751. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59410 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 1:27 am

Josh

I just have to say how much I (and I am sure many others on here) appreciate all the hard work you and your helpers put into this website.

I am sure organising the t-shirt thing involved a great deal of time.

Best

C.

P.S. I love the Hawthorne reference: I think it's classy :)

752. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59182 by Corylus on July 28, 2007 at 1:04 am

Arh, Bluebird,

That explains it: we all need to bulk up in the winter :)

753. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59136 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 1:50 pm

OT - Bluebird

Have you been visiting the garden of someone who likes leaving out lots of bird food/treats?

You are looking a little... chunkier.

Suits you though :)

754. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59133 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Thanks for having the guts to come on here and clarify Glacian.

This person needed only to email you, or place a comment in the forum, and you could have clarified for him personally.

Somehow though, I doubt that this is his style.

755. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59104 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 10:40 am

Hmm, can't even pronounce 'Torah'. I guess that explains one so rarely hears the term 'Pentateuch' :)

Seriously, guys, (speaking as someone with a psych degree) this guy is ringing my loony alarm bells loud and clear.

Look at him:
A youngish male.
Demonstrating a deep seated sense of personal persecution.
Obviously spends a great deal of time attempting to uncover 'hard' evidence for said conspiracy.
Inability to consider opposing viewpoints / explanations.
Militaristic language.
A strange almost monotonal fashion of talking about a subject he obviously feels strongly about.
Complete lack of facial affect.
(Those last two are particularly worrying)

Wouldn't like to meet him on a dark night...

756. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59025 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 2:30 am

This video has been posted on this site before - but for those that missed it first time round...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lPClWkEdES8

A little song about abstinence.

757. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58721 by Corylus on July 26, 2007 at 12:56 am

An Abbott who watches Jim Carrey films - now that is God working in mysterious ways. There's one of my six impossible things before breakfast right there. (Gives them something to do in the monastery I guess).

I am not going to be too harsh on the guy, this was a well written article even if I disagree. Hell, at least he didn't pull out the atheists are moral slugs card...

Our first response to such tragedies is the same for atheist and theist alike: we want to help.

Abbott, if your reading this: Don't bother with Liar, Liar - I watched it and nearly lost the will to live.

758. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58717 by Corylus on July 26, 2007 at 12:36 am

It think it is important to check out the article this is a response to - link at the top of the page.

Barbara Kay's article is just awful. The gist of it appears to be 'well there have always been atheists about, but now they have just got so uppity!'

Dreadful piece. Poorly conceived, badly argued, completely unstructured and spectaculary guilty of the very arrogance of which she accuses atheists.

This is a very measured response.

759. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #58636 by Corylus on July 25, 2007 at 2:28 pm

ReasonIsMyHumeboy

That's great for a first post :)

Plus anyone who mentions Hume is fine by me.

I never had to go through the really tough disullisionment stage that so many on here have to. So I am afraid that I do not really understand...

However, I think you might find some interesting comments on the 'converts corner' part of this website. Top left hand side.

Best.

C.

760. Camp Joins Summer Fun With Teaching Hindu Faith

Comment #58631 by Corylus on July 25, 2007 at 1:50 pm

OK. Thanks for the answers guys :) I think I have a handle on the whole business now. Cultural differences on the board appear to account for my confusion.

Seems that the American/Canadian version of "camping" is somewhat different from the British one.

The Amercian/Canadian version includes kids dispatched without consent, enforced indoctrination and oxymoronic titles. However, on the plus side it does include the possibility of hot running water and a warm bed.

The British version is about parts of your anatomy (that you didn't even know you possessed) turning blue, experiencing the kind of pervasive damp that seeps into your bones and sleeping on a bed consisting of a plastic sheet placed on top of some sharp rocks.

On the plus side, there is no indoctrination and also the vague chance (after a short detour to Mount Doom to drop off a ring) of finding a hostelry to drown your sorrows in.

I really don't know what's worse!

Answers on a postcard...

761. Camp Joins Summer Fun With Teaching Hindu Faith

Comment #58619 by Corylus on July 25, 2007 at 11:56 am

Interesting, no-one seems to be questioning the actual notion of 'summer camp' in its entirety.

Is this 'summer camp' business a good / bad thing in general?

The whole thing seems to me to be a whole exercise in risk. E.g. You might get indoctrinated into all type of cults, you might be a martyr to poison ivy, hell, you might even find yourself in a "Deliverance" type of situation. Strikes me this is not good.

So why send your children on these anyway??? (Irrespective of the ethos of the teachers). I'm puzzled.

N.B. I am willing to be entertained by tales of intellectual growth, spiritual enlightenment and jolly adventures by any who any who have actually attended these bucolic gulags, but at the moment I am unconvinced.

BTW - please do not try any "do not knock it until you have tried it comments". I have tried camping. It was vile. Hideously uncomfortable, freezing cold and the pub was £$^&ing miles away. Talk about going on holiday by mistake...

762. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58349 by Corylus on July 24, 2007 at 3:00 pm

P.S. Dianelos, can I echo Philip's advice and recommend checking out the Sam Harris vs Andrew Sullivan debate.

An interesting read. Link below.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,536,God-Is-Not-a-Moderate,Sam-Harris-and-Andrew-Sullivan-Beliefnetcom

763. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58336 by Corylus on July 24, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Sam Harris ... hmm, I have to say that he strikes me a bit of an interesting type in so many ways.

Like Dianelos I was surprised at how philosophical The End of Faith was.* I knew he was a philosophy graduate, but still I didn't expect it. I can be very stupid at times! Which means I have to read philosophy books more than once to have even a fighting chance. So, I find myself wondering whether it is actually possible (for me anyway) to understand his books on a first reading.

So, I still don't profess to comprehend it all, but I do think it helps to consider Sam's academic background - philosophy and neuroscience.

There can be a huge dissonance between the two fields. For example you know both how people are supposed to think i.e. clearly, logically (philosophy) and how they actually do think, i.e. sadly predictably in the most part and on occasion really strangely (neuroscience). Those two world views are hard to reconcile. (I see this because the two subjects I have studied most, psychology and philosophy, have similar dissonance. Trying to reconcile them makes my teeth itch).

So, I see Sam's End of Faith as the internal dialogue of a man attempting to simultaneously understand both those beliefs that we cling to and those that we shy away from. Things we think about clearly and things we barely question at all. It is about questioning what we see as self-evident knowledge, so I understand what Dianelos is saying when he says that it is about epistemology.

(N.B. That is why I think the that section on torture is included; the one that Sam gets such grief about. If you are going to do moral philosophy you have to consider the logical end point of every argument, calmly and without fear, because you can be darn sure that at some point someone will come along and consider that same end point in an atmosphere of emotion and terror. Forewarned is forearmed. I actually don't think he is advocating torture, merely considering the conditions where belief in it might arise...)

His book Letter to a Christian nation is very interesting in another way. I reckon it is actually a very impressive work of psychology. It is all about understanding and immersing oneself in a worldview (fundamentalist American Christianity) in its entirety in order to persuade people out of it.

I found myself emotionally completely untouched by the book, other than sometime slightly amused at Sam's persuasive techniques. However, I can envisage some people reading it through and feeling unsettled, deeply disturbed, and, if Sam has judged it right, utterly bereft of certainty.

I don't know whether anyone seems him in this way or maybe I am just talking out of my rear end again. Happens on occasion.

------
*I have to say I didn't sense a lot of anger in it though. Dianelos, have you read Hitchens yet? I freely admit that he tends to get a bit cross at times :)

764. Face to faith

Comment #57950 by Corylus on July 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm

P.S. I take the point of alot of people on here that the study of the role of religion in society is a very interesting subject. I agree. Also, I understand if some people may feel I have been harsh above...

However, I must point out that this piece offers nothing new and is dreadfully unfair to Dennett who bends over BACKWARDS in his book to be even handed and leave open the possibility that religion might have positive consequences for society.

765. Face to faith

Comment #57946 by Corylus on July 22, 2007 at 2:46 pm

This short piece is actually quite informative if only the language in it is properly read.

As someone who one spent some time reading up on cultural theory and postmodernism (hell, anyone can make a mistake!) I offer a translation.

... the study of religion has often been seen as a Cinderella subject, a strange subfield in the academic world with little to do with the pressing questions of the day.

Trans: nobody listens to us, but we don't give a stuff cos we talk each other.

The idea that the study of religion could be an urgent area of cultural inquiry with the potential for generating insights that are as important for our future wellbeing as the study of economics, computer science or the natural sciences still seems implausible to many people."

Trans: Good thing too, because we can then look down on the plebs that don't understand us.

Given this intellectual background, it is remarkable that substantial books about religion have recently become bestsellers, such as Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, as well as Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

Trans: "Those buggers are being read! Why?? Where the %$*& are our royalty cheques?

(Then: Blah, Blah bit of postmodern wank about how the state of the world is all nasty old colonial Europe's fault - no piece of modern social commentary is without this.)

We have seen the emergence of a new generation of commentators about religion who appear blissfully unaware of the field of religious studies and who feel no great obligation to engage with previous scholarship in this area.

Trans: Bastards didn't even cite us.

The criticisms about the gaps and imbalances in Dawkins' work have already been well made. But even in the more carefully scholarly work of Dennett there are worrying trends. His claim, for example, that religion has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to society may appeal to anxious liberals, but belies a lack of knowledge of academic work on religion, politics and violence.

Trans: We all know that religion keeps the masses in check - how dare D & D start the peasants revolting?

(Then: Yet another bit of postmodern wank about how the state of the world is all nasty old colonial Europe's fault)

It is not professional sour grapes to observe that current bestselling books on religion engage too little with existing academic work on the study of religion. Without such knowledge there is a real danger that secular, liberal academics will paint a fearful picture of religion that could distort public perceptions and policy on religion for a generation.

Trans: Shit. What it going to happen to our research grants?

