Comments by Richard Morgan
Comment #66836 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 6:02 pm
roach : thank you for revealing your sources of literary inspiration. Why am I not surprised?
Comment #66835 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:58 pm
AJ Rae
That's hilariousIdeas on infanticide "hilarious"? If you are seriously suggesting that there is the slightest hint of hilarity in this subject, then I suggest you continue your psychotherapy, and meanwhile, stay away from children.
You're seriously saying an infant is a person, with the same level of consciousness we enjoy? I'd like to see you credibly argue that.From your remarks, it is not clear what level of consciousness you, personally enjoy. And since you are capable of saying things like :" I'd like to see you credibly argue that an infant is a person," I hope you have no plans for having children, because I think that statistically, most children start off as infants.
903. The Fear Factor: When the Brain Decides It's Time to Scram
Comment #66831 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:30 pm
The PAG region contains the "god-exists" notion,Your dangerous idea sounded good until you made this statement. You may be onto something, but talking about regions of the brain "containing" notions is, I'm afraid, neurological nonsense.
Try again, 601 but re-read your "Brain surgery for Dummies" first.
Comment #66828 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:17 pm
R.Blackford
Even infanticide is not the same as killing a person,Alas, Russell, with one small sentence you have lost all credibility.
905. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake
Comment #66827 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Kentucky Fried Sins!
They're finger-lickin' evil!
906. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake
Comment #66730 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 6:53 am
To think I read all that hoping to discover something about "swinging chicks".
Oh well....
Comment #66724 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 6:20 am
Inferno :
Why is whenever we hear of a religious person who struggled with their faith, they always seem to return to the faith they started off with?
The key word here is "their" - as in "struggled with their faith". Obviously not struggling with the problems of faith per se. The struggle remains firmly on home ground, so it is of no surprise to anyone that "faith - doubt - struggle - re-faith" all take place in the same context.
As King Solomon so wisely remarks in Proverbs 22:6: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." That's fairly good psychology - you indoctrinate the child first of all; the adolescent or young adult may "struggle" with the ideas inculcated, but if the brainwashing has been carried out effectively, the older adult "will not depart from it."
Here endeth the first lesson. Let us now stand to sing together hymn number 256 "Rock of ages - rock on."
Oops - sorry about that, I was forgetting which board I was on.
Comment #66719 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:48 am
jayalenik : You profile says :
Username:jayalenik
Location:Florida
Occupation:Thinker
Interests:Motorcycles, rational thought
Your avatar says :
"I have no idea what's going on."
This "thinker's" "rational thoughts" are :
If you could get your gooey eyed nose out of Stags ass long enough you would see the board is so relived you approve of us we are as happy as little girls jay
Need I add anything to that?
Let's get back to something interesting, now that we know what "rational thought" is all about.
Comment #66709 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 4:25 am
pewkatishoo :
I have been trying to instil critical thinking as an ideology with him, with limited success.Don't you see that to the adolescent mind "trying to instil critical thinking" is a glaring oxymoron!! Because what HE considers "critical thinking" will cause him to reject ANYTHING that you "try to instil" in him!
Which also partly explains the lack of success of "critical thinking" school programmes. For most normal, healthy adolescents, virtually anything that their parents/teachers/elders wish for them is at best highly suspect, and at worst to be avoided at all costs.
And there are probably some very good evolutionary reasons for that.
(Also when I read some of the stuff that we, the parents, write here on this board, I am often tempted to think - "It's no wonder the kids are screwed up - just look at the parents!! (Starting with myself - yep!)")
"vain hope"? It you believed it was really vain, you wouldn't persevere, would you? You would? Aw, c'mon.....don't start talking like Ma Teresa!!!
Comment #66704 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 3:30 am
Véronique :
I hear this shit when I walk through my town and hear what these kids are talking about. It frightens the shit out of me. There seems to be no introspection. Just what band is de rigueur; what drug is available. What doof to go to. How to get out of it.Teenagers have always caused their elders to despair. That's what teenagers do, that's what adolescence is about, and there seem to be some good evolutionary explanations for that. (Yep, evolution really is everywhere!!)
I despair. I really do. Is this what we have come to? I will be devastated if this is true!!
