsel in distress story works for male-female romantic pair bonding but not so much for male-male bonding. Women can say "hello big strong fella, can you open this jar of jam for me?" to the enjoyment of both parties. But male homosexual courtship is different.

Got me wondering what an iconic gay kids fairy tale might be...

An orphan lad mistreated by stepparents, although he's actually the son of a king, finds a magic weapon and is given a quest. On his journey he encounters another mysterious lad with admirable qualities X and Y. Admiration seems very important to the bonding process.

598. Fleabytes

Comment #142223 by Dr Benway on March 12, 2008 at 6:54 am

Surely mutual co-operation begins with mutual respect?

I make a distinction between ideologies and people. People may or may not entirely embrace a particular ideology. They may need time to think through the implications of some belief system, or the justification for their beliefs. Most of us are wrong about many things. There's no shame in being wrong.

But ideologies must be bluntly called "wrong," "dangerous," or "silly" if this is the case.

We can be diplomatic in our dealings with particular people, for a variety of strategic reasons. But we ought never surrender the right or the duty to criticize ideas.

599. Fleabytes

Comment #142202 by Dr Benway on March 12, 2008 at 6:32 am

Polydactyl:

Religion works because it offers a story, one which answers a whole series of human problems...

When pushed for evidence, it comes to this: religion is literature and metaphor.

I have no problem with that.

But, uh, apart from the Unitarians, which church actually admits the Bible is a work of fiction?

600. Fleabytes

Comment #142182 by Dr Benway on March 12, 2008 at 6:01 am

clodhopper: It seems that we cannot approach anything like agreement on what 'evidence' is.

Yes, there's that old ploy. But I'm long past falling for it.

We actually do agree about evidence. We use the same rules of evidence when sorting out why the furnace won't work, which automobile is a better buy, whether to have knee surgery or not, who committed some crime, and so on.

Before accepting that the rules can be ignored when dealing with supernatural claims, we need a reason for the exception. Any reason that allows in Thor, Zeus, and the Spaghetti Monster isn't going to work. Christians and Muslims must concede this, as they aren't so fond of Odin.

The problem is the pretense that some justification exists for bending the rules with respect to Yahweh. As I said earlier, some people assume this justification exists. These people may benefit from a bit of consciousness raising.

Saying "well, you have your rules of evidence and I have mine," may interfere with the consciousness raising effort. I'd rather say, "There is no justification for bending the ordinary rules of evidence we apply in all other areas of collective understanding."