Comments by Quine

851. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84956 by Quine on November 4, 2007 at 10:40 am

A Godsend to publishing. (Psst: Follow the Money)

Comment #84864 by Quine on November 4, 2007 at 1:41 am

The four canonical gospels had achieved that status well before Constantine.

Hi Chris, welcome back.

What evidence do we have now that they were canonical then? My understanding is that we have only fragments of copies until the fourth century when we have a more complete manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus. What do we know about adaptations and splits in the second and third centuries, and how do we know it?

853. The truth in religion

Comment #84593 by Quine on November 2, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Like Sam Harris says (or something like) Science requires a small epistemological puddle-hop, Religion, a trans-atlantic flight.

Part of the scientific method is to continually work to reduce the size of the puddle-hop, whereas, in religion, the wider the ocean, the more valued is the faith.

854. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84308 by Quine on November 1, 2007 at 5:38 pm

I am happy to say that the transcendent purpose of the lives of the folks during the days of Homo erectus was so you could exist to read these words. If we do the right things, future generations will look back on the transcendent purpose of our lives the same way.

855. The truth in religion

Comment #84233 by Quine on November 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm

cowalker:

I'm sure Cornwell would agree that it would be quite irresponsible to indoctrinate children with simplistic religious beliefs before they are capable of understanding academic arguments and theological subtleties.

Thank you! This is exactly what was sitting in the back of my mind waiting for crystallization. They present the dogma based on unexplained theology and require acceptance excused by the "you will understand later, if you go to theology school" flag, then turn around and wrap themselves in the same flag when exposed as having no clothes.

This is the reason why it is fair game to attack the dogma they indoctrinate, no matter how they complain that their religion is really about some(unexplained)thing else.

EDIT: They seem to think they are entitled to use the same model as mathematics, in which children are indoctrinated in arithmetic but have to wait until lessons in higher mathematics provide the proof for arithmetic itself (which only the "elite" get to know). However, unlike theology, we do not see mathematicians in different cultures going around with different answers for 2+2, nor a band of ex-mathematicians going around denouncing arithmetic as bullshit (or even not meant to be taken literally).

856. The truth in religion

Comment #84180 by Quine on November 1, 2007 at 11:35 am

Darwin's angel pertinently asks, "Would you really trade child sexual abuse for being brought up in the religion of your parents?".

What about the kids that get both at once?

EDIT: I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and have, thus, seen so much child abuse through her eyes that I have lost all patience with any of this.

857. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #83966 by Quine on October 31, 2007 at 11:28 pm

If you write/say "sacred text" you have given them the point before you get started. I use "scripture" without "sacred" or "holy." It is common to all religions (among peoples who have writing). Try rereading the article with "scripture" swapped for "sacred text" and you will get the change of feeling.

858. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83358 by Quine on October 29, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Original sin is the knowledge of good and evil. Is that right? It was wrong for us to disobey god and because of that we know what is good and what is bad. So knowledge is bad - sinful. Ignorance is bliss.

Yes, this bothered me as a kid. Sin requires the knowledge of evil (you have to know what you are about to do is a sin), but in the story neither Eve nor subsequently Adam had this before the apple. So original sin was not logically possible, no matter what they did. (I was not a good kid to have in your religion class.)

859. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83293 by Quine on October 29, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Take a look at the previews.

EDIT: As time goes on and people see that folks like Tolkien, Rowling, and Pullman can just make up entire worlds, it becomes easier to see how other folks in times long ago could just make up religions. P.S. I am going to hand out copies of the books at Xmas to all the kids I know.

860. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83045 by Quine on October 28, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Dr Benway, best wishes on a speedy recovery.

861. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #83030 by Quine on October 28, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I posted a comment on the belief thread that could have gone here, as it continues with the equivocation observation of BAEOZ.

862. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82815 by Quine on October 27, 2007 at 8:36 pm

I just (tonight) had a Christian missionary try to work me over on "belief." Their standard tactic is to get you to talk about some basic things you "believe," and then shift the context so that the meaning of the word comes more from the definition of "faith," and that allows them to make some example of "faith" seem, not only believable, but also "reasonable."

I did not bite on the "belief" bait. The cost is that you are going to have to use more words to keep each word in an definitional context that is not so easy for them to shift. So I said, "No, I have a mental model of future situations that leads me to reasonable expectations." I went on to describe how evidence is fed back to adjust the model. I could see in his eyes that he really wanted to get to his usual conclusions, but was stopped trying to find a way to turn "reasonable expectations" into "faith."