Critical thinking is taught in the French education system and, believe it or not, generally speaking the kids hate it! In the last year of high school there is an obligatory Philosophy course with an exam that counts for high school graduation (le baccalauréat)
I'm afraid there's no escaping the fact that critical thinking will be part of an attitude picked up at home from the parents, or developed later on in adult life as a situational necessity in answer to the question - "WTF is going on here?"
Comment #66675 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 10:18 pm
poppythinks :
-but how many people actually write well and with
meaning, on this planet - very few in my book.
That is beautiful! It is quite wonderful to come across gems like that after wading through all the sanctimonious crap that always finds its way onto these boards. (I should know - I write half of it myself!)
"Very few people write well... in my book." My, oh, my - have you got any more like that? Reading such comments makes being an atheist FUN.
Thank you. Diolch. Merci beaucoup. Obrigado.
Comment #66598 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Do the crime, do the time.I love these americanisms!! Does anybody have any more? Such as
Children don't care how much you know,And of course the legendary :
Until they know how much you care.
(This one is for teachers, mainly.)
"Ya tok the tok,
But do ya wok the wok?"
And things like : "He was one short of a six-pack." or "The lights are on but the house is empty."
I'm quite serious here, folks, we don't have this kind of expression in British English.
Just found another one : Quitcher bitchin'.
Comment #66586 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Dr Benway :
But telling people they ought not produce them is going a bit too far.
You're right...again.
I do...too often.
The problem is, I'm so frightened of silly people harming a cause that is so vitally important to me, that I end up, well, harming the cause, in reaction.
Thank Heavens for the Dr Benways and the Veroniques of this world.
dazzjazz :
I don't have the time to rabbit on at length.Well, that's a bit of good news. Thank you, dazzjazz, for Keeping It Short and Simple.
914. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms
Comment #66540 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 10:54 am
pewkatchoo! Shame on you! You mean you didn't notice the "d" word in this article?
It will generate progress in establishing the design principles used by the transcription process in high organism, and allow a more focused search for the origins of their complexity.Not to mention "origins" and "complexity". OK, I didn't really understand this article, but these are words that make me very, very suspicious.
We must be vigilant - they're getting in everywhere!!!
(And we gits must stick together!)
Comment #66497 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 6:13 am
Keith :
You would. I understand that.
But thanks anyway for confirming the need to explain certain things about journalese to our more naïve readers.
I'll take you word for it, since you clearly have more experience than I do.
Comment #66472 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 4:33 am
keith :
I just don't see the 'cheap verbal trick' you are accusing him of here.Right! That's the whole point. You don't see it.
You're not alone!
Most people don't either, which is why I need to point it out!
(Yeah - that sounds horribly pompous and supercilious, I know, but there again I am all that, so that's OK, no cognitive dissonance here.)
Let's back-track a little here. Christopher wrote this article initially for the readers of Newsweek which I understand has a fairly broad readership world-wide. But as he was penning this article, he knew full well that it would be picked up by all sorts of media - including the honorable R.D.Net.
But, surprise, surprise, the faith (or absence of) of mother Teresa becomes almost a secondary issue for the comments posters. All because of six words in brackets :
(and, if it matters, I concur).In brackets, that means I suppose, incidental to the main subject and thus not particularly relevant.
In fact, so irrelevant to the main subject that posters have been getting their knickers in a twist over it all day!!
Does anybody believe that the Hitch himself would be surprised by this "topic drift"? ( a beautiful expression that I discovered here, if it matters, and which reminds me so much of my ex-wife...)
No? Me neither. But if not, why not?
Because C.H. is a very experienced and often talented writer and speaker, or, as we used to say in North Wales, a fine wordsmith.
He knew what he was doing when he "threw in" those six words. As a professional, he wants to get people talking, and preferably, talking about him. There's nothing wrong with that. And in these pages he has succeeded in getting himself talked about.
It's not his doing what journalists do that gets up my nostril, it's the naïvety of certain readers who should know better. Because like most of you, truth, reason and beauty are what matter to me most of all, not skill with words, or marking points in debates. And yes, I'm a little sad that we have allowed ourselves to get side-tracked by six bracketed words, which most readers will henceforth remember more vividly than the main points of the article.
Do you remember?
Mother Teresa's lack of faith?
Yeah - that Mother Teresa, well done.
Mark Twain once said : "Wagner's music is not as bad as it sounds."
And in fact, I'm not as nasty as I sound. It just that sometimes.....
Comment #66454 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 3:03 am
pewkatchoo :
VeroniqueShe won't. In fact, she told me last night she'd be quite relieved.
