801. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21382 by Russell Blackford on February 9, 2007 at 1:40 am

I must say that I don't agree with the tactic of going off complaining to Hunter's school administration. This looks too much like an attempt to bring pressure to make her ... as it were ... shut up. I'd rather she exercise her freedom of speech and expose her "thinking" for the world to see.

Except in cases of direct calls for violence and the like, I think it's always best to take the high road on free speech issues.

802. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #21380 by Russell Blackford on February 9, 2007 at 1:11 am

This is pretty sickening stuff.

Look, I don't like arrogance and boasting any nore than anyone else, but I also despise this kind of overdone I-am-a-miserable-sinner humility. *rolleyes*

David Hume said it well - sorry for quoting him at such length ... stop here, if you like, but this is great stuff:

"Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues; for what reason are they everywhere rejected by men of sense, but because they serve no manner of purpose; neither advance a man's fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society; neither qualify him for the entertainment of the company, nor increase his power of self-enjoyment? We observe, on the contrary, that they cross all these desirable ends; stupify the understanding and harden the heart, obscure the fancy and sour the temper. We justly, therefore, tranfer them to the opposite column, and place them in the catalogue of vices; nor has any superstition force sufficient among men of the world, to pervert entirely these natural sentiments. A gloomy, hair-brained enthusiast, after his death, may have a place in the calendar, but will scarcely ever be admitted, when alive, into intimacy and society, except by those who are as delirious and dismal as himself."

803. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21374 by Russell Blackford on February 9, 2007 at 12:49 am

Well, it looks to me like there's a very popular argument doing the rounds, not usually spelled out explicitly, but often pretty clearly implied. It goes something like this:

P1. Either radical epistemological scepticism is true or traditional religious ideas are true.
P2. Radical epistemological scepticism is not true.
C. Traditional religious ideas are true.

Putting it another way, the claim is that once we start denying traditional religious ideas, we have to start wondering whether we are brains in vats, or being deceived by evil demons, etc. It is, so this kind of argument goes, just as problematic to wonder about Richard Dawkins' existence as it is to wonder about God's. In a deep sense, I can't be certain of Dawkins' existence, can I? Etc. Etc.

It may be obvious to everyone that the argument is deductively valid. However, why would anyone find its first premise at all plausible?

Surely the situation is that we have ordinary, natural ways of assessing whether we should adopt certain beliefs. Using those standards, we have no reason to believe in God, but plenty of reason to believe in the existence of Richard Dawkins.

A slightly better argument might try to confine itself to theoretical scientific claims:

P1. Either we have no reason to believe in (any of) the theoretical entities and forces postulated by science or traditional religious ideas are true.
P2. We do have reason to believe in (some of) the theoretical entities amd forces postulated by science.
C. Traditional religious ideas are true.

But again, why accept P1.? The reason why we have reason to believe in certain theoretical entities and forces, even though they may not be directly observed, is that we have a mountain of evidence for them, based on methods of inquiry that are continuous with ordinary, natural methods of inquiry, such as hypothetico-deductive reasoning. What we lack in direct observation we try to make up for with rigorous attempts at falsification, the use of precise calculations, etc. Thus, we can give a high level of (at least provisional) acceptance to the existence of those entities and forces, without the same kinds of reasoning confirming the existence of God, etc.

Sorry to be so technical and humorless about this, but I see variations of this argument all the time, and I think it's worthwhile exposing how intellectually bankrupt they are.

804. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #21371 by Russell Blackford on February 9, 2007 at 12:30 am

^Yup, Rushdie is definitely one of the good guys. What fotomatt said.

Has Hirsi Ali addressed anywhere the fact that she is affiliated with a bunch who would not seem to be her natural allies? I'm not wanting to be overly critical about it, just wondering.

805. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21223 by Russell Blackford on February 8, 2007 at 4:46 am

Damn - there's always a typo isn't there. At least it wasn't until the very end in this case ... where I wrote "your sincerely" instead of "yours sincerely". At least I hope that's the only typo.

On the topic of sexual morality, the religionists fear that their traditional views will make no sense if we try to reconstruct morality from naturalistic premises. What's more, they are correct.

What they don't understand is that their own premises are no better - even if some bizarre morality were advocated by an all-powerful being, we'd have no reason to accept it. Perhaps we'd have a good prudential reason to comply, but that's all. These folks really should go and read Plato's Euthyphro.

The old attitudes to sexuality are breaking down because they make no rational sense. Yes, they will be washed away, but that's a good thing. To the extent that religion stands against it, it's a force for evil. Ethic of misery, indeed.

806. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21217 by Russell Blackford on February 8, 2007 at 4:14 am

Somewhat belatedly, I sent a comment of my own to Zahn's show at CNN.

==========================================

Dear Ms Zahn,

I was dismayed by the panel discussion in your recent segment on atheism, particularly by the suggestion that atheists bring hatred on themselves and should simply, as Ms Hunter put it so charmingly, "Shut up." This seems like a rather extreme example of blaming the victim, especially considering that it immediately followed your report on a case of blatant social persecution of a couple of (apparently) good citizens who happen not to believe in the existence of the Christian God.

I understand that the panel may have been chosen for another purpose (to comment on the Superbowl), and that this may explain the ignorance and egregious imbalance that we saw. However, it was most unfortunate that not one member of the panel was actually an atheist, and that the whole framing of the debate assumed atheists to be an "other" to be discussed in absentia as a problem for "us". Stephen Smith did make some commendable efforts to draw attention to the fact that atheists have legal and constitutional rights, like everyone else, but the attitudes of the other two panel members were appalling, and reflected badly on themselves, your segment, and CNN. It would be mild to say that they made fools of themselves, you, and the network.

None of this is to deny them (or you, if it comes to that) the right to express whatever views they wish, however intolerant or bizarre - I well understand the principle of freedom of speech. But I do believe that a major media outlet such as CNN should make an effort to achieve at least some semblance of balance, especially when discussing the possible reasons why a despised minority is actually despised.

In addition, I regret to say that I was surprised that you were unable to test the more outrageous claims and proposals that were being made - I expect any television moderator to hold panel members to account and test their claims, especially when they take the wild form that we saw from Ms Hunter in particular.

More positively - and I do regret that we are required to mark our feedback as either "positive' or "negative", with no more nuanced options available - I understand that Professor Richard Dawkins will now be appearing on your show in the aftermath of this segment. I commend the decision to invite Professor Dawkins as a guest. I hope that this will allow for a more considered and useful discussion of the topic of atheism and the widespread rejection of traditional religious belief. I look forward to seeing his contribution.

Your sincerely,

Russell Blackford

807. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21174 by Russell Blackford on February 7, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Glittergulch, thanks for your comment. I do still think that there are important distinctions with all these things, and we shouldn't be too quick to make comparisons - and that similar comparisons can be used against us. We, too, can be accused of bigotry.

But I hear what you're saying, and it set me thhinking ... and I can see that it has some force. I think what gives it that force is that Hunter didn't merely refuse to vote for someone on the ground of religious belief, or decline to make friends with the person on that ground. In my opinion, those would be legitimate actions, when they would not be if the ground was race or sexuality. So I'll continue to argue that there is a difference. But what she said really seemed to say that she believes atheists, in particular, are not worthy to have rights at all - they should more or less lose their legal rights and constitutional protections. Now that is not something that I would ever say about religionists of any stamp - or if I even went close it would be if some religious group was blatantly involved in violence.

While we're exploring the nuances of that, I must say I was not as worried or offended as some here. I was mildly pissed off, I suppose, and I'm glad to see Richard Dawkins now getting to have his say on CNN. But my main imnpression remains that the whole panel thing was a shambles - just plain lousy journalism - and that most people who don't already think like Hunter does would believe that she made a fool of herself.

I'm amused that she now says it was tongue in cheek, or whatever she is arguing in her e-mails. It certainly didn't look that way to me: she looked angry and upset, and came across like she was irrational and raving. The other woman did only slightly better. Stephen Smith got caught up a bit in the bad dynamics (all the shouting for attention), but basically seemed sensible and well-meaning, and made the others seem just dreadful by comparison.

808. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21151 by Russell Blackford on February 7, 2007 at 6:48 pm

What does an Oxford theologian do all day? Probably much the same as an Oxford history professor or an Oxford literary scholar or whatever. Nothing wrong with that. There's a lot of good scholarly work still to be done on the texts that theologians study - their correct translation, provenance, likely meanings to their contemporaries, comparisons between texts from different traditions, etc. etc.

I'm sure that theologians do a lot of perfectly good scholarly work and teaching, among their activities, and I'd be very happy to undertake a theology degree myself if I had time. The only thing I have against theologians is that so many of them don't acknowledge that the works they are studying are - for all their undoubted cultural and historical importance - essentially works of fiction.

809. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21138 by Russell Blackford on February 7, 2007 at 5:39 pm

The growing power of extreme, unreconstructed forms of Christianity in the developing world is a real concern. I hope that things will look at bit different when and if nations in places like sub-Saharan Africa become more prosperous economically.

810. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21134 by Russell Blackford on February 7, 2007 at 5:31 pm

I agree with the egregious Ms Hunter to this extent, though: I don't actually think that analogies with racism are very exact or useful. It's irrational to be biased against someone on the basis of something like her skin colour. It's not so irrational to be biased against someone on the basis of something like her metaphysical and moral beliefs.

Of course, turning that bias into violence and persecution is despicable. You won't see me trying to drive any fundamentalists out of town; although I don't respect their actual beliefs, I do give them respect and consideration as human beings. On the other hand, I have every reason not to want to choose such people as my friends, or to vote for them to obtain political power, whereas I have no such reasons when it comes to skin colour. Fundamentalists also have freedom of speech, and for that reason they don't have to "shut up". But it's not closely analogous to telling people to shut up just because they are black.

I think we should keep this in mind. After all, some of us are the first to point out that when we are concerned about aspects of Islam, or at least the more extreme and anti-liberal forms of Islam, it has nothing to do with racism.

811. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21120 by Russell Blackford on February 7, 2007 at 4:15 pm

What should this bloke write next?

Hmmmm, how about parasitizing Isaac Asimov, just a little? We could have a book simply called "Dawkins", then "Dawkins and Empire". "Second Dawkins" would be another good title. After that, I suggest that "Dawkins' Edge" would be excellent. Then there's "Prelude to Dawkins", "Dawkins and Earth", "Forward the Dawkins" ... you get the idea.

(Unfortunately, someone will probably come along with a proposal to continue the series after his death, possibly ending it with a volume entitled "Dawkins' Triumph".)

812. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20823 by Russell Blackford on February 6, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Smith did a pretty good of defending freedom of speech, so I commend him for that.

Overall, though, this was a shambles. The moderator was hopeless at getting any order into the debate. The panel - well, for all I know they may be intelligent, considered people who would make a better impression in some other format (I'm trying to be charitable). But they came across as a bunch of loudmouthed village yokels shouting over the top of each other.

Of course, in principle, there should have been an actual atheist on the panel, and that point can't be over-emphasised. On the other hand, Smith did enough to show up the extreme (and frightening) illiberalism of the other two, just by harping on the fact that America is supposed to believe in basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of belief on matters of religion. It was good to see the others made to look like wild-eyed fanatics by a fellow religionist, and by their own capacity to self-destruct, without an actual atheist having to say anything at all.

813. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20800 by Russell Blackford on February 6, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I just love epistemic relativism like Bienkowski's. Not.

Mind you, I don't normally mind these neo-pagan types. Even on this issue, they're trying to be reasonable in their own (admittedly misguided) fashion. It's monotheism that causes the real problems.

814. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20714 by Russell Blackford on February 6, 2007 at 6:04 am

^A bit unfair to Salman Rushdie, methinks.

815. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20695 by Russell Blackford on February 5, 2007 at 10:21 pm

^Yes, she is.

816. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20671 by Russell Blackford on February 5, 2007 at 4:23 pm

As I said on another thread, I'll cut her some slack. I like to think that she's a good Enlightenment liberal (i.e. a rigorous, comprehensive liberal thinker whose worldview necessitates hostility to religion ... not an adherent of the kind of wishy-washy liberalism we see these days, largely developed by the late John Rawls, whose work is very deferential to religion).

If that's the case, she may find it difficult to find allies with whom she is fully comfortable. As I say every chance I get, the world needs more Enlightenment liberals.

817. Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures

Comment #20667 by Russell Blackford on February 5, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Re parp's post, I sort of agree, at least in this sense. I think it's important to look at these parents with compassion, not with anger, or contempt, or with a feeling of vicarious triumph over them. That is not to support them, of course, or to give respect to their actual beliefs.

818. Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #20611 by Russell Blackford on February 5, 2007 at 5:07 am

I'll read Infidel when I get a chance.

She's obviously a very courageous as well as brillant person. Frankly, there are aspects of her career,including the think tank she has become involved with, that also dampen my enthusiasm slightly (as Melisande says).

Then again, even more frankly, I have also, at times, made various compromises, etc., that could leave me open to criticism from some viewpoints. I guess many of us have, but I can only speak for myself. In my case, I've never been in a position of living with my life under threat and having to make major decisions in that environment. Despite those niggling doubts, I'm prepared to cut her a fair bit of slack. I'll watch her future career with great interest.