EDIT: Also, when they hit me with things like, "Well, you believe in gravity, don't you?" I answer, "No, I don't have to believe in gravity, I can test it!"

863. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82813 by Quine on October 27, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Real Life: I just got back from a long walk, that started as a medium length walk, except I met one of my neighbors on the road who turned out to be a Christian missionary. Yes, I would have rather met the Buddha in the road, but this was interesting because of the time following the debates, and reading these threads. He just started going through the list topics, and I had my thoughts organized and ready. It was the first time anyone bothered to actually explain to him why evolution did not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

If you want the world to be more educated, start with yourself.

864. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #82800 by Quine on October 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Chris,

Thanks for checking in, and I am glad to hear you are okay. I have been thinking of you as I have watched the Malibu fire. I live in a forest in Northern California, so fire is not a remote idea. Also, I have firefighter relatives and friends who are down there (now, mostly mopping up). Part of my college education was in Hollywood, and as a young guy my friends and I would ride bicycles through the canyons around Topanga and down to the ocean, so watching the live video feed was riveting. Again, thanks for letting us know.

865. Pascal's Wager

Comment #82542 by Quine on October 26, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Comment #82380 by TheDigitalRuler

Likewise, I could choose to go to church on Sundays, to pray every night, and to tell everyone I believe that God exists, that Jesus is His Son, etc. But none of that would change the fact that I don't really believe any of that is true.

So, the religion tells you that if you do this, at some point, you will be filled with "grace" (conveniently undefined) so you can truly believe. It is like the proverbial carrot hung in front of the donkey that he can never reach, but keeps the cart going. In this case, the cart is the religion memeplex, and you can see the payoff for the wager go right in the cart.

866. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82500 by Quine on October 26, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Comment #82488 by m76

I think we non-believers should proudly claim to stand shoulder-to-atheistic-shoulder with believers when it comes to all but one God.

Are you suggesting we be GOGFs because we Go One God Further? It is true that Prof. Dawkins has gotten some mileage out of this concept.

867. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82240 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Thanks Brian,

I do not expect to get much support from my friends, here, but I think without you the religious would ignore us even more than they do.

868. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82193 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I think Sam is great, and applaud that he is willing to stand up and say things some might not like. I do not think "we" should all do the same thing, whatever that is. I am sure it is fine for some to go under the radar until things change in the world, but I also think that some need to be out there as the "in your face" "sharp edge of the spear" calling themselves "Atheists" (thank you Brian Sapient).

What I call myself depends on what I think it is going to mean in the mind of the listener. Folks here know perfectly well what "Atheist" actually means, so I will use it here. When asked by strangers, I usually tell them that I am "not a person of faith" (with language control) and then a bit later in the discussion I let on that I think that no case of the supernatural has been properly established, and that the unconscious mind is much more powerful than people realize (covers Sam's spirituality). By the time they get around to stuffing me in a preexisting category, I have wrapped myself with enough extra information to have some wiggle room.

EDIT: I also go as a Pastafarian from time to time, especially when discussing the Supreme Being.

869. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82130 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 6:02 pm

I will try to narrow it down. I am not taking a position that science should not pursue the physics of this. I am trying to get to the perception (which is what the Theist argument is based on) that these fundamental parts of our models somehow support them. Perhaps as more is known, it will eat into that perception. I do not think it will be anything as important as was Darwin, because the biology more directly makes us what we are, personally, and impacts our behavior. I also worry that if we do not work on the flaws in the logic of the perception, that they will just keep sliding that along even in the face of past failures.

Always, we need to keep asking believers: "Show me the step by step argument that starts with something science does not know (yet) and ends up with me on my knees praying to your deity."

870. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82112 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

No, steve99, I have not confused you for a believer. I know very well from your past writings that you are both a non-believer and an excellent thinker. What I am trying to get to, here, is a response to the rhetoric from a believer on this issue. (That was the question in my last post.) There are several places to hit that bogus chain of 'reasoning' and I am trying to get you to see that it is not necessary that physics have an explanation for the nature of the constants we use in our models to do so. If I am wrong about that, then the believers will always be able to point to the difference between what we do know and what we want to know as their justification.

But to deny there is a problem at all in terms of fine tuning is equivalent to some pre-Darwin biologist denying that some mechanism is needed to explain the complexity of life by declaring life 'not complex'.