Marry me and have my babies, I am sure my wife won't mind.
Comment #66440 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:19 am
stag :
For my money, Harris' arguments have this unsettling tendency to segue into hyperbole. Religion is a shit, we get the picture Sam!
Hahahahahaha! Thank you, stag. There is hope for this board after all!!
Comment #66433 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:09 am
I really loved this article and the comments it has provoked.
It's all so silly, isn't it?
Imagine this sort of discussion a few centuries ago, ok?
There is a symbolic, poetic, metaphorical sense in which the sun really does revolve around the earth. And this is very meaningful and comforting to millions of people.
But Galilawkins nourishes a disturbing contempt for geocentrists.
He asserts: "I do everything in my power to warn people against geocentricism itself, not just against so-called 'extremist' geocentricism."
Need I continue...?
Don't worry folks, it will take time and education. The Emperor's "New suit of clothes" won't keep him warm for long when the cruel winds of reason and reality start howling around his goolies. And even then, some will refuse to see his hairy bum!
But that's the way it happens, I guess.
Comment #66424 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 1:28 am
roach :
Hum. That probably means my posts are confusing. Which is worrying to me, since most of my posts are concerned with the clarity of (verbal) expression in order to avoid confusion. And often I am accused of being "petty" or a "jerk" (the character, not the dance or the verb) for insisting on certain details.
Your posts tend to confuse me.
Remarks like
(and, if it matters, I concur).are cheap verbal tricks which offend me when I come across them in otherwise serious articles.
I shouldn't need to say this, but the Hitch knew perfectly well that expressing his opinion would matter to lots of folk. Do you really believe he would be surprised by the reactions here on this board? Do you think he is so naïve as to imagine that his readers would not pick up this remark?
Also this verbal construct is a very silly one, in the sense that saying "If it matters to you, the reader, I concur," implies that there is the option of it not mattering to the reader. In which case....er, what?
And having said that, I have the horrible impression that I've added even more confusion.
Oh well, I'll just fetch my coat...
Comment #66416 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 1:05 am
roach :
I believe BAEOZ was referring to himself with the "ducks and runs away!" remark.Oh shit, I misunderstood again! Thank you for that clarification, roach!
Comment #66409 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 12:23 am
Veronique : you're right, of course. Thank you for being there. (It's just that coming down off my "high horse" seems like a long fall...)
BAEOZ : Ducks and runs away? Not any more. I was a theist until the age of 40 and had to do a lot of ducking and running away. Atheism gives me solid ground to stand on so that I need never duck and run away again.
And why would Richard Dawkins' comment make gooey-eyed hero-worship any less demeaning?
If it matters, I just happen to concur that the sort of things that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens are saying and writing represent perhaps some of the most valuable and important ideas being expressed on planet EARTH today. And I believe history will remember their names. (Well, Richard Dawkins, at least.)
Comment #66406 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 12:03 am
Every Catholic is supposed to regard abortion as an abomination (and, if it matters, I concur).Mister Hitchens, if you really thought it didn't matter you wouldn't have bothered adding the two words "I concur" to your article. You can't make us believe that you are so naïve as to imagine that "I concur" is just a throw-away! Aw come on, Hitch!
...and then makes them feel abject and guilty when their innate reason rebels.Whilst recent research seems to be acquiring evidence that some aspects of the "reasoning" faculty could well be "innate" (i.e. genetically transmitted) I feel that it this is an unfortunate choice of adjective. Not wishing to go back to the nature/nurture debate, it is still far from clear that "reason" is "innate".
Comment #66392 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Dr Benway :
There's dignity in saying what you honestly feel. And so long as you take it on the chin if someone laughs or looks down a nose (i.e., no whining), you'll never lose your dignity.Absolutely right - again. Thank you for that observation.
However I should explain that I find gooey-eyed hero-worship demeaning to the debate itself, and that's what hurts and disappoints me. But maybe that's what discussion boards are for..also. Yep - maybe I need to learn that.
USA_Limey : thank you for giving people a second chance to read my comments! The "Jerk" at the end, I presume, is Modern American English at its best. Is it a noun here, or the imperative form of the verb?
Comment #66322 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 5:27 pm
BAEOZ:
Sam is a seriously good article writer. Loved those last sentences, as Janus said, so do I.
