Comments by phil rimmer

Comment #111072 by phil rimmer on January 13, 2008 at 12:34 pm

God really, really, really fucked up!

702. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111062 by phil rimmer on January 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Douche bags

But, by using these two "fuzzy" logic rules, "I want to get more than the other guy" and "I'll scupper his chances if he gets much more than me" the most wonderful paradoxical outcome results.....the continual effort to outdo your neighbour that nevertheless requires his complicity. Result- an insatiable economic motor built substantially on co-operation.

Now whether we want an insatiable economic motor is another matter.

And I agree, its bloody obvious really. Only economists are shocked.

703. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110990 by phil rimmer on January 13, 2008 at 10:27 am

the fact that war and violence is a human norm which has shaped our evolution perhaps just as much as altruism.

So why has the homicide rate dropped an order of magnitude from prehistoric times to now? Is it possible that changed environmental pressures are altering phenotypical expression perhaps?

704. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #110876 by phil rimmer on January 13, 2008 at 6:01 am

Perhaps

No, Richard. It was me.

I suppose it's just my way of saying "We do understand how difficult it can be for you."

Gottit. Its not the "evidence and logic" its the "just" preceding it.

Wow. Sorry, Steve. I wonder who else I can pass myself off as? Better get myself an avatar before I'm tempted.

705. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #110852 by phil rimmer on January 13, 2008 at 3:39 am

This is one of the most stupid remarks I have ever read about the deconversion process. Why don't you just say that everybody (regardless of their religion) just needs to "follow the evidence and logic

A little harsh, Richard.

al-rawandi was addressing a specific individual who appears to be eminently rational. Speaking of whom....

Daleadil, welcome. Its good to have your input.

706. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110804 by phil rimmer on January 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I thought the article was excellent. I don't believe it gives any hostages to fortune in the language it uses. [EDIT except the poor phrasing of the lifestyle choices!] It should safely launch a much wider audience on the waters of moral relativism. It clearly delineates the better moral course as being one of investigation and introspection rather than adherence to the way of ancient dogma.

Though it seems the roots of our morality are not in fact grounded in crisp unambiguous Hebrew as some attest, they do seem to run a lot, lot deeper. When were the first truly socialised animals? Anyway, for me, objective morality has always stumbled at the first few hurdles, interpretation and the value judgments required in choosing the lesser of two evils.

Pinker's path to reconciliation between groups of equal but differing moral conviction is, I suspect, the single most important journey we as a species will have to make. We have come a long way in subverting some pretty basic brain wirng (xenophobic amygdalas etc.), enabling the transition from bleakly starving tribes to prosperous, leisured and creative nations. A further step is clearly necessary given that our ability to inflict harm has scaled up quite as dramatically.

Remembering that every war was a just war, aligning our moral sense becomes hugely important and Pinker's (and Chekov's) path, i.e. to objectively understand ourselves and each other, is the only rational course to take. Religion stands squarely in the way.

707. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110794 by phil rimmer on January 12, 2008 at 2:50 pm

it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time. It would contain re-packaged ideas from competitors, would attempt to put competing religions out of business, and would get clogged up with dogmatic add-ons, and would be vunerable to corruption.

I have never seen a more perfect definition of what a religion is.

F*ck!

God IS a speccy nerd.

Fortunately for us Bill Gates is the only real character here. He only screwed up some software not a whole planet full of people, and seems to be about to give us some of our money back...which is nice.

708. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #110573 by phil rimmer on January 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Welcome, spaz_girl.

Hope you spend a little time looking around here and get to know the range of our concerns. You might be surprised at the number of ex-christians you'll meet, who know their bible, and can quote it chapter and verse, and frequently do.

Have a look at converts corner where you'll find a number of stories that mirror people's experiences here.

Broadly, I think you might also find that it is not individual faith that is being challenged here so much as what it leads people to do in its name in the public domain.

709. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110528 by phil rimmer on January 11, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Maybe Hitchens is right. Maybe we should keep religion around, so we can always see its flaws and its dangers...

