51. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56303 by windfall on July 14, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Those Amazing Randi posts were interesting. I too raised my eyebrows when I read those lines about psychic phenomena and reincarnation in Harris' book.

It's important to read both posts (the second is Harris' response to Randi's criticism). I think Harris is guilty only of not really reading the research (or its criticism) that he cited (which is a bad idea), but also, being too glib in order to make a point. His point in the book was that, if people are willing to investigate things undogmatically, and scientifically, and publish the results, he's at least willing to entertain the claims. He was trying to contrast dogmatic belief in seemingly improbable things with belief in seemingly improbable things based on at least SOME evidence (however flimsy it may turn out).

IQHQ, I like the end of your first post. These are important questions. This is the second 'spell' that Dennett wonders if we should break. I too wonder. I'm optimistic that things will be ok for several reasons: 1. highly 'atheistic' societies do very well, and they presumably have a similar distribution of attraction to religious ideas in the population as in the US. 2. Education. The primary vehicle for sustaining religious ties to morality is the educating children to believe there is a such a connection. 3. Many people have lived decades believing that morality depends on religion, but have eventually come to their senses. 4. This is why we have laws and courts: in the end, all we really have is our instincts and the social contract.

PS. drichlin, I think you meant to say 'quod erat demonstrandum', not 'quid pro quo' (or maybe I misunderstood you).

52. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56116 by windfall on July 13, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Excellent stuff. It's like listening to an expert jazz musician weave a new variation of a familiar tune. I have never heard anyone speak so clearly on any subject as Sam does on this one.

It was worth watching it to hear his one-liner response to the tired 'isn't it legit to be an agnostic' question (though it did come from a professed unbeliever - which makes it even more important): 'Are you an agnostic about Zeus?' (or something like that). It reminded me of a RD Q&A when a girl simply asked him 'What if you're wrong?'. His inspiringly terse response was 'What if YOU'RE wrong about Bujubba on the mountain?'

Keep it up Sam!

53. Now this is how to critique Ken Ham's creation 'museum'

Comment #54729 by windfall on July 8, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Good video - always nice to hear this stuff - and I admit it's ironic.

However, no creationist watching this will be impressed. To them, it will just sound like a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo. They will claim that the science book illustration is just a made up story to match the fossils (which it is in an important sense, which is a GOOD thing).

They'll think - wow, god did ALL THAT in so little time! He must be REALLY amazing!

I wonder how the creationists deal with the ark story and the tiniest of living organisms. Did Noah go out with a pipette and a set of glass slides to collect his samples? How did he figure out which insects were which, and ensure he got one male/female of each? And how did he keep them on the ark (no aqauriums, no glass at all...). What about bacteria? Did god kill them too? What did Noah just dunk his head in the water a couple of times?

I'm sure a creationist would respond 'well, that just shows you how powerful god is, that he was able to get Noah to do all that'. Maybe he did the tough parts himself. So why use Noah at all?

Oh, yeah I forgot - it's just a story. It's like arguing about how many angels can dance on a pinhead. It misses the important point entirely.

Oh, creationists, please wake up and smell the coffee. Science is serious stuff. People spend their lives doing careful research and you just piss on it because it doesn't line up with your magic book. We're actually figuring out what the past was really like based on real evidence. It's exciting! Don't you see that?

Oh, what's the use?

Incidentally, they misspelled 'were' at the end.

54. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54398 by windfall on July 6, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Nice clip. I'm glad to see Dan back in the game (after his surgery last year). His comments are always so measured. In many ways he is an ideal scientist (even though he is a philosopher); refusing to make premature conclusions until the evidence is in.

I have huge respect for his insistence that religion must be studied and understood before we decide what to do with it. He does not hide his atheism, but treats religion like some new organism he's found. What's it do? How's it work? What's it for? Cui bono?

The example of the ant that's been hijacked by a fluke is a great one. The point being that one can discern two interests: that of the ant and that of the parasite.

55. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #54309 by windfall on July 6, 2007 at 10:40 am

Amazing stuff! We're living in the stone age.

At my cousin's protestant church wedding a few weeks back, the lutheran minister said to the audience, 'what beautiful weather we have here today, i can see that these two have been very good indeed' or something to that effect.

I hope I wasn't the only one mentally following his logic through: so, if it had rained, that would imply that my cousin was a slut? What a buffoon!

56. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #54125 by windfall on July 5, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I have to agree with others here that Penn is a lousy philosopher and an inchoherent writer (though he's pretty funny and a great illusionist). The elephant example is lame (and as jlinden31 pointed out in comment #53167) it is open to scientific refutation in a way that the standard immaterial god and soul are not.