819. No stoning, Canada migrants told

Comment #20488 by Russell Blackford on February 3, 2007 at 4:20 am

We absolutely must oppose the conflation of opposition to certain beliefs and cultural practices with the evil of racism. They are entirely different issues. People of my age (baby boomer generation) don't seem to be able to tell the difference, but hopefully younger people will be wiser.

820. God and gorillas

Comment #20324 by Russell Blackford on February 1, 2007 at 8:35 pm

What struck me is the way interviewer and interviewee treated the question of whether or not she actually believes in God as an incredibly private and sensitive matter. I'm sure this reflects how a lot of people think, but it seems bizarre when you step back from it. It's almost as if the question was about her favourite sexual position, or something.

Come on, your opinion on such a matter as whether the world is under the control of a powerful, spooky being - especially when you are opining so much about matters to do with religion - is not the sort of thing that needs to be treated as a dark secret. How did our society land itself in this position?

821. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20318 by Russell Blackford on February 1, 2007 at 6:26 pm

I think that Hobbes was wrong about religion (if this really was his view), but Hobbes was a very smart guy and I do see the argument.

As someone who thinks that there are widespread delusions not only about the existence of deities but also about the existence of an objectively binding morality, I wonder whether something like the Hobbesian view might not actually be correct in that sphere.

I like to think not - I like to think it's better if we all understand that morality is a human invention (and one which can be improved), even if part of it is in our evolved nature. It is not something that exists outside us - up there in heaven or out there in reality. But that may genuinely be a truth that will be difficult for the masses to grasp or to use well.

In even considering the question, I'm doubtless being elitist to some extent. However, I don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing.

822. Atheists in Jail

Comment #20179 by Russell Blackford on January 31, 2007 at 8:28 pm

You'd almost think this guy made his living by drawing funny cartoons, or something. I mean, the bit about the caribou has got to be a joke. Right?
.
.
.
.
.
(Actually, I love Scott Adams and his quirky humour, but I gather he pisses off a lot of other people. See the current debate at Pharyngula.)

823. No exemption from gay rights law

Comment #19900 by Russell Blackford on January 30, 2007 at 2:44 pm

For those who are confused, I'm sure Azven meant to write "non-sectarian", not "non-secular". Just a slip of the typing fingers.

824. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19776 by Russell Blackford on January 29, 2007 at 10:19 pm

I'm with Pob. The idea of "Defender of the Faith" is a meaningless relic of a former time. In the British context, I'm sure most people don't take the establishment of the church and the whole "Defender of the Faith" schtick very seriously. It could safely be left alone until the UK gets around to abolishing the monarchy itself.

But to "update" it now as a deliberate, considered, act, and make the monarch's title "Defender of Faith" would be taking an official action in support of religion, and against its critics. (Why not "Defender of Freedom and Reason" or "Defender of Enlightenment"?)

This "Defender of Faith" thing is probably the prince's worst idea to date. Fortunately, it sounds like he's just blowing smoke.

825. Did humans wipe out Australia's big beasts?

Comment #19774 by Russell Blackford on January 29, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Well, I think we should still be open-minded about this - the debate has been going back and forward for some time and is not yet fully resolved.

I can't help feeling, though, that there's an element of political correctness motivating those who oppose the theory that extinctions of prehistoric megafauna were caused by human activity. I get a sense of, "Oh no, only evil, modern Westerners cause extinctions. Surely not those nice native peoples who have their wonderful 'other ways of knowing' and live in such harmony with nature!"

826. No exemption from gay rights law

Comment #19773 by Russell Blackford on January 29, 2007 at 9:56 pm

The words "publicly funded" leapt out at me here. Can someone from the UK explain this? Why are they are getting public funding? If a sectarian body wants to run an adoption agency, or anything else, why shouldn't it do so at its own expense, or even charge a fee for it? The Catholic Church has plenty of money; I see no reason why its activities should be subsidised by taxpayers.

827. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19497 by Russell Blackford on January 27, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Damn, I just wrote a very long post which the system lost.

I won't try again. Just remember that it can be quite misleading to say that the variation of a phenotypical trait within a population is explained to a certain percentage level by genetic differences.

Here's an example. What is the extent to which the distribution of number of legs within a given human population is explained by environment, as opposed to genes? For an example, take the population of the city where I live - Melbourne.

The correct answer is (close to) 100 per cent. Almost all the variation is explicable by environmental things like car accidents. This is precisely because of the similarity of our genes in the relevant respect.

Of course if the population consisted of a mix of human beings and horses, the distribution would be more like 100 per cent explained by genes.