Jiten :
Sam is just tireless! And I always learn something new.
dazzjazz :
Gosh, Sam's final sentence is so HEAVY! He really says it all right there.
roach :
Sam is so cool. His writing style is so simple and powerful..... Awesome.
Do you remember how teen-age girls would shriek and weep and faint and wet themselves when they were able to catch a glimpse of The Beatles - The Fab Four - back in the sixties?
Frankly the asinine adulation that I find expressed in these columns for our "fab four" (D,D,H & H) strikes me as equally excessive and on the way to becoming just as hysterical.
When I read stuff like that, I find it so embarrassing I hardly dare recommend this site to other acquaintances.
How undignified!
926. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles
Comment #66153 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 4:31 am
hungarian elephant : Don't be so stroppy! I wasn't mocking at all! It was just so cute to see it written like that, I couldn't resist taking it a bit further. OF course I know you're right. At sixty-one I've probably known it for longer than you've been alive.
Haven't you noticed that among all the heavy crap that sometimes gets thrown around on this board, I occasionally try to lighten things a little. You know, just a little chuckle here and there to help us not get bogged down in taking ourselves too seriously.
Heck, who can get serious about somebody who calls himself "hungarianelephant"?
Excuse me, I have to leave you there. We're having a barbecue next week, a real méchoui and I need to take the sheep for it's penultimate session of psychoanalysis. (Apparently an unresolved Oedipus complex gives the meat a slightly bitter flavour.)
Comment #66138 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 2:32 am
Have you noticed how Christian Churches (historically) have only been selling the "jesus loves you" line for a relatively short period of time?
The method works like this - set up a system so that everybody feels riddled with guilt and unworthy of love, let it poison society for a couple of thousand years then at a time when communication systems are working well on a world-wide basis you can tell them :"Sure, you're shits, but Jesus loves you anyway. he will forgive your shittiness, clean you up and take you in to paradise for ever."
In marketing that's called "creating the need." Works every time!
928. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles
Comment #66131 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 1:42 am
hungarianelephant :
a happy animal tastes better.
Hahahahahahaha!
Hohohohohohoho
Hihihihihihihihihi
That is priceless!
I love it!
You have just given me my next t-shirt slogan!
Keep 'em coming, please.
Make sure your turkey dies smiling.
Superior sausages from placid pigs.
Little lamb never knew what hit him, and YOU can taste the difference.
Rapture rashers of beacon bacon - are your pigs born again?
Mouth-watering steaks from consumer-friendly cows, because friendly cows taste better.
Scrumptious happy-egg omelettes!
How you treat what you eat before it is meat
can make the meat you eat a real treat!
929. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles
Comment #66116 by Richard Morgan on August 28, 2007 at 11:30 pm
JesusH :
Sad and disgusting some of the comments on this thread, proves again how most atheists on this board are just as stereotyping, hateful and dogmatic as the people they criticizeStupid remark. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily make anybody a "nice person". Nobody ever said that it should. Though preferring truth to illusion does improve one's chances of entering into honest relationships.
930. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles
Comment #66113 by Richard Morgan on August 28, 2007 at 11:23 pm
At least one religion has beaten everybody else to it with the "camo wife".
A bon entendeur...
931. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies
Comment #66059 by Richard Morgan on August 28, 2007 at 6:36 am
Why is everybody so shock/horror surprised? When has getting money out of people ever had anything to do with being virtuous and honest? Haggard is still doing who he does best - screwing people!
932. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers
Comment #65816 by Richard Morgan on August 26, 2007 at 9:53 pm
windfall:
Agree to disagree and all that (if we still do, that is).
I can't because we don't. I was wrong - so I now agree with you. Thank you (and Geraint : diolch yn fawr) for this discussion.
And I trust that even "A" and "drakfluga" will grow up one day.
933. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #65613 by Richard Morgan on August 25, 2007 at 6:00 am
Richard Dawkins often says, as he does here in reply to McGrath's ultimate (non)question : "It is such a privilege to be born at all....
We have the privilege of being in this universe for a few decades....
It is an enormous privilege to be able to understand something about the universe in which we live...
I have a problem with his use of the word "privilege" here. And it is most certainly not a nit-picking type of problem. (I'll leave that to roach and other specialists in the "nit" department.)
Do you also have a problem with this word in this context? If not, could you explain it to me, please.
I'll have my rant about all this in a couple of days.