A much better example (and the one I always cite, courtesy of Massimo
Pigliucci) is the immaterial unicorn:
http://www.booktalk.org/rationally-speaking/01-12-unicorns.php

I found Penn's reasoning cryptic and more condescending than anything (which doesn't help when there's not much substance). He could best aid the cause by continuing to show how easy it is to fool people (similar to Derren Brown)

57. Messiah

Comment #53717 by windfall on July 2, 2007 at 9:10 pm

This is all well and good, but after watching several clips in which he appears to be hypnotizing people into being drunk, staring at people till they feel sick or mad with rage (within a few seconds), guesses cards people are thinking of - how does he do this stuff?

I mean, there is something here, isn't there? I'm a hard-nosed skeptic about everything, but this stuff is amazing!

Whatever his technique, I give him great credit for demonstrating how it's quite straightforward to deceive people in the most shattering ways.

58. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53325 by windfall on June 30, 2007 at 8:11 pm

I'm so tired of interviewers and moderators who ask questions and then shout over their interviewees.

Sharpton in both debates consistently paints himself out to be a deist - he seems to only believe in god in a very abstract sense and doesn't seem to identify with any conception of a personal god. If this was exposed to listeners, many believers in the audience might stop identifying with him.

Hitchens should ask him about specific tenets of various religions and ask if he accepts them. For example, ask him if he thinks god answers prayers to cure disease and then talk about the Harvard study on intercessory prayer -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16569567&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum

The whole Iraq war thing, and the Scooter Libby thing do not help him, but he should say these things if he feels strongly about them.

59. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53267 by windfall on June 30, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Jared Diamond gives a nice explanation of the various longevities of different species in his first book 'The Third Chimpanzee'. The key is the expense of investment in repairing the body. It's something like calculating the cost of an insurance policy. What are the chances that the average organism in the species will sustain serious damage before reproducing? How long till the species is able to reproduce? How costly are the various repairs?

The basic insight is that the species is optimized through natural selection to live long enough to reproduce and care for the offspring until they are ready to reproduce. There is no maximization, only optimization. That bodies continue to function for years after reproduction and caring for offspring in humans and other animals is just a matter of the systems selected for (according to the cost-effective investment based on the above considerations) lasting for longer as they wear down. Natural selection doesn't really care what happens to the parents' bodies after ones offspring are ready to reproduce on their own. From then on out, the body just breaks down quickly or slowly, depending on how it's been invested in.

Diamond uses the excellent example of car repair. I highly recommend his book. The relevant chapter here is chapter 7 'Why Do We Grow Old and Die?'.

60. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #39946 by windfall on May 12, 2007 at 11:21 am

Though the RRS clearly 'won' this 'debate', it was generally a disappointment. Brian and Kelly did a decent job considering their experience and the intimidating public forum. I was really hoping they would have closed by noting how Kirk and his buddy had essentially used a bait and switch technique with their promise of a 'proof' that god exists.

I was however heartened that all Kirk and his sidekick could come up with was half a dozen William Paley specials and the argument from absolute morality to make their case. The third 'proof' was just the usual bible sales pitch. The RSS should have gone into Natural Selection a little bit on #1, they did a good job on #2, but they should have explicitly exposed #3 as the circular reasoning it is (i.e. my book here says you're going to burn in hell). All I kept thinking, was, if Dawkins, Harris or Dan Dennett had been there, those guys would have been absolutely hung out to dry with their alligator-duck picture. What a disgrace to humanity.

61. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #39464 by windfall on May 10, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Though I agree with Hitchens' analysis, I think he missed at least three major opportunities in this debate:

1. Sharpton kept repeating that Hitchens was only criticizing scripture and man's interpretation of it, and that he would not engage the more important question of the existence of god. Hitchens merely touched on Dawkins' central point that the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, but left it at that. He should have acknowledged Sharpton's point and then proceeded to explain that a sober review of the available evidence can decide the matter. Further, using Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot argument, agnosticism is shown to be untenable.
2. Sharpton was clearly confusing the existence of god with the existence of a personal god. This is a hugely common misconception and Hitchens basically let him get away with it. One can easily dismiss the existence of a personal god and then the existence of the deist god is merely an academic question, with no bearing on life.
3. He had actually backed Sharpton into a corner when he got him to admit that his insistence on the existence of god was based entirely on personal experience. He could have dealt him the knock-out right there: so, you admit that your only evidence of the existence of god comes from your personal experience? Then bring in modern neuroscience to demonstrate that your personal experience is not necessarily to be relied upon.