There is a sting in the tail here for serious students and scholars of religion as well. All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles. This needs to change if we want the voices shaping the debates about religion in today's world to be better informed and balanced.

Trans: %$*& it! If you can't beat them join them. Let's all get writing on our atheism books guys!

766. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57375 by Corylus on July 19, 2007 at 3:56 am

Henri

Oh my, you have actually got a moustache haven't you!!!

Re jokes, I use them because they stop people getting wound up - it is easy to get overemotional and misread text and then take offence where none is intended. For the same reason I use little smiley faces alot - they look naff but what the heck.

Seems to me that you are fine at making jokes at other peoples' expense, but not so good at taking those at yours: I would define that as a poor sport.

With regard to whether you 'destroyed' my previous suggestion - I will let others be the judge of that.

767. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57372 by Corylus on July 19, 2007 at 3:38 am

Henri

Do you think Nietzsche understood Islam?

You haven't told us whether or not you have got a moustache BTW - come on, 'fess up ;)

768. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57357 by Corylus on July 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

Bonzai wrote

I have a funny feeling that Bergson is probably a Christian troll trying to argue the tired and resoundingly refuted point that morality cannot have meaning without God by pretending to be a nihilistic fascist. Either that, or he is truly a nihilistic fascist. But why would a nihilist has so much hatred for Islam in particular?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some incognito Christian trolls on here :) However, I don't think Henri is one. I would say that he is actually what he purports to be: a Nietzsche junkie. (Wonder if he has got a moustache?)

Nothing wrong with having a Nietzschean phase, (the writing is wonderfully clear and often funny: "Why I write such good books" what a brilliant heading!) however, it is best to grow out of it when one finishes puberty.

The trouble with seeing morality in terms of 'master and slave' is that it is easy to assume master=good slave=bad. The reality of course, is that the two positions are actually inter-dependant and mutually parasitic: neither can exist without the other. You do not transcend by becoming a Superman, you merely become more dependant on other men to justify your use of the title.

Foucault (of whom Henri seems to approve) actually demonstrated this unthinkingly in his admiration (and I reckon plagiarism) of Nietzsche. Dreadful books, circular and self-referential. Eventually, you realise that viewing morality, or even the world in general, merely in terms of power is mistaken in that you have already stacked your deck against yourself. You make too many assumptions. Your 'histories' merely become personal opinions and the possibility of progress or fundamental change is; by your own definition; ruled out from the start.

It is very important to take a long hard look at your presuppositions, otherwise philosophical statements merely take on the noise of flies buzzing in bottles...

This bring me to why Henri does not like Islam. Well, I don't think it a sense of concern for the oppressed, I rather suspect it is because that Islam causes a problem for his Nietzschean world view. How can one with any legitimacy talk about a christian 'slave' morality when there is another religion out there with the name of 'submission' that puts it to the pale? One has to consider the possibility that Nietzsche was short-sighted or even.... wrong. Always unsetting when one's idols fall.

Pewkatchoo comment #204 - bloody well said.

769. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57177 by Corylus on July 18, 2007 at 1:12 pm

_J_

Thanks! I had a look at the Church of Scotland thread the other day. (Guess I'm just missing our Dave, sigh, be still my trembling heart...)

I notice that you mention the fact that you have another (big) post coming alot. Which might just stop it being 'moderated' into oblivion.

I echo Elli. You are indeed a smart eyeball ;)

Now go and do some work!

770. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57147 by Corylus on July 18, 2007 at 11:54 am

I have to put a word in for Douglas Adams as a philosopher here. That whole business of the answer to life the universe and everything being 42 is actually both funny and philosophically adept.

The point, of course, being that one must phrase one's questions with sufficient clarify and precision that the answers ( when/if then come) are both intelligible and relevant to the question at hand.

To put another way, think of Popper's dictum that 'a theory that explains everything explains nothing'. Attempting to solve problems by creating all-encompassing syntheses of incompatable ideas is a trap that even the best philosophers are famous for falling into. Love 'em - they want easy answers!... Don't we all :(

So it is always a good plan to consider the possibility that your original question was merely couched in incorrect terms. Good point Douglas.

Philip, don't drink tea when you have a cold. I find bottle of decent Shiraz shamlessly wasted on washing down a madras curry always fixes me up fine - show it who's boss!

771. Preventing More Lal Masjids

Comment #56954 by Corylus on July 18, 2007 at 12:35 am

Completely trivial point, but I can't help but notice the following:

for them the comic sight of the bearded Maulana Abdul Aziz fleeing in a burqa...

A terroist attempting the flee Britain recently tried to get out in a burqa (unfortunately for him was well over 6ft so suspicions were raised). I have even heard what is, I suspect an urban myth, that Bin Laden gets about in one.

I would have thought that there would be a huge taboo and restriction in Islam against the wearing of clothes not of your gender. Yet noone seems to bat an eyelid when it is done. Can anyone tell me what gives?