Not quite. Before Darwin there was no objection to the claim that humans were specially created with an immortal soul that justified belief in an afterlife. After Darwin, we ask believers when and where in the continual process of decent from ancestors that soul thing started to happen? Also, from biology we see how psychoactive pharmaceuticals shatter the simplistic ideas of duality.

I contend that questions about the physical constants in our models do not logically lead to an afterlife, no matter how they came to be. So, what is belief with no afterlife? I would say, a difference that makes no difference.

871. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82072 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm

steve99 would you please step us through the argument that starts with the constants of Physics, and ends up with an afterlife based on our current free will choices of belief?

872. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82041 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 3:25 pm

It is not about the physics. It is about a fallback position from Paley's Watch. In the past (and still for ID), life was so complex people thought it had to be designed by an intelligent force. Now, thanks to the fossil record, we can see how life builds complexity without intervention. So, they have fallen back to where we do not have a fossil record, and never will: parameters of this Universe. Yes, we have the background IR (EDIT: more specifically, microwave) as a fossil of the Big Bang, but from inside the Universe we cannot go farther except by inference. We cannot know the Universe of Universes.

So back to "fine tuning" as a red herring: what about your personal "fine tuning"? Let us look at your last 1000 male ancestors (could as well be 1 million etc.) and number each sperm cell ejaculated for each conception. At a low number of 10,000,000 choices for each sperm cell that makes 7 decimal digits per ancestor giving a "fine tuned" number for you that is 7000 digits long. Suppose you could not look around and see other people, and know how this came about? Yes, you might think your spectacular "fine tuning" meant something very special.

Get over it.

873. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #81984 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Remember, if the Christians can find out that a scientist was baptized as a baby, they can claim credit, even if they suppressed him/her during life.

874. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81948 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm

steve99,

The religious side has hijacked the phrase "fine tuning" from the world of Physics. Yes, there is real, and very interesting, work going on to understand the basic parameters of the Universe. However, the religious use the phrase as shorthand for "this Universe must have been designed by a Creator because these parameters could not be here by chance." It is a flavor of the "God of Gaps" and it is for that we need a quick snappy retort.

EDIT: Yes, the retort should not be about a multiverse or anything else they are not going to get. (Or we will have to eat later.)

875. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81933 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm

JerryD385 mentioned legs fitting pants, but isn't it even more amazing that almost everyone's legs are just the right length to reach the floor when standing? Now, that is what I call fine tuning!

876. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81927 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 12:06 pm

In the Fox clip D' says: "faith itself is reasonable" This is pure doubletalk. What kind of a theocratic Orwellian world are we seeing materialize before our eyes? Scarlet 'A' notwithstanding, we need a flood of T-shirts going down the street with:

"FAITH IS NOT REASON"

877. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #81649 by Quine on October 25, 2007 at 2:03 am

I took a look at the expelledthemovie.com pile of crap, and it is very disappointing that after Dover we still have to address this. Perhaps it is just going to have to be fought again and again and again. What a world.

878. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #81576 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Science and Harry Potter do NOMA rather well. Religion should take a hint.

879. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81511 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 9:14 pm

I follow Richard Feynman as an example, who's unbounded curiosity was far more exillerating then any of this religious make believe.

P.S. Who needs make believe when we have quantum physics.

880. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81492 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 8:30 pm

If there's no Santa, why do I still get Christmas presents?

881. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #81359 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Continuing with the post from sidfaiwu you can turn this to your advantage. I can usually get some blending with the person to recognize that the "other" religion is just made up. Sometimes I need to drop back in history to get this agreement, but once that starts, it allows the seeping doubt to start coming in on the edges. Also, I keep the word "God" out of my half of the discussion. (see the thread I started on this here at the RD Forum)

882. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81348 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I posted this on the Debates Points thread, but I see that it should go here:

Always remember that Pascal's Wager represents an arms race among religions for who can come up with the most terrible eternal damnation. Why should religion X get all the converts just because they thought of something so bad you shouldn't risk it? If Atheism is true, and you do not take charge of this, your only life, you have blown your chance for all eternity.

883. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81343 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

D'Souza slipped Pascal's Wager into the Hitchens debate.

Always remember that Pascal's Wager represents an arms race among religions for who can come up with the most terrible eternal damnation. Why should religion X get all the converts just because they thought of something so bad you shouldn't risk it? If Atheism is true, and you do not take charge of this, your only life, you have blown your chance for all eternity.

EDIT: After posting, I noticed Pascal's Wager had a subthread, so I reposted this there.

884. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81315 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, every argument employed by the atheist is, according to his own assertions, incoherent and meaningless. Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.