I could imagine that there just might be quite a strong genetic effect on distribution of political persuasions within a population under the following circumstances:

1. There is a causal mechanism whereby genes affect the brain, or hormones or something, in a way that might affect general attitudes to the world (e.g. tough versus tender).

2. There are political ideologies on offer (within the environment of the population concerned) that are differentially appealing to people whose brains (or whatever) are coded for in the relevant attitudinal ways (e.g. there is a "tougher" ideology and a "more tender" ideology).

3. Within the population concerned, everyone is exposed to much the same environmental influences.

At the same time, the effect might be swamped if we look at a larger population of which this one is just part, or if we look at a more environmentally heterogeneous population, or if we try to compare two populations living in different environments.

We always have to try to think through the ways in which genes and environment might interact, and we need to be careful about cited figures of how much one or the other explains differences within a population. Take a close look at the nature of the population before drawing a conclusion about what that figure is really telling you.

828. In defense of atheism

Comment #19417 by Russell Blackford on January 27, 2007 at 3:40 am

Yeah, Stewart, you're right. We don't need to be geniuses to see through the debating trick. We just need to be aware of it, and point it out to others.

A reading of Orwell's Ninety Eighty-Four would also help people, I guess. The technique is a bit like some of the tactics used by the Party in that book.

It's amazing how much rhetorical force can be gained though by the precise technique we're talking about, so it's important to teach people to see through it. Irrationalists of various kinds just love to use it, and we mustn't let them get away with it unchallenged.

829. Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist

Comment #19373 by Russell Blackford on January 26, 2007 at 5:14 pm

There's already an expression for this: "Enlightenment liberal". Somehow, it has become very unfashionable to declare yourself to be an Enlightenment liberal, but I think it's something to be proud of. It puts you in good company with the likes of Locke and Hume and the French philosophes ... and in the same great tradition as Bentham, Mill, and Bertrand Russell. It distinguishes you from necessarily agreeing with either the radical egalitarianism of American liberal thinkers like Rawls (who expressly denies being an Enlightenment liberal), or in the mix of right-wing policies favoured by the so-called "Liberal Party" here in Australia.

Enlightenment liberals can range across a fair bit of the political spectrum - from relatively democratic socialist positions on economics to more libertarian positions - but we are united in being distrustful of religion ... and, really, in believing pretty much all the things that Ms Gray set out.

The world needs more Enlightenment liberals.

830. In defense of atheism

Comment #19370 by Russell Blackford on January 26, 2007 at 4:55 pm

I do hate expressions such as "atheistic jihadis".

I'm currently reading a very interesting book, Richard Garner's Beyond Morality, which I recommend to everyone here. At one point, Garner has a fair bit to say about how the meanings of words get reversed by debaters for rhetorical purposes. So it will be said (this is my example but Garner uses a very similar one) that real liberty is obeying the law - sorry, but no. Obeying the law might be a good thing to do, but it is not the definition of liberty.

I often see people like Richard Dawkins being accused of being fundamentalists - apparently because it is thought that real fundamentalism is just being confident of the truth of your beliefs, even if they happen to be based on evidence and rational inquiry rather than on faith in the inerrancy of a holy book. Apparently real jihadists are now everyone who tries to get other people to change their minds, even if they make their attempt by reasoning and persuasion rather than by acts of war and criminal violence.

It's a nice debating trick, but one with no intellectual substance to it, to try to turn an attack back on your opponent by redefining words. The fact is that people like Dawkins are the opposite of fundamentalists - they don't rely on faith in some traditional text but on rational investigation. They are the opposite of jihadis - they don't rely on violence, but on evidence and persuasion.

It seems we have to be careful to explain politely at every opportunity that, no, real peace is not war, real war is not peace, real fundamentalism is not the use of evidence, real jihadism is not presenting your case in a non-violent manner ...

831. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19368 by Russell Blackford on January 26, 2007 at 2:58 pm

I don't understand what intolerance has to do with it.

It's not like Sam is attempting to suppress Andrew's beliefs by force or even by some sort of emotional pressure. He may not like them, he may not have much respect for them (though he obviously has a lot of respect for Andrew himself), and he may even want to persuade Andrew to abandon them. But there's no sense that he is unwilling to put up with them - no sense that he'd use force, or any other kind of power he might have, to try to make Andrew abandon his beliefs if he could. (This is very unlike the atttitude that religionists have taken whenever they've had power, but of course there's nothing intolerant in Andrew's contributions either.)