(For Little Britian fans: is it ok if they say "I'm a Ladeee")

772. Insurance for Sex Abuse: A policy tailor-made for the Catholic church

Comment #56952 by Corylus on July 18, 2007 at 12:18 am

Luthien

You seem to have been away for a bit. Welcome back! Missed you and your fun avatar :)

773. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56700 by Corylus on July 17, 2007 at 1:30 am

Interestingly, alot of the local muslims realise that this is one BAD plan.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article651161.ece

I believe this was tried by the Saudis for the Greek Olympics too.

Sigh.

774. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56604 by Corylus on July 16, 2007 at 2:09 pm

This is actually a very interesting article from a psychological viewpoint.

Extreme naivety and bigotry in one article. Moral fury combined with a sense of sad disappointment (Dawkins, born in KENYA writes such things!??). Innocence and ignorance in one tidy package.

We all see the worst points when we travel abroad; we like to look down on others. This man is no different. (I admit I too have been guilty of this, but I do try to understand and control this tendency and only condemn when I have seen all sides)

He sees Churches turned into nightclubs, theatres and bars - this happens I grant you, but many more churches are turned into houses than dens of iniquity. (What's wrong with nightclubs, theatres and bars anyway? People enjoying themselves???) There is even one turned into a library near me. I admit this pleases me :)

He finds it reprehensible that men fight over other men in bars - something tells me that he would deem it 'only natural' when men fight over women.

He will go home, satisfied in his own sense of moral superiority, and (I agree with Robert S on this one) work hard towards enacting all manner of laws...

775. LA Church 'agrees abuse pay deal'

Comment #56554 by Corylus on July 16, 2007 at 11:42 am

Geckoman

Well, I can't comment on the numbers that do not come forward at all, because, by definition I would not have heard about them :) I have studied psychology though, so I think I can say the following..

Paedophiles are prolific. Add that to the fact that priests (unlike many others who work with children) do not seem to have a sensible retirement age - they just seem to go on till senility. They can therefore have both a long career as a priest and a long career as a child abuser.

Also, paedophiles are often smart, they will tell children that it is their fault and that they asked for it, adding to the guilt and shame that stops reporting. (I imagine that a Catholic priest would have an extra talent for that sort of thing - i.e."You will go to hell if you tell" and "If you confess your sin, neither or us need mention it again"...)

When these children grow up they often discover that silence has become an impossible habit to break, and a small part of them continues to wonder whether it really was their fault. Completely understandable, and I hope that those who did not come forward are not now blaming themselves not talking. Only one group of people need to feel any guilt at all for this situation.

So, to conclude, I don't think the full extent of this will ever come to light.

However, I think there is cause for optimism here in that; while this is not true justice; this is the light of day being shown where it wasn't previously. More previous victims will be believed now, because some really brave people were willing to fight this. I really hope that your suggestion about priests being screened before being appointed is taken on board.

So, I offer a round of applause to any of the survivors (not victims); who have doubtless spoken for many; should any happen to chance upon this thread.

[Edited for clarity and 'cos I sounded pompous!]

776. LA Church 'agrees abuse pay deal'

Comment #56475 by Corylus on July 16, 2007 at 12:52 am

Isn't it vile that they waited to just before the trail before announcing the settlement?

Steven Sanchez, a plaintiff in the case, said he was both relieved and disappointed by the outcome.

"I was really emotionally ready to take on the archdiocese in court in less than 48 hours...

Doubtless waiting to see if people would withdraw rather than face the court case and save the Church some money. A game of legal 'chicken' with peoples lives and feelings. Absolutely despicable.

With regard to whether or the figure of 500 is inflated or whether there are more victims out there... Well, for a time I worked as an administrator for the Crown Prosecution Service (British version of the DA's Office). I have to say that the sexual offences cases were the hardest to bring to court and get convictions for and the childhood ones the very worse of those.

The people receiving settlements will be the most articulate, educated and resolute of the victims. They will be those willing to put themselves through court cases, those best able to make good 'witnesses', and those who have managed to live their lives without killing themselves with drink and drugs in order to forget.

There will be others out there.

777. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56363 by Corylus on July 15, 2007 at 9:46 am

Dianelos

Interesting thread and enjoyable reading. In serious admiration of your stamina - and to all others contributing on this one :)

Best.

C.

778. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56361 by Corylus on July 15, 2007 at 9:35 am

Paul

Seems you are still struggling with the vexed subject of morality - sorry I couldn't convince you out of your Kantian viewpoint on other threads.

I find it useful to go back to the ancients when something is worrying me. I can't put it better than Marcus Aurelius... hmm ...stoic philosophy - maybe a good half-way point between the stereotypical "happy theism" and "pessimistic atheism": God exists (as logos), but life is still sh~t!

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

Who needs Kant??

So, enjoy your hols, and your holiday reading! Make sure you give yourself plenty of breaks from this thread to enjoy yourself though... Or you might just find yourself wishing you had taken that nice Dan Brown book on holiday instead; like everyone else. Now, what is its' name? ;)

779. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56134 by Corylus on July 14, 2007 at 12:44 am

The plan will see 76 six-metre high poles, joined by wire, put up at 34 points around the town.