Watch this space. (Unless you have some fresh wet paint handy.)
934. A Matter of Faith
Comment #65445 by Richard Morgan on August 24, 2007 at 8:00 am
AnthInTraining:
How many times must we set it all straight?
As many times as it takes, without counting. I think the truth is worth the effort, and I'm sure you do too.
roach:
A large part of it seems to involve reading books and not understanding them. I can do that!
We'd noticed.
935. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...
Comment #65306 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm
roach :
Luckily, as sapient points out, you don't have to have perfect spelling, grammar, and syntax in order to produce valid arguments.
You're right, of course. The problem is that imperfect spelling, grammar and syntax could well prevent you from effectively communicating your valid arguments.
And with the best will in the world, I would find it very difficult to take seriously somebody who assures me, in a mocking way, that "sensitive" is a noun in this case.
(The word "sensitive" is used as a noun - by the woo-woos!!!)
Some of us are happy to be corrected, science is permanently self-correcting, but if you prefer watching paint dry, well, I guess the creationists in your part of the world can sleep peacefully tonight.
Where would you like me to send you the other half of my Prozac?
936. Enemies of Reason
Comment #65197 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 6:12 am
I found the approach most effective : the "cut your own rope to hang yourself with", "shooting yourself in the foot", "own-goal" technique. Just let them talk and act and their quackery will become self-evident.
A more militant approach would have been like using an AK46 to kill a fly.
Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.
Reason with gentleness of mind and manner,
Let humility fragrantly perfume your questions,
And take no harsh joy nor solace,
As the quacks and charlatans pitifully shit upon themselves,
In the market place, as in the hidden stench of their consulting rooms.
If music be the food of love,
Then let truth and reason be
The twin suppositories
To the constipated mind
Of the blind and the ignorant...
See what I mean....?
(I suspect that I've improvised a little when quoting Desiderata, but you get my message, don't you?)
937. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...
Comment #65156 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 3:32 am
roach:
"more perfect"?
"most unique"?
I suppose I could be playing right into the hands of a linguistic joke. It's happened to me in the past.
Yip.
It's just happened to you again, sweety!
And strangely enough, I'm not just playing silly-buggers. Grammar is the protocol of verbal communication, and sloppiness in the use of words can lead to unpleasant problems of communication. This would be highly regrettable in a forum dedicated to truth and reason, since words are all we have for describing truth and demonstrating reason.
Like y'know, yer see what I mean, it's sorta, y'know like, wow and yoopee 24/7 innit?
Innit?
No?
OK - I'll just fetch my coat.
938. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...
Comment #65122 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 12:31 am
kellyM78 :
Some people are entirely too sensitive.
"entirely too....?"
Oh dear : I'm sure there must be a more perfect way of using the English language. And I'm not suggesting that my perception of the correct use of grammar is the most unique in the world.
"entirely too..."
There are some linguistic memes up with which I will NOT put.
939. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR
Comment #65096 by Richard Morgan on August 22, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Somebody once said : "Clearly God hates money. Just look at the people he gives it to!"
Clearly Jesus loves liars and cheats and frauds - because ironically it's always the "Thou-shalt-not-bear-false-witness" born-again faith-heads that feel the need to resort to dissimulation (at best) and downright lies (at worst). Probably doing it in the name of Jesus makes it OK.
OK.
Why am I not surprised?
"You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you... very embarrassed." (Morganic Translation of the New Tasty-Mint)
940. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school
Comment #64460 by Richard Morgan on August 20, 2007 at 6:04 am
I consider myself to be a person of high principles. I venerate truth, reason and beauty above all things. How loathsomely hypocritical and downright dishonest to trade one's principles for something as paltry as your child's education!
As for me and my house, if I was offered £1,000,000 to convert to Mormonism, I would not hesitate for one second : "Show me to the swimming pool, brothers, I just got that burning in the bosom feeling!"
(lol)
941. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion
Comment #64251 by Richard Morgan on August 19, 2007 at 1:30 am
JohnC
Richard,
I think it is a real measure of your achievement that the issues keep on bubbling up through letters pages of quality broadsheets. You have obviously hit on the correct combination of reason and provocation that has got people's attention.
Congratulations!
Thank you very much.
942. Good luck, Dawkins!
Comment #64222 by Richard Morgan on August 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm
If you wait that long, they'll know you lied to them.