I'm all for tolerance. I'm prepared to tolerate many things that I don't actually like, and I think that our laws should be tolerant of a lot of actions that are less than optimal - even a lot less than optimal. For that reason, for example, I don't want to pass a law banning parents teaching religious lunacy to their children, much as I wish it didn't happen. But I can't see that intolerance has anything whatsoever to do with this particular debate. Maybe I'm missing something here.

832. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19229 by Russell Blackford on January 25, 2007 at 4:50 pm

It's funny how solicitous non-believers like Shermer can be to the sensitivities of their religionist friends, etc. I don't really blame him; I feel some of that solicitousness, too. I have no wish to upset loved ones or colleagues or students. My inner circle of friends are a different matter, since I doubt that there would be a religious thought among them ... but even so ...

BUT we really can be too nice for our own good or the good of the world. We have to try to be a bit more forthright. Religion has been treated as beyond robust criticism for too long. (It's not like the favour is returned. How much does the pope go out of his way not to annoy homosexuals, say, or all of those of us with metaphysical naturalist viewpoints, or all the other categories that are demonised in his theology?)

Let's not lose sight, however, of the fact that Shermer's piece is a positive review overall.

833. Controversial Religious Summer Camp Closed

Comment #19210 by Russell Blackford on January 25, 2007 at 3:18 pm

This is great news.

Loki, huh? That's cute. I always had a soft spot for that particular god. I do like mythology ... as long as it's not kinda running around taking over the whole damn place, like the monotheistic variety likes to do.

834. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19199 by Russell Blackford on January 25, 2007 at 2:48 pm

We're all human; we all get exasperated at times when we are confronted by stubborn ignorance. Don't we? Actually ... it seems to happen to me several times a day, so I'm not going to hold it against Richard Dawkins if he got a tiny bit exasperated on-camera just that once, or even if it happened more than once.

As for Haggard, yeah I have a bit more sympathy for him knowing that he's such a mixed up guy.

835. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19054 by Russell Blackford on January 24, 2007 at 2:31 pm

I do worry that Kaminer wants to preserve the ethics of religion, including the concepts of sin and moral condemnation.

We obviously need the institution of morality in some form; so we need to retain moral condemnation (particularly of things like cruelty and violence). But the idea of sin is so tied up with the notion of acting against the will of a deity, and so tied up with inculcating guilt about various kinds of relatively harmless activities, that it is an idea that we should be very glad has almost disappeared from educated circles of society.

More generally, we should definitely not keep the ethics of religion. We should invent a more rational ethics that is based on our actual needs, interests, values, and so on. Once you realise that morality is based on those things - rather than on the will of deity or a timeless moral law that somehow exists independently of us - you realise that it can be changed and improved.

836. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19047 by Russell Blackford on January 24, 2007 at 2:17 pm

I don't actually mind it - it's a talking point, and I'm not worried if it sounds a little uppity.

But I don't use it of myself, even though I might mention having some connections with the brights forum. I call myself a metaphysical naturalist, if anyone ever wants to know my philosophical position. That is stronger than atheism, since a lot of atheists nonetheless seem to believe in various spooky metaphysical properties and entities. In my circle of friends, disbelief in the Abrahamic God is fairly much assumed, so there's no point in mentioning atheism as such.

837. Sex and the Single-Minded

Comment #18947 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Re #18404, like the "culture of misery" line.

838. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18946 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 11:43 pm

Is it just me or do God's arms look a bit too scrawny for such a powerful being?

839. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18935 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Dogbreath, I pretty much agree with your comment. At the level of individuals, I "don't care", provided they are moderate and sensible in certain ways ... i.e., I'm not going to regard someone like Andrew Sullivan as my enemy. But that is quite consistent with thinking, as I do, that secular intellectuals have hitherto been too soft on religion and that we'd be better off without it. Like you, I applaud the efforts of Dawkins, Harris, etc., to "go after" it.

840. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18922 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 4:35 pm

I think that it is always possible for religions to be reinterpreted to be consistent with science, so I think Harris has it slightly wrong here.

What the rational, systematic investigation of the order of the universe can do is reveal that the grand, encyclopedic worldviews offered by traditional religions are not only inadequate but actually false. E.g. it is simply false that the Earth came into existence about 6000 years ago.

As religious systems are modified to be consistent with scientific findings, the former become more and more abstract and vague, and less and less explanatory of any detail about how the universe (or human society) works. Some feeling of awe and love, or whatever, may linger, and this may not be such a bad thing, but religion ceases to be a body of encyclopedic explanation, and there really seems no good reason to believe that any remnant is actually true, even if it can be made so rarefied that it is unfalsifiable. In that way, science does undermine religion ... to the point where religion should no longer be tenable to rigorously rational beings (as someone put it earlier). But I thinks it's more subtle than I understand Harris to be saying.