Hmm.. Wonder if you could run a current through it??

Seriously though - this is daft beyond measure.

780. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56030 by Corylus on July 13, 2007 at 11:43 am

Re: comment 54. by KRKBAB

Agreed.

I am pleased that we have lots of new posters recently: I love to hear new views.

However, I get disappointed when people start out their posting with unjustified rudeness.

There is such a thing as good manners.

781. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55962 by Corylus on July 13, 2007 at 3:38 am

Logicel

I would prefer to have the last word and post the last comments in all the threads...

No chance sweetheart!

On making the first comment, I always think long and hard before doing that. Some of the articles on here are written satirically - I fear leeping in with my big feet, totally misunderstanding, and making myself look a complete wally. I do that often enough in the general course of my life anyway :(

Cowardly and conformist I know, but there you are.

P.S. Lovely interview with Hitch: I did enjoy the mental image of the little boy in his sandals.

782. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55849 by Corylus on July 12, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Paul
You state:

By the way, Corylus, you should know better than to try

Countries with high levels of atheism are not known for their anarchy or moral depravity (Sweden, Denmark etc.)

You are both right and wrong with this one. You are right to note that correlation and causation are not the same thing. However, what correlation does do is give us a clue to possible trends and factors: statisiticians would not use it otherwise.

You asked a specific, testable question

Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, by the majority of any population could have a negative effect on human development?

I answered it with evidence, i.e. the lack of depravity in Scandianavian countries.

I could give you further evidence, for example, you appear to think that marriage agreements with a theist element are somehow more binding. (To your credit you do not exclude gay couples from this analysis. I am glad that you are not an uber strict Kantian in this regard)

Unfortunately, there are studies to the contrary (correlational I agree: but interesting nonetheless) stating that divorce rates amongst atheists are lower than for Christians. - Google "Barna Research Group" and "marriage": look at the figures.

You appear to be worried that non-theistic morality might be bad for society as a whole. You are not alone in this. Plenty of both theists and atheists have made the same point. This is what Dennett calls "Belief in Belief". I have come to the conclusion that this concern is both mistaken; the figures simply do not bear it out; and deeply, insultingly patronising. How dare any of us tell people what they should believe in (irrespective of whether or not we ourselves believe it to be true), merely because we feel that a certain belief will cause less bother to us?

I am more lucky than many on here in that I was never a subject of enforced religious indoctrination. My parents had other things to think about. Ok, other relatives fed me a bit of pap and I had the normal Anglian teachings in school, but I was generally allowed to think for myself.

However, as a precocious and snotty pre-teen I decided to read the bible to see what all the fuss was about that. In horror at the violent, barbaric, misognistic tract that I was reading I rejected religion outright. (N.B. I like to think that my adult reasons for rejecting religion are somewhat more advanced and nuanced than that child's, but my conclusions remain the same).

You are a religious studies teacher, you must have some naturally atheistic students in your classes. How do you deal with them? Do you, as you have done with us, imply that they don't have; and can never experience; a valid understanding of morality?

In your experience are these students the ones that end up in jail before they hit 20, or are they the ones that go on to study more?

I understand your concerns regarding societal decay, but I truly think they are unfounded. Like Donald, I personally wish you the best. However, I am afraid that you are simply not listening to the answers that people are taking the time to give you.

783. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55712 by Corylus on July 12, 2007 at 3:54 am

Dammit!

I wasn't going to get sucked into this one any more, but I can't let this talk of marriage go by.

Paul
You don't like marriage being viewed as a contract

I think this can happen when you see marriage as a contract. I see it as a much deeper commitment, and it is not because I'm scared of God.

Now, you're a bit Kant fan. I don't agree, but I can deal. You talk about basing your morality on Kantian ideals. Are you are aware of what Kant actually said about marriage? He actually viewed marriage completely in contractual terms:

Marriage (matrimonium), which is the Union of two Persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties.

Who says romance is dead?

Also, toward the end of his life, Kant said:

"When I needed a wife I couldn't afford one; when I could afford one, I no longer needed one."

Good job the miserable old prig never got hitched!

I don't think your views on marriage are based on objective pure morality. Getting married (and staying married) is about emotional, subjective judgements. My parents (an agnostic and an atheist) have been married for 40 years now. Nothing to do with God: every thing to do with two people. I really think you are completely kidding yourself to say otherwise.

N.B. What are your views on Gay Marriage by the way?

As a general point, I have to ask, what are your suggestions for solving the conflict you see between Atheism and lack of morality? Are you suggesting that atheists should be 'persuaded' into belief? Lest

....Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity...
Yeats

Countries with high levels of atheism are not known for their anarchy or moral depravity (Sweden, Denmark etc.)

Who are you on here to convince? Us or yourself?

784. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55300 by Corylus on July 10, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Kurtdenke

I feel your pain! I am an arts type myself and (although I flatter myself that I am learning) some of the science stuff on here makes my poor brain ache.