The wish to eliminate the proclivity for religion is like the wish to eliminate schizophrenia, or dwarfism or homosexuality, fraught with dangers. That we are manufactured only approximately alike is the greatest well-spring of our viability as a species.

To pare away at the bell curve of our traits, to narrow down and reduce the spread within our population is to reduce the genetic tool kit available for future problem solving.

It is society that needs to be cured of religion, not individuals.

Eugenics was evil. I don't see the difference here.

710. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110515 by phil rimmer on January 11, 2008 at 12:19 pm

but that is out of respect for my goat.

Faunicator!

711. The Group Delusion

Comment #110505 by phil rimmer on January 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Hey, al-

I stole my quip from (Yank), Woody Allen's movie, "Everything you wanted to know about Sex.."

Woody (!, as a sperm) is about to be launched into action. The guys hoisting the delivery chute with a winch are singing, basso profundo, "Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord...."

712. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110501 by phil rimmer on January 11, 2008 at 11:47 am

I too will wade in with the teensiest of caveats to Steve's reasonable assertions.

My Roman Catholic friend is the one Christian I know whom I can find no argument with. Does he believe in the resurrection? I don't really know. Apparently its none of my business. Are his kids brought up with unconditional access to ideas? Yep. Are they encouraged to question everything? It seems so.

Sadly, he is astonishingly rare. His discourse is utterly rational. His religious beliefs are NEVER used as justifications for what he argues. Heaven knows (sic?) what actually goes on in his mind, or how he juggles any conflicts, but, boy, he has my respect.

From conversations I suspect he feels the greatest gift he has been bestowed is that of Free Will. I think I could join him in that.

713. The Group Delusion

Comment #110497 by phil rimmer on January 11, 2008 at 11:25 am

Or an anti-porn movie type title-

"Mine eyes haven't seen the Glory....."

714. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108232 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2008 at 9:34 am

There is also hope for the victim who cn see their suffering as having been permitted by a God whose ultimate purposes are for GOOD. One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.

Sick, sick, sick.

715. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108218 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2008 at 9:12 am

But I am not a humanist. I am a Christian. I believe that suffering does not only give us great art. I believe that it can also be redemptive.

Ah yes! God plonked us in this divine manure so that we have the IDEAL environment to grow morally. That really is the shittiest argument of all, applying as it does to the 5 year old cancer victim AND the serial rapist, millionaire dying peacefully in his bed aged ninety.

Much as I subscribe to the "poetic theory of life" (happiness is sweetened through knowing sorrow), the sheer spectacular randomness of shit happening leads me not to a God Who has a Purpose for Us, but to a simple desire to try and make things better for those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. No God needed. No God wanted.

716. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106794 by phil rimmer on January 3, 2008 at 1:09 pm

I drink Guiness in the UK, but I think its affecting my jeans. They don't seem to fit as well as they used to.....I'll go now...

717. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106788 by phil rimmer on January 3, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Too right. Best reason for visiting the states.....

718. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106784 by phil rimmer on January 3, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Its gotta be Sam Adams, surely?

719. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106752 by phil rimmer on January 3, 2008 at 11:58 am

To be genetically modified so I could have the Netgear Giganode wireless modem implant would be pretty cool.

I'd opt for Wikipedia 3.0, Google Universe, and the traffic cameras on the M25 as permanently streamed resources. It would be great up until Virgin Media decided my network connection needed an upgrade and increased my tariff to cover the cost. Or Bill F****ing Gates auto-updated Mental Windows for Plebs with service pack 3 and made all my old memories unreadable. Why of why didn't I choose Apple Hyper Cortex?

Seriously, would we all opt for the same genetic upgrade or will this be the great parting of the ways?

720. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105676 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I found the remains of the fridge in last night's champagne.

Some party! Respec.

721. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105672 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm

WithGoodReason

Excellent moniker. Welcome and Happy New Year to you. Witty rationalism you'll find here aplenty, but probably not from me at the moment. (Found the remains of last nights champagne in the fridge.) So. Well. Cheers!

722. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105662 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm

D'ya think the naughtycleverdick has cottoned on yet that we've all been given hush money???

723. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105661 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I may be naive, but I kind of assumed that the idea of a comments page was to respond to both the article and the existing contributions

My second post, where I took a particular poster to task for outrageous stereotyping, has failed to appear after 4 hours.....

Perhaps these calumnies are to be taken as articles of faith and are to be respected? (Heaves)

724. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105639 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 11:27 am

Steve: It seems to have had no impact at all on that comments page. The repulsive nonsense is still continuing.

There's a lot of ugly minds on display there. The stereotyping is disgraceful. I'm sure your measured post will slowly work its way into some of those stubborn heads. As ever, my posts were rather less gracious.

725. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105628 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 9:52 am

Paula,

Sussed again :-(

(Oh, why did I lie in that personal ad?)

726. A War On Science

Comment #105625 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

steveroot

Their clear-headed commitment to Truth in science is illustrated by the nature of some of those quotes. Here's one I caught-

"The truth is that once you embark on Darwinian nihilism there is no resting place. If there is no point in life, everything in the end has to go — duty, laws, arts, letters, society — and you are left with nothing, except 'proceeding'.

Paul Johnson (The Spectator, 23 April 2005)"

They don't have a (gulp) agenda do they?

727. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105621 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 9:06 am

gd_edi

Not complicated just high maintenance.

(The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinions of the author. Any similarity between the characters portrayed and those in real life are entirely unintentional, darling.)

728. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105616 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 8:50 am

AllanW

Good extension to Richards list. (Roger's firing on all cylinders at present. Stonking!)

I'd like to add Diacanu, for the scalpal-like and creative use of invective. Such precise and well judged use of the f-word is a joy. 's cool too.

Spooky? At the moment I'm reading John Brockman's collection of Edge essays "What are you optimistic about?" I can recommend that too.

729. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #105593 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 6:10 am

I purposely drew a veil over Science's Evil Twin, Technology. Representing the conditions of Knowing and Doing respectively they do have different moral "footprints".

I want to say something along the lines that knowing things, testing knowledge and moving towards truth can surely only be viewed as virtuous, no matter how unfortunate that truth may be. Doing things, however, can go either way and, sadly, frequently does.

I have to admit to calling myself a scientist on a few occasions to hide the shameful truth that I am actually a technologist. (New year's resolution- Know more, do less.)

Epeeist: Just got the avatar. LOL.

730. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #105588 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 5:44 am

Surely part of what religion does is to think about whether it is right to accept changes as morally acceptable, e.g. euthanasia Science has no automatic moral underpinning. It merely says....we can (or cannot) do this or that.

Moral progress these days occurs through the better discernment of harm or the risk of harm to others. The basic principles of moral behaviour are accessible to all. Genetically underpinned and first formally voiced by the Axial Age thinkers across the globe, these ideas of morality became embedded in many traditions, including those of philosophy and religion.

The problem is religion added some extra stuff about morality. This stuff muddies the otherwise straightforward ideas of what moral behaviour is. Good Christians (etc.) believe that God's love of all his children is some kind of powerful extra motor for moral behaviour. (I love you, stranger, because God loves you.) This is an intellectual conceit that has no basis in the real world. Siblings have always fought for more of the attention from their loving parent. Bad religites make a virtue of this selfishness, ascribing all the Love to themselves. Of course, actively immoral behaviour is the result.

So, this extra motor for moral behaviour cannot be made into a TEST of the morality of a proposition as, say the Golden Rule might be, because to do so is to make it divisive like the bad religites. Surely, the Good Christian (etc.) must see God's Love is a "Blessing" on the whole of Creation not the basis of a divisive pass/fail moral judgment?

Religion helps us be moral? As a powerful carrier of Axial Age ideas and the stentorian tone to make them stick in the uneducated mind, perhaps once. But now, the risks are proving to be too great.

Science on the other hand may certainly help us be more moral in revealing the true extent of possible harm to others.

731. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105402 by phil rimmer on December 31, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Kul 'am wa enta bi-khair, to all our readers.