The computer I am typing on at this moment works through non-rational forces, but the results are neither incoherent nor meaningless.

EDIT: Paul, don't be sorry; I got the message just fine. (see you on the subthread, when I get time)

885. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81285 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I have a question for all. Is it time that Dawkins comes out to play with D'souza?

In writing, yes, in person, no. In person, you have to play D'Souza's weasel game, which takes special training.

886. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81281 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 2:30 pm

I have started a thread over at the RD Forum so we can list our refutations to the 'points' D'Souza makes in a place where they can be collected. Here is the link to the thread.

887. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81243 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Comment #81222 by JelloWasabi

Are there any debaters out there who can think of a better way to address the issues (nonissues) brought up by D'Souza?

For specific arguments in front of specific audiences, yes, but for arbitrary arguments in front of arbitrary audiences, no. For example, suppose you were transported back in time and found yourself trying to defend someone who was accused of witchcraft because the local populous had been frightened by a solar eclipse. The audience does not have the knowledge of the motions of the earth and moon to provide the context for understanding your first choice for explanation. You will have to connect to something they do understand if you want to make any progress.

Yes, we should make a compendium of all the specious arguments these people trot out, but it will, also, be necessary to generate a number of answers that can be used based on who is listening. In many cases, you can't win outright then and there, but what you say can connect with what people do know is true, and make a small extension in the direction of enlightenment. Add up enough small extensions and you will get there.

888. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81044 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 12:35 am

I find I am having some trouble keeping track of the Religion v. Atheism carnage headcount. The arguments about modern times are bad enough, but what about all those earlier times for which we have no records? At some point in the past our ancestors developed enough brain power to entertain magical thinking, and anthropological studies indicate that they probably worshiped animals. We do not exactly know when this was, but just suppose it was 30,000 years ago. So, my problem is that before our ancestors could imagine a magic world beyond, they would have been unbelievers, and so every one they killed would go in the Atheist column. This could be very bad for us because this pre-religion period might go back something like a million years, and that would count for billions of deaths if it only averaged out to a couple of thousand a year over the entire population.

Thankfully, once believers took over, they seem to have done so in every human group everywhere. That means that after some point, effectively everyone who was chopped up by someone else goes in the Religion column. We know we got a lot of help from the folks in history like the Pharos of Egypt and Alex The Great on this, but think of all those believers who went before them and brought great armies down on neighboring lands (of different believers) and slaughtered them.

Finally, I am having a problem counting the early Christians who were fed to the lions. The Romans who were doing the feeding were believers, so that is the Religion side, but we know of no religious belief systems ever attributed to any lions, so they would have to count as Atheists. That would have to go for tigers and bears as well. Atheist lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

889. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80747 by Quine on October 23, 2007 at 12:37 am

Comment #80742 by Veronique

Why you religious chaps come on here and quote biblical passages in order to prove those biblical passages and never seem to realise that it does not constitute a logical argument, is beyond me.

I have wondered about this. Perhaps some who have been conditioned to believe that the words of scripture have magical powers think that by typing those words we will be transformed by the magic. Although tedious for us, there may be some good caused by the cognitive dissonance when the magic does not work, and after many (ugh) repetitions of the words, the missionary to the cyber heathens is forever asked to provide something that makes even a little sense.

890. Atheists aren't a bad lot

Comment #80478 by Quine on October 22, 2007 at 12:14 am

Game theory studies have shown that taking a step forward to be a good person is not a weak strategy, as long as you are willing to stick up for yourself if you do not get reciprocation. I want to be the kind of person who lives in the kind of world I want to live in. So, no skull smashing (unless, of course, you meet the Buddha in the road, and he obstructs you).

891. God's honest truth?

Comment #80472 by Quine on October 21, 2007 at 11:30 pm

#80462 by Eric Blair

I understand his basic point but feel he's fighting an uphill battle of secondary importance.

He is not fighting a battle, he is using a "consciousness raising" technique to get people to think about something they normally do not even notice. There is nothing to win that is not won by just the fact of noticing that children are being labeled without reason (or consent). It also can cause young people to ask "Why was this done to me?" which is one of the best places to start.

892. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80446 by Quine on October 21, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Comment #80438 by hotshoe

quote D'souza "universe as a whole is rational, i.e the universe as a whole follows laws"

Actually, this is exactly how science does work; ie start with the premise that the universe follows laws.