You might want to check out the following article, and some of the responses to it.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic

It is a much longer review by Jerry Coyne concerning Behe.

785. A force for good?

Comment #55074 by Corylus on July 10, 2007 at 12:50 am

I just have to say how hugely impressive I find it that this website always honestly shows dissenting views.

Today, seeing "A Force for Good" and "A Force for Evil" both posted; side by side for honest comparison; epitomises this.

I suspect that there will be a number of christian websites very happy to only post one article.

786. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54710 by Corylus on July 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Bizarro

... it's great that I've taken the perogative to engage those of different, er, philosophies in civil discussion.

What is the reason for that "er"? Two possibilities:

1)Are you suggesting that the philosophies discussed on this website are not worthy of the title? Fine. Lay out yours and you will find plenty of people willing to chat.

2) Was that an attempt at an insult? Well, I admit the language on here can be a bit direct (we are all adults)and I am guilty of adding to this myself - I can be excitable. However, I have to say that I much prefer an honest up-front insult to a snide insinuation.

787. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54708 by Corylus on July 8, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Paul
Blimey that was a long response! Must have taken you some time, well done. Don't worry about getting tetchy: we all do that sometimes :)

I suspect that part of the reason is that you are talking to several different atheists who; although they agree on the non-existence of God; do not agree on moral theory. (You have received Kantian, Humean, social contract and utilitarian responses on here, and then there is our resident Nietzschean chatting on another thread). That must be really frustrating and appear inconsistent. However, I think that you will agree that this is evidence that plenty of atheists do think very long and hard about questions of morality and how to live well.

I will try to answer your points to me, but this is difficult in that moral theory is a huge subject and it is impossible to sucintly sum up my entire position here. Plus, I find it hard not to whitter on sometimes.(I think that Logicel is right in that you might get more satisfactory answers in the forum).

As you have replied to me, I will try and give you a brief outline though.

You are right: my position is that there is no such thing as objective morality - I hope I get credit for not skirting this one!

This is for the simple reason that humans are not (about matters of morality) objective. Moral statements are subjective emotional statements; they are not objective or practical statements. This admission of mine leads you to state:

I found it very hard to agree with Corylus that morality could still be moral without being objective.

So, as I understand it, your challenge to me is thus: Taking on board the above, how do I prevent myself from falling into moral relativism, depravity and general naughtiness? Or even if I don't do that, how do I legitimately condemn those that do? How can any moral judgement I make have any claim to universability?

OK, firstly, we need to look at how morality develops. We are physical beings, who learn by interacting with our environment and knowing what it is to feel harm. We experience empathy (the feeling of another's pain as our own) because of our own understanding of harm. This harm can be mental or physical. (Although as a monist I take the view that these terms are just different ways of describing the same thing).

However, if we don't know that an action causes harm, it is impossible for us to condemn it. We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We learn facts about what hurt other people, i.e. we might learn that some traditional remedies have side effects that were previously unknown and ultimately kill more than they cure. When we learn facts like these our emotional reactions change in relation to these treatments. This is what at meant when I said that I said that facts (ultimately) only inform our emotional moral judgements.

This is where facts come in, it must be understood that when we make moral statements we do so in the context of the information and knowledge presently available to us. This is why the relationship and distinction between values and facts is actually quite complex.

Now, if I learn about someone in some place using this remedy on their child, I can say that it is understandable that they do so (in that they think it will help) however, I can also say that they are 'wrong' to do so: in light of the information that I have to hand. (However, I have to leave open the possibility that further facts might be uncovered that renders my judgement invalid). This then is how I I see universal moral statements. What you you mean as universal is based in rule based systems. E.g. This is wrong and will be wrong for ever.

I actually think that this is a really depressing conclusion to draw, in that leads no room for further learning. For example, we know more about mental illness now, should we call someone with Multiple Personality Disorder 'possessed'? "My name is Legion for I am many." Should such people be hounded from town?

I can consider the possibility that the actions that I view as moral might; in some future time; be considered the actions of a savage. I find this though both humbling (a feeling that can be good for people sometimes) and hugely optimistic. Moral knowledge, just like any other form of knowledge is cumulative. There is no place for this sort of understanding in rule-based, theistic morality. This is why I reject it. This is also why I think that obtaining moral guidance form simple unchanging statements is actually a deeply immoral position. (For example, that ridiculous "All you need are the 10 Commandments" drivel one often hears from hardline American Christians)

I do hope that you can understand (I doubt Bizarro ever will) that many atheists do not reject theistic morality due to it being too hard, or because they are unable to resist their baser urges, or because they haven't thought about the subject, but instead because they have looked at theistic morality and said "Not good enough – people matter more than that."
-------
Before someone comes along and accuses me of misunderstanding and bastardizing Hume and the fact/value distinction. Well… mebbe:) But in my defence I have to say that I am finding it really hard to succinctly summarize my position which is actually (I flatter myself) more complex than stated above. I do not want to hear the snores from cyberland echoing over my PC's speakers.

Donald you might have got few readers for your post, but I read it and I found it interesting.

788. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54480 by Corylus on July 7, 2007 at 11:56 am

In a little book called The Dawkins Delusion he takes apart the arguments of his fellow Oxford professor and chides him for his unscholarly ignorance of theology. But though excellently argued, this is hardly likely to become a bestseller.

Damn straight its not! It costs £7.99 for a REALLY tiny book. I have read the darned thing (let no one accuse me of not investigating both sides of an argument!) and take apart Dawkins' arguments it does not (doesn't even address most of them).

It is an interesting read in two ways though.

1) It could be used as an instruction manual for understanding the catty, snide, measly mouthed way that academics sometimes use language to insult each other. To a casual reader it may sound like 'chiding', but that book was actually spectacularly rude.

2) I got a laugh when McGrath suggested POMA (Partially Overlapping MAgisteria) as opposed to the famous NOMA (Non Overlapping MAgisteria).
Partially Overlapping MAgisteria indeed. Plucked Out of My Arse more like...

789. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54204 by Corylus on July 6, 2007 at 2:44 am

Paul Emecz said

Please point out these unanswerable arguments. I tend to find that the atheists give up when confronted by clear thinking (I've been contributing to a few threads and the come-backs just stop):

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1324,The-infinite-wisdom-of-Richard-Dawkins,John-Allemang,page2#comments

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1338,In-Defense-of-Witchcraft,Sam-Harris,page2#comments

Paul, I did not stop talking to you on that witchcraft thread: you stopped talking to me. Did you watch that link I posted BTW? What did you think of it?

I understand how you get frustrated when you think that people are not answering your questions (we all do), but you are making it difficult for people to enter into a diaglogue with you by swapping from thread to thread.

If you want an example of how this should be done, might I direct you to the thread regarding Alistar McGrath. People on there are talking civily to a highly intelligent and extremely polite believer.

They are not 'giving up' when 'confronted by clear thought' they are responding with points of their own.

I understand that you have received some simplistic and borderline insulting comments on various threads and that is regretable, but please do not lower yourself by responding in kind.

Thank you.

790. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54012 by Corylus on July 5, 2007 at 12:37 am

Can anyone hear a banging noise?? Yep - my head... that wall...

Bizarro, I'm intrigued.

Your chums at Liberty - do they know about your posting on this website? Or is it something that you keep very, very quiet?

I'm thinking it is very late (or very early) in Virginia at the moment. No-one about?

791. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53964 by Corylus on July 4, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Sigh…

I don't normally join it with laddish humour, but I think that a little comedy is needed today.*

In honour of Geckomans, truly impressive, in depth, and I have to say; surprisingly logical; analysis on the subject of heavenly virgins. (Nothing like bonking to get men thinking). I direct analysis to the following:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2unGl1cRI_s

An original theological speculation by a Scottish comedian (why does his nationality not surprise me? You know who you are gentlemen) as to why the number '72' is important.

(Warning puerile)

P.S. This one's fun too ;)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aibKW_1HV-c

----------
*Lots of scraping on other threads depressing me: guys please don't fight: it makes little Corylus sad…

792. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53855 by Corylus on July 3, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Blimey Gordon – you managed that in a couple of days!

Beginning to dislike you now :P

That would have taken me weeks. Plus I would have murdered it by trying to force it into traditional form. (Instead of just hinting at the possibility like you've done). That's the only way I can deal with irrational events – I intellectualise them to death. It wouldn't have worked – your bomber is, by definition, outside of rational…

Well done.

793. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53763 by Corylus on July 3, 2007 at 4:08 am

Paul

Re: your question.

What would stop us, though, from setting up research institutes in the poorer nations of the world, and exploiting desperate people by carrying out dangerous experiments on human subjects?

Very simple answer to this. Research ethics committees. In order for western researchers to carry out research on human subjects they need approval from these boards. These committees are staffed by doctors, academics and lay representatives.

What stops researchers from ignoring them? Again very simple answer. Funding and publication. Funders will not release money without ethical approval and journals will not publish without it (the vast majority anyway). These committees are not infallible (there was a nasty case a few years back concerning western researchers and HIV patients in Africa), but they are very, very careful about what research they allow.

In relation to giving up objectivity. Just because there are no overarching, ultimate moral truths does not mean that we have to let sloppy thinking in! With moral questions the very first things that you have to ask yourself are:

1) Are my definitions correct?
2) Are the definitions of the person I am arguing with correct?
3) Are my definitions and my opponent's definitions the same?

Apply these questions to stem cell research: see what conclusions you reach. When arguing with simplistic theists (I am not saying that you are one!) you often discover not a priori moral truths being uncovered – but instead find sloppy, contradictory, self-indulgent thinking coming to light. I have never debated these subjects with Bush of course, but something tells me that he does not have Kant's Groundwork on his bedside table…

You need an understanding of subjectivity in order to analyse truth claims (as well as precisely what we mean by justice, wisdom and love). If you don't admit the subjective nature of reasoning, then you are not (by default) making objective claims: you are merely kidding yourself.