But special thanks to all the wise heads here who've kept me sane this year. No mean feat.

732. Monkey, Business

Comment #105353 by phil rimmer on December 31, 2007 at 10:18 am

I look forward to reading the Shermer. His (albeit cuddly version of) Libertarianism might just be skewing him on monopolies. Microsoft is one thing, but AT&T, Standard Oil and Du Pont were quite another. (Du Pont held the US government to ransom over munitions having bought up every last black powder mill.) Free markets mostly work brilliantly, but setting a few ground rules is reasonable.

I would love to hear his views on the US v. Sweden debate.

733. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104989 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 9:28 am

Spam flagged too. If rafael184 wants to submit specific arguments that we can reasonably discuss, that would be fine.

734. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104982 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 9:19 am

Well ... almost. Those lions were mammals too

The meat digesting enzymes in my gut and the bacon sandwich in my hand spoils the effect as well.

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

Comment #104966 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 7:28 am

But calling it play, doesn't explain why we have the urge to play, which is what I've tried to do.

It is extraordinary how playful animals are, mammals disproportionately so, higher mammals more and apes and dolphins arguably the most. Successful animals play. It combines both rehearsal of physical skills safely with an early form of scientific investigation, (look how slippy this mud is).

Skinner showed some aspects of how behaviour is learned, specifically positive reinforcement (negative works too but less well). Trying things out often leads to pleasurable results. Getting to the pleasure quicker leads the evolution of more effective play. Quite incidentally the skills lead to enhanced survival and are selected for.

Thats why I say the true innovators do it for childlike pleasure. The exploiters do it for increased social capital. I also believe market forces existed in neolithic times, but maybe I watched the Flintstones too much as a kid.

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

Comment #104962 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 7:08 am

Until we have far, far more detail about how thoughts happen and how they change and interact, it seems to me to be highly premature to label this "Darwinian", which means something far more specific than "selecting what is best".

I appreciate your caution here. "Darwinian" brings a lot of baggage, I'm sure a lot may prove totally inappropriate.

Where do you stand on memes and evolutionary processes? In coining the idea of memes Dawkins was moderately cautious not to ascribe too much to the genetic parallel. If creativity existed only at this highest level of conscious and expressible ideas, could Darwin be reasonably invoked? I realize this wouldn't necessarily cover pre-linguistic or pre-symbolic thinking, (the raven fashioning a metal hook from wire to retrieve a reward, for instance).

Like you I struggle to see evolution in strictly neurological processes. Hebbian learning, apoptosis, reinforcement etc. have no discernible copying mechanism for starters.

I still can't get your idea that you can get a lot of Design very quickly from an arrangement of simple elements and that this is an argument against its achievement through evolutionary means. Sorry. Brain in post sunday lunch mode.

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

Comment #104947 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 5:52 am

Dr. Patrick

I think you have some of the elements.

Being the first spear maker is good, but not very. Who knows how to use it? Being a better spear maker is great. You have a partially educated market and a better product. (Marconi, Edison, Bell etc. came second and won.) Useful creations evolved. True (initiating) innovators rarely achieve status or reward.

So why do they do it? Well, I think its akin to your first point, "succeeding at a given task not directly related to survival". If necessity is the mother of invention I think the father is PLAY.

In my mind play is inextricably linked to creativity. I think it no accident that the great mushrooming of inventiveness in England in the eighteenth century coincided with the advent of modern childhood when great numbers of preteens from the new "middling" classes were relieved of the obligation to work and educated and indulged with toys and newly written children's books. Educators could be surprisingly enlightened, believing that education should "delight the mind" as much as instruct.

Play was a proper pursuit for children and the opportunity to try and fail without consequence, but for the fun in trying, set the stage for a period of super-creativity.

What is the cause of the opportunity to play? Surplus wealth. Spare time. And in earlier times? Already being successful hunter gatherer apes.

738. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104941 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 5:06 am

Great video, Brian. Makes you proud to be a mammal.

739. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104936 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 4:50 am

The Bishop

Religious people have been at fault in the past for slagging off moralities that did not have a faith basis.