If some kind highly abstract idea (that the universe is sustained by a force of love, or whatever) gives comfort to Andrew Sullivan or anyone else, then I don't really care. It seems like a relatively harmless illusion if the world has some kind of shimmery quality for Andrew whereby it just looks like that to him - if that's a correct model of his thoughts and perceptions, which it may well not be. If there was actually any evidence that the universe is lke that, I suppose it would be nice. :)

But, alas, there isn't.

Anyway, I'll only care if someone thinks this touchy-feely world picture entails some set of moral claims that clashes with human interests and values, and if it leads that person to oppose to (say) gay rights, stem cell research, or whatever. I know Andrew's views on some issues, but not all. I wonder how his, um ... sacred worldview? ... translates into views about a full range of specific social and political issues. (Yes, I realise I could probably find out more by reading more of what he has written.)

841. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18900 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm

The multiple answers point applies to the "what should we teach in school"? question. However, it's still true that an awful lot of people want creationism or intelligent design, or whatever, taught, even if they also want evolution taught. The fact that it adds up to more than 100 per cent (which is not uncommon with polling) does not make it less worrying.

The other question, the one about the respondent's own explanation for life does seem to be one where they had to make one choice, so it should actually add up to 100 per cent. Here, it's worrying that so many people did not give support to evolution. Of course, they were asked for what "best described" their view. Some could actually believe in all the options - i.e. the world was created by God, who intelligently designed things so that certain things would happen that cannot be explained naturalistically, but it is also true that evolution by natural selection accounts for most of the diversity and history of life on Earth. That could actually be quite a common position. A person with that combination of beliefs might well choose "intelligent design" or even "creationism" but would not be a nutty young-Earth creationist.

We really need to see a figure on the simple question, "Do you accept the evolutionary account of the history of life on Earth?" Any question will have some ambiguity, but that one would get a lot of "yes" answers from moderate Christians.

What I really want to know is how many people totally reject evolutionary biology, based on a literal reading of Genesis (or some other holy book, such as the Koran). We have reason to think it's a high percentage of Americans; I wonder how high it is in other Western countries.

842. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18895 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm

DerrickB: Yes, that Wikipedia article is about me. "Russell Blackford" isn't a very common name. :)

843. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18894 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 1:56 pm

I'm pressed for time right now, but I thought I'd made it clear that my objection to the nasty 17-y.o. girl remark was that it is ageist and sexist. I'm not sure if Norman, in his excellent post, has misunderstood what I meant.

In any event, let me say it clearly, just in case: I think that that kind of sexism and ageism reflects badly on this forum. Indeed, young women in their late teens should be made to feel welcome here, not stereotyped and used as reference points for criticism. In fact, no demographic group should be stereotyped; science and reason are available to all.

844. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18831 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 5:13 am

You know, I've had a lot to do with religious fundamentalism over the years - probably as much as Andrew Sullivan has. Based on that experience, I think that religious fundamentalism is something that merits forthright opposition, and I'm glad that Richard Dawkins and others are now delivering it. I'm happy to make my own modest contribution to that cause.

But I also accept Sullivan's point that individual fundamentalist religionists can, in many ways, be good-hearted people. I've known a lot of them, and I think it would be foolish of me to deny this. I think that that point should simply be accepted all round. There's no reason to indulge in the kind of hyperbole that makes them all out to be comprehensively evil as individuals, however much I despise many of their beliefs and feel particularly hostile to their attempts to impose their morality and view of the world on others.

I've also known a lot of moderate Christians. I was one myself for a few years as a teenager - long story. Once again, it would foolish to write off all those people as simply stupid or intellectually dishonest, even though I believe that their position is seriously mistaken. Of course, I won't give them any credibility if they try to base moral or political claims on their mistaken supernaturalist beliefs, but that is a different point.

If those of us who are deeply sceptical about religious belief, and convinced of a modern, scientific, naturalistic worldview, can't acknowledge simple things about the people we oppose - that they are not necessarily bad as individuals - then we are naive, and we lose a lot of credibility.

There's also no reason to make comnents about someone sounding like a "17-y.o. girl", or whatever it was. When I have dealings with my 17-y.o. female students, I am usually favourably impressed by their intelligence, thoughtfulness and good sense. Comments that assume anything to the contrary about young women of that age don't reflect well on this forum, in my opinion.

845. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18771 by Russell Blackford on January 22, 2007 at 11:04 pm

One thing that is a cause for slight optimism is that it is the over-55's (a group which I am, alas, getting closer and closer to joining) who are most favourable to unscientific viewpoints. Us baby boomers tend to worry that the generations following us will turn out more like our parents' generation in their values and worldviews, but thankfully there is no real evidence of that happening. I'm always cheered by my dealings with younger people.

All the same, one might hope that evolution would, by now, be completely uncontroversial in a country as economically and socially advanced as the UK.

846. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18741 by Russell Blackford on January 22, 2007 at 5:42 pm

The question of whether religionists are irrational human beings is an interesting one. When we are talking about someone like Andrew Sullivan, I think that's much too strong. Mind you, if he took some moral view based on his religious beliefs, rather than based on the human (or animal) interests at stake, I would indeed be tempted to call him an irrationalist. Perhaps I'm not consistent, but I try to make a distinction between (1) beliefs that are not based on evidence but only on socialisation or mere psychological attractiveness etc (which is usually the case with religious beliefs) but probably do no great harm and are not necessarily inconsistent with science or with any rational reconstruction of morality and (2) beliefs that positively involve a refusal to see reason on some important practical issue.

Case in point, if Sullivan merely believes that there is a creative, loving force behind the universe (either because he has been taught this, or just because he finds the idea attractive, or it "clicked" with him, or something), I'm not going to say he is irrational, but I just can't see any basis to think such a thing. Still all sorts of people have beliefs that are irrational by that criterion - I'll cut him some slack.

But if he pursued a campaign of denouncing stem cell research or the teaching of evolution, based on beliefs that have such little evidentiary basis, I would call this irrationalism.

It's the "ism" part - the imposing of beliefs with little basis and trying to found public policy on them, that really bugs me, and which I think is really irrational. Okay, we all have some beliefs that we can't really justify (e.g. most people think they are better than average drivers, based on little evidence, and a lot of them must be wrong), but we should no better than to expect other people to defer to them, or even be controlled by the state on the basis of them.

847. Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Comment #18619 by Russell Blackford on January 22, 2007 at 5:06 am

Am I misunderstanding something, or does this graph show that even in Iceland some 15 per cent of the population reject (or at least don't accept) a body of scientific theory that is about as well-corroborated as anything in science? In Germany, to take one important example, the figure is evidently over 30 per cent. It's as if a third of the German population still imagined that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.

I know it's not as horrifying as the situation in the US, but it is still pretty bad. It seems we have a long way to go before the modern scientific worldview is generally accepted, even in the most enlightened countries. This is a little scary, no?

848. For the Bible told them so

Comment #18589 by Russell Blackford on January 21, 2007 at 9:32 pm

I just want to express my total agreement with what Greywizard just said - on all counts. There is a limit to how far we should or could go, in a liberal society, to interfere with what parents teach their children. But we don't have to like it when these horrible, damaging teachings about hellfire and sexual sin are inflicted on kids. The thing to do at the moment is to seize the moral high ground by denouncing it. The campaign for consciousness raising is very important.

849. Zeus devotees worship in Athens

Comment #18566 by Russell Blackford on January 21, 2007 at 5:46 pm

I wonder what their views are on gay rights, stem-cell research, etc. From my POV, they can believe whatever supernatural nonsense they want as long as it doesn't lead them to take absurd moral positions that they then try to shove down our throats, as the Christian churches so often do (not to mention Islam, blah, blah ...).

Yeah, it might well be more benign than (most kinds of) monotheistic belief.

850. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18474 by Russell Blackford on January 21, 2007 at 5:42 am

Rob, I totally understand your view and I have no knock-down argument against it. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind: in my view, there are some evils that a liberal society has to tolerate, in the sense of not banning them (or in the sense of allowing some exclusions from general bans). Often they are evils associated with letting people act on their religious beliefs.

I think there's a danger in going straight from "this is an evil" to "it should be banned (with no exceptions)", especially when it requires that people must act against their deepest beliefs (even if I hold those beliefs in contempt, as I do with the Catholic Church's attitude to gays). But, although I do believe all that, it's a tough thing to have to argue, and it certainly must have limits ... and I don't think I could even begin to develop the argument here, so let's agree to disagree.

I expect that most people on this site will agree with you, though there are a couple of libertarians who sometimes post here. They might take a hard line that we shouldn't prohibit discrimination at all, but leave it to private boycotts to sort out bigots. I think that's going MUCH too far the other way.