But if they accuse you of having lied to them, you can always tell them that voices in your head ordered you to do so.
If I say : "I lie."
and in so saying, tell a truth,
then I truly lie.
But if I say : "I lie."
and in so saying, tell a lie,
then I tell the truth.
....I'm amazed you're still reading!
943. Good luck, Dawkins!
Comment #64130 by Richard Morgan on August 18, 2007 at 1:04 am
Like so many of you guys, I spent many years being really distressed by the number of people who believe things that are quite clearly false.
As a teacher in France, I campaigned against this dreadful pseudo-educational practice called "grade repetition" or "year repetition". Not only was I constantly witnessing the harmful effects of making a pupil repeat a grade, but also ALL the surveys and studies and analyses that have been carried out on this subject, all over the world, come to the same CONCLUSIONS. Grade repetition is NOT a second chance, can be downright harmful to the child, is frightfully unjust and is always an extremely expensive burden for the state. .
But opinion polls in countries that use "grade repetition" (redoublement in French) consistently and regularly reveal that over 90% of parents AND teachers (!!!) consider that grade repetition is an effective tool for helping slow pupils to catch up. .
It's been proven to be false a thousand times over but people still believe in it. Doesn't that remind you of something, somewhere…?.
Many such beliefs belong to the category called "folk wisdom" or "intuitive reasoning". Like the fact that I can see the sun rise over the mountains and set behind the gasworks, so I "know" the sun revolves around the earth. .
If I give a child an extra year to learn something, logically it's going to facilitate the learning process. .
Well, innit?
In fact, er,no. Quite the opposite.
Then one day I chanced to come across an interesting survey, carried out in Quebec, I believe. After having questioned parents and teachers about their beliefs concerning grade repetition, the analysts identified those parents and teachers who has actually studied the question of grade repetition, who had read the reports and analyses, who really had an idea about what it was all about. Amongst this group, not surprisingly, the proportion of people favourable to grade repetition was almost exactly reversed, over 90% being opposed to it. .
Clearly it all comes down to a question of cognitive dissonance - in other words, does it seem to make sense to me. The idea of the sun wobbling around the earth "makes sense" - but only to my uninformed wisdom and intuitions. .
In other words, knowledge (and thus education) is the key factor here. Which means that Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk (you and I for example) absolutely must continue disseminating simple information, be it via programmes like the "Enemies of Reason" or by writing books like "The God Delusion" or by participating in discussions such as this one or, perhaps more importantly, by bringing up our children with reason-based attitudes and lots of love. .
Susan Blackmore was wrong to despair, though it is perfectly understandable. Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to me to be the depressive, despairing type, so I have no worries there. .
As we read in Isaiah chapter 1 verse 18, "Come now and let us reason together" says the Lord….
Oops, sorry about that, sometimes my previous conditioning rears its ugly head! .
But I presume you've got my message ("gotten my message" for my transatlantic friends).It is worth telling the truth - over and over again. Let me finish with a lovely little anecdote. .
There was a tiny old schoolhouse in one of those country villages where all the children were in the same class. A stranger to the village stopped outside the school and listened through the open window as the jolly old school m'am gave her lesson. .
He was so amazed by what he heard, he waited around to question the school's solitary teacher on her rather surprising teaching techniques. "I listened to you giving that lesson on arithmetic. I noticed you paid particular attention to the sort of dunce of the class, sitting on his own at the back of the classroom. Do you know that there was one long division problem that you explained to him 48 times!!!. Why on earth did you take the time to explain 48 times?".
To which the kindly old lady replied, "Well, I guess it was because 47 times wasn't enough."
Let's carry on explaining. 48 times or more.
You know, in spite of appearances, I think most people now accept that the earth spins around the sun instead of the opposite. Persistence is it's own reward.
944. Good luck, Dawkins!
Comment #64128 by Richard Morgan on August 18, 2007 at 12:04 am
There are some grains of truth in there. Out-of-body experiences happen, even though nothing leaves the body, sleep paralysis happens and is terrifying if you don't know what it is, mystical experiences can change people's lives for the better, and some alternative therapies can be wonderfully relaxing and enjoyable, even if their underlying theories are completely false.
To my mind this is potentially dangerous thinking, because it equates "truth" with subjective experiences. As if the "feel-good" principle had some kind of validity. Which it doesn't.