Please be very careful with the way you use the word "law" in this context. D'Souza intensionally conflates this with the word "law" used in scripture to push the idea that science is demonstrating the works of his deity. The word was there before we started constructing models of Nature, so it was easy to add a new meaning in this new context, but D'Souza has turned that against us. We can never prove that that there are any "Laws of Nature" but we put them in our models of Nature when we can demonstrate they have predictive value, and throw them out of the models when we find counterexamples.

Another problem can come with the word "rational" which was fine back in the days of Newton, but experiments in quantum preclude the use of this word in its general meaning. Again, it turns out science does not have to be rational, it just needs to be able to reliably make testable predictions. Einstein did not want to hear this, either, but we need to be honest and not claim something we can't deliver. Remember, if religion could reliably make testable predictions from scripture, no matter how irrational, we would have nothing on them.

893. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80431 by Quine on October 21, 2007 at 7:58 pm

D'Souza is, obviously, a master of the weasel school of debate.
He is adept at rephrasing a point for the opposition so that it sounds like (although is not) a point for himself. That was a masterful recasting of the context for Galileo and quick words placed in the mouth of the (then) Church to make it all look like an honest little error. You can also see him ramble along packing in several outrageous falsehoods, but not hitting a conclusion, until he has something to tack on the end that is hard for you to answer: "Hitler ... Stalin ... millions dead ... but are you saying you don't love your mother?"

It is especially bad when scientific experts try to take on one of these, so I am glad it is Hitch, not Richard who is going to have a go at him next. Hitch will not suffer weasel wording gladly, and I hope he is in a 'take no prisoners' mood when he gets there.

EDIT:
I am sure he would have stood there with a straight face and used this same Galileo defense to show that when they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, it was just "a small misunderstanding."

D'Souza writes about the upcoming debate with Hitch here. It is expected to go up as video (shortly after conclusion) here.

894. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80418 by Quine on October 21, 2007 at 6:38 pm

The completely erroneous statements from D'Souza came so fast and were so numerous I just gave up on keeping track. I would like to continue the line of points made by Donald to remark that science does not assume nature is comprehensible. Science simply uses its method to keep finding another piece of nature that is comprehensible. No faith of comprehensibility is required; we just look and see.

895. The greatest debate

Comment #80359 by Quine on October 21, 2007 at 12:38 pm

gd_edi, (re comment #80339)

If you put in your HTML table code all on a single line, the preprocessor won't put in all the line breaks that make that big blank area above the table in the finished comment.

896. Atheistic Denomination Struggles To Fill Void Left by Founder's Death

Comment #79847 by Quine on October 18, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Nusmus,

No, they do not bother me any more than the Civil War reenactors, who do not knock on my door and try to get me to believe I have been drafted to fight.

897. God's honest truth?

Comment #79815 by Quine on October 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I just ran across this interesting blog about religion and child abuse. Anyone know about this one? It has a pointer to a recent JW transfusion case in Ireland.

898. God's honest truth?

Comment #79779 by Quine on October 18, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Comment #79760 by wombat

The First Amendment would have to be severely altered to allow a policy like this in the US.

Not necessarily; laws could be passed that equate teaching non factual religious beliefs to children under some age (say, 12) to some kind of child abuse. The First Amendment (glory be upon it) is not absolute; you can't legally "yell fire in a crowded theater" even when they are showing a porno film to an audience over 18. I am sure you could (and should) get protection to preach any religious nonsense (hate speech notwithstanding) to those over 18, but somewhere in the lower ages it is not so clear. (Something about teaching religion and showing porn to kids feels like a kind of equivalence to me.)

There is a case that kids have a basic human right not to be lied to about things that could impact the rest of their lives. It would be a big advance if the law said that you can teach kids about religion, but had to wait before you preach one as true in school. Naturally, there is no hope that any law would keep parents from taking their kids to church to be preached to, but that could be separated from the special authority environment of the school. That would be worth organizing.

EDIT:
From this Time article on withholding medical care:

For its part, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in twice on the topic; first in 1944, when it ruled that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves, it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The Court ruled similarly in a 1990 case.

899. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #79747 by Quine on October 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Remember, Dan Dennett asked for something that was true in 'Turkish' not something that is necessarily true when translated into any other language.

EDIT: e.g. "This sentence is in English." will not be true if translated directly (especially by machine) into Turkish.

900. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79740 by Quine on October 18, 2007 at 11:32 am

Susan Blackmore wrote a very nice introductory text for a consciousness class she taught. Before you start going down this long and winding path, please do some reading so you know the history of so many arguments that have gone back hundreds of years, and the impact of modern scientific investigations.