At the beginning of this new year, with the world so stricken with growing inequality, corruption, decadence and conflict, each of us, believer and unbeliever alike, need all the help we can get.

Again another sign that C of E moderates are seeking an accommodation with Atheism. They have rightly discerned that the issue of morality may actually be a key strength of ours.

Typical though that an appeal to moral decline is made, when the evidence shows the converse.

Scooternyc

One can only capitalize that which already exists from within.

As individuals, absolutely right. Our genetic bequest underpins everything.

Uncle JJ. Absolutely right. The morality of our socio-political systems (in the west at least) has its roots in the Axial Age (600BC ish).

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

Comment #104927 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 3:46 am

There are situations in computational systems where Design can fall "like manna from heaven"

But punctuated equilibrium and cladogenesis are Darwinian compatible ideas that cover this surely?

That there are lacunae of stable systems (small and large)in a morass of chaotic, unstable possibilities does not in any way count against them being "discovered" by an essentially Darwinian process.

What frustrates me about this article (but perhaps not in the book that will surely follow) is an absence of the delineation of the neural processes that could lead to evolved thoughts. High level conscious thinking is not a problem. Memes work for me. It is the unconscious thinking that is the issue.

Maybe this is what you're talking about, Steve. You wake up with the solution to a problem suddenly available to you. A lot of problem solving seems to work like that for me.

The question is, how "executive" is unconscious thought? Is it simply conscious thought where we've somehow failed to remember the context of the thought? This untagged thought, perhaps, is less generally accessible to us but may be accessed at critical moments when a bunch of self-consistent such thoughts become available and get worked through with uncanny ease and familiarity.

(Reading my own writings from even just a few months ago I am astonished at the unfamiliarity of some of the ideas in there. I can't remember ever thinking such thoughts.)

741. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104742 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 10:12 am

Like the new pic, Steve. Has a certain gravitas.

742. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104698 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 6:29 am

I don't see what opinion of RDs world view he could have, other than that RD is an unconscious believer while consciously/wilfully denying god's existence.

I think RW is moving into a Panglossian / What a Wonderful World view of religion. God works through the totality of his creation which is available to all. In this he's keeping up with the zeitgeist of our common stewardship of our pale-blue-dot-of-a-home. Generally, this is a good thing as it suggests a drift towards deism (we are a product of and driven by our god-given environment) rather than theism (god made us and directs us).

743. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104696 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 6:16 am

Ah religion! Its about nothing unless its about politics.

744. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104671 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 5:24 am

The Archbishop, however daffy he may seem, is far from intellectually lacking and he'll have had a reason for referring to RD in this way. And you may be sure his aim is to weaken atheism, not strengthen it.

Well its a hugely risky play. He knows that RD gets as much attention as he now from the media. I suspect his intention is rather more what he might term "an accommodation". I would have thought he rather wants RD to stop hitting him and direct his blows more clearly to his breakaway homophobic mob.

745. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104661 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 5:10 am

It's quite abhorrent actually. I am disappointed that many of you can't see through this.

But this is exactly how religion may begin to morph into something less obnoxious. I hope they steal all our clothes. Few of us here have the view that religion stands high on the matter of intellectual integrity. Another shameful fudge is just what we need.
The one piece of honesty in this is that atheists are acknowledged as in some sense worthy. This is a sea change to be voiced at this level. Many Christians I have talked to (many seemingly charming) have a very low opinion of us.(Notable exception here- Krisking)

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

Comment #104611 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 2:04 am

Nevertheless I've not seen a more clear case of blinkered dogma being dissonant from reality for a very long time.

Actually, I share your glee. Its bonkers. Its bloody marvelous.

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

Comment #104609 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 2:01 am

It is actually this very thinking that leads to the wickedness the Pope fears.

If the Pope were to say satanism is complete nonsense, much so-called satanic behaviour would cease.

It is also analogous to our current political leaders using the threat of terrorism to scare us into being a more obedient flock.

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

Comment #104601 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 1:51 am