So objective morals? No. Clear thought, humanity and honesty? Yes.

I don't think these are bad values to teach to kids.

794. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53688 by Corylus on July 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Thank you Benway...

Nice Bum.

795. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53680 by Corylus on July 2, 2007 at 2:20 pm

N.B. To those that are thinking of being rude to Paul, might I point out how very boring this site would be without believers to debate with: I myself am very much enjoying reading the McGrath thread at the moment – kudos to all with the stamina to contribute.

Paul

You've come back to play! Gutsy decision. (I have left a link for you to watch on the Witchcraft thread BTW).

Paul, if I am understanding you correctly, you want moral statements to have universalibity (i.e. you don't like moral relativism: I understand). However, you are taking this reasonable statement and stretching it out to the demand for objective morality (a.k.a. God: I don't understand… surprise!)

I rather think this all boils to the question of authority.

You do not like following the mob mentality. Good. The mob decision equates with the intelligence of its lowest member. However, you appear to want to have some reason outside of yourself for calling something 'wrong'.

Why is it that you feel that you cannot trust your own moral intuitions and simply say 'This is wrong'? Why is this inferior to 'This is wrong and furthermore God says it is wrong'? Why bring God into it? In fact, (due to Occam's razor), I would actually say that the first statement is superior.

It may be that you feel that God has objectivity whereas you don't. Let's break that down...

Is God objective?

Debatable: "I am a jealous God"… doesn't sound very objective does it?

Are you objective?

You may feel that you are not. No s**t Sherlock! Join the club.

The search for complete objectivity (outside of mathematics and logic) is a fool's errand.

This is a good thing. A hero of mine (Hume) said 'Reason is and, ought only to be, the slave of the passions'. He was not sad when he said this. He was admitting that our moral decisions are essentially emotional. Our (valid) moral decisions are based on empathy and care.

N.B. I am not saying that morals are only about emotion, we have to continue to learn facts and constantly think. This is how morality develops. (see post 50 by cbhg21808)

However, these facts (ultimately) only inform and elicit our emotional reactions and hence guide our moral decisions. Now, re your statement:

Hold[ing] Hitler wrong because it was scientifically a bad thing to reduce the variety in the human gene pool.

You seem to think that this is, in some manner or fashion, a moral statement. This is not a moral statement, this is a practical statement.

Hitler was wrong; because every feeling part of me that experiences another's pain as my own; says he was wrong.

This is a moral statement. We are allowed to make these. All on our own.

You need to gain the confidence in yourself, and your own humanity, enough to simply go with your gut.

Allow yourself to have authority over your moral decisions (whilst always being open to new facts to inform them).

You seem a nice guy: trust yourself.

In terms of your question:

Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, by the majority of any population could have a negative effect on human development?

You are trying to run before you can walk. Try instead…

Is it possible that the acceptance of atheism, properly understood, could have a negative effect on MY development.

I'm thinking not.

[Edited for clarity and sleepy misquote: must stop visiting this site when I have been drinking claret with my dinner.]

796. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53644 by Corylus on July 2, 2007 at 11:44 am

The bishop has got it all wrong. It is not about rain. It is about rainbows...

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16225116/opt_/fpt_/c_360/

797. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53459 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I try really hard to be logical, calm, polite and understanding, but I have had a bad day.

The news today: full of tales of with low life little scroats thinking they have to right to immoliate women dancing in a nightclubs or young families in airports going on holiday... Because, GOD said so.

Now we have idiots like this Bishop sproating judgemental bile. People have DIED in these floods. Apparently because God cares into which orifice men insert their genitalia. That makes sense then.

So, everyone please excuse me in advance...

I just have to say that the crook/staff (whatever the f%£K it is that this bishop is holding) is just asking to be rammed (vigourously) into a place that daylight never reaches.

Thank you for listening.

798. The Panel

Comment #53410 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 10:42 am

Well, I thought they were all really brave to agree to put themselves through that. (The potential for embarrassment was huge). Please, lets all give them credit for that.

My own performance: could have been better, could have been worse... but I fear I would have shown myself up dreadfully by swearing even more than Kirsty Wark.

799. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53406 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 10:03 am

PaulE

If by any chance you are still checking these threads...

You mention the following

If you believe that entropy increases, that conscious life will some day end in the universe, then you can't argue for a teleological, consequentialist morality. The reason - whatever we do, the consequences are the same!

Can I suggest you check out the following.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-794192889907636950

It is by a guy called John Hartung specifically talking about the question of morality and God. Interestingly; due to his optimism about whether existence can continue forever; it is immune to your criticism above.

I think alot of people on here would find this well worth watching actually.

800. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53359 by Corylus on July 1, 2007 at 2:48 am

Wow. What a review! Considering where it is published I am sure this will be read by many. Good thing too.

Disagree with one thing though. Pekineses are not adorable. They are bad-tempered,lazy, snarly little walking hearth rugs. They don's chase sticks or their tails, they won't play with a ball and they don't look like they are smiling like labradors do. Miserable little gits.