Reminds me of when I got converted to Mormonism as a teenager in 1961. The missionaries told me that I could "know" that the book of mormon was the word of god by praying and asking god to show me that (not "whether") it was true by giving me a sensation called "a burning in the bosom."
Sure enough, one night as I prayed after having eaten too much chicken curry, I got the required revelation!
Nice feelings and sensations are not "grains of truth" in the context of reason-based research and enquiry. They are grains of......er, feelings and sensations?
945. A Defense of Atheism
Comment #63968 by Richard Morgan on August 17, 2007 at 4:45 am
I do love this expression "consciousness-raising", which generally means "lifting" other people's consciousness to my own level. The superior level, of course.
I have just invented, and therefore prefer, "consciousness-expanding" or "consciousness-widening", because being aware of more does not, hélas, automatically entitle me to any kind of superiority, even though it should, and sometimes does.
946. A Defense of Atheism
Comment #63965 by Richard Morgan on August 17, 2007 at 4:18 am
Accurate nit-picking means never having to say you're sorry. (Love means having to say you're sorry every fifteen minutes - John Lennon) But please be accurate! My dear RAS, we ALL have some belief system, even you! Writing as you did, you have started to reveal a part of your own belief system, surely you must realise that!
In fact nit-picking is generally very useful, sometimes very important and never a real problem, except for nits, of course.
947. Charles Brooker's screen burn
Comment #63278 by Richard Morgan on August 13, 2007 at 7:35 pm
darwin2 - please have the decency to go away and play your stupid games elsewhere.
Your "Look, Mummy, I've got Internet and I can say what I want wherever I want" mentality ceased to be amusing pages back.
And you other guys, how can you be so dumb as to encourage him by replying as if you were taking him seriously?
948. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist
Comment #62903 by Richard Morgan on August 12, 2007 at 8:51 am
I doubt this will cause these alternative practitioners much loss of sleep.
Sadly true. This just underlines the need for a better understanding of human gullibility, or worse, "theneed to believe".
his public advocacy of atheism is coming to look more and more like media-savvy forms of contemporary religion
So what? Is being "media-savvy" a problem for somebody here? Are we supposed to just stand on a roof somewhere and shout?
This emerging atheist movement may have some way to go before it matches the social and cultural influence of evangelicalism, though: it lacks the social networks that evangelicalism has in congregations and other special-interest organisations (including missionary organisations and NGO's); it lacks the regular rituals and special festivals at which evangelicals gather to rehearse their faith and identity; and it lacks the popular resources of evangelicalism (including the oft-derided practices of contemporary evangelical worship), which offer a powerful cultural technology for shaping mind, body and emotion in line with evangelical perspectives.
Correct. But don't worry, guys, I'm working on it! I've had some wonderful experiences singing with a large crowd - evangelicals, young communists, Man United supporters : different causes but always the same "burning in the bosom" sensation. I just love it. I'm working on some Atheist anthems at the moment.
future conflict between militant atheists and religious conservatives may have the rest of us ducking in the crossfire.
Yep. Sitting on the fence could be a dangerous place to be in certain situations.
"Let us reason together...."
"BOOM!"
"You've deaded me, you rotten..."
(dies)
rise of the atheist movement he symbolises could do more than the alternative spiritualities he disparages to threaten the fragile cohesion of our societies.
Are you suggesting another "Peace for our time" treaty? Didn't work the last time...
(If you don't recognise this quotation, Google it.)
949. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion
Comment #62733 by Richard Morgan on August 11, 2007 at 3:51 am
If Dominic Lawson is machine-washable and comes up to European Safety standards, I'd like to buy one for my grand-daughter to add to her collection of cuddly teddy-bears.
Any info on this,anybody?
950. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion
Comment #62487 by Richard Morgan on August 10, 2007 at 1:12 am
I almost envy Dominic Lawson his good fortune in living in a world where "religion has been forced to become little other than an assembly of ethical opinions."
And I feel it is a clumsy misrepresentation of RD's motivation to suggest that it can be summed up by:
Their refusal to countenance Darwin is, I suspect, what has so enraged Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist by specialisation.
I have the very strong impression that what so enrages Richard Dawkinis has a lot more to do with fanatics aiming planes at sky-scrapers than with silly ideas concerning a subject particularly dear to his heart.
Reading this article gives me the impression that Dominic Lawson is a real nice guy, but he doesn't seem to live in the same world as we agitating atheists.
More Pages: Previous | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
