51. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132435 by Janus on February 24, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Does this idiot really think that if we lived in a world where, say, Christian prayers to heal amputees actually worked, there would still be more than a handful of non-Christians?

Of course, if we lived in such a world, it could still be argued that even though there's good evidence that there is a very powerful being who cares about what Christians ask of Him, it doesn't follow that this being designed the universe, but if He had, it would have been extremely easy to provide conclusive evidence for His existence. All He would have had to do is put a message in the universe that only its designer could have put there.

For example, a message in binary code (with a translating key) could have been encoded in the cosmic microwave background radiation that resulted from the Big Bang. Or to give another example, the Judeo-Christian God could have designed the inter-molecular forces in such a way that if you put salt in a certain solution, it would self-assemble into the the text of the Bible written in all the human languages that have ever existed and will ever exist. The Bible itself would contain the instructions for making the solution. Then there would be no need for any of these silly debates. Anyone who doubted the existence of Yahweh could perform the experiment himself and see the evidence for himself. The truth of Christianity would be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and only insane wackos would deny it.

That there is no such undeniable evidence for the existence of a God can only mean three things: He doesn't want to provide this evidence (in which case he's not benevolent), he's not able to provide this evidence (in which case he's far from omnipotent), or there is no God.

52. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130345 by Janus on February 20, 2008 at 11:30 am

Yup, I've given up too. It starts buffering every 10 seconds or so.

53. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125476 by Janus on February 11, 2008 at 12:20 pm

What he did on Thursday was to convince other Britons, white, black and brown, that Muslims want not equality but exceptionalism and their own domains. Enlightened British Muslims quail. Friends like this churchman do us more harm than our many enemies.

You know, I can't help but think that Williams can't be so stupid that he hasn't seen this. I think there's a good possibility that he knew exactly what he was doing and what kind of reactions it would provoke. And by Iggy the Secular Elf, it has worked incredibly well. If that was his intent, the Archbishop is a genius of strategy, not to mention a very brave man for being willing to take the accusations that would inevitably follow (and have followed).

54. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118384 by Janus on January 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I don't get it. This guy says he's not arguing for the existence of God, and yet he denies that theism is irrational. If no one can come up with good evidence or a good logical argument for the existence of God, atheism wins by default.

55. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #118116 by Janus on January 30, 2008 at 11:09 am

Deleting our accounts isn't going to do any good; in fact, that's exactly what those bastards want us to do. Send e-mails to Myspace instead. Even better, send e-mails to various media to make them aware of this.

56. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #117479 by Janus on January 28, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Ridiculous beliefs need to be ridiculed sometimes, though. Never doing so creates the impression that they aren't ridiculous.

If you come across someone who believes that Elvis Presley is still alive, you don't nod politely, and carefully, non-offensively begin to point that the Elvis believer might have made one or two logical errors, do you? You just laugh, or stare incredulously, or shake your head in amazement, or ask if the guy is quite sane.

57. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117176 by Janus on January 28, 2008 at 11:26 am

This is a great (and encouraging) article, but I disagree with part of it. True, we would have no problem with religion if it was stripped of all faith-based claims about reality and of all dogmatic propositions. But if it was... it wouldn't be religion anymore. What you get when you strip a religion of the claims it makes about reality is a moral philosophy, like secular humanism and some (non-theistic) brands of Buddhism and Confucianism.

So it's fallacious to say that we're against dogma but not against religion.

58. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #116796 by Janus on January 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Well said, Giskard. It's amazing how many otherwise rational people buy into the dogma that ridiculing ridiculous beliefs is intolerant or arrogant.

As you've implied, refraining from ridiculing religious beliefs in the name of politeness can only give the mistaken impression that these beliefs are perfectly normal and rational.

59. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113526 by Janus on January 19, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Excellent!

I see no problem with this as long as the embryo is killed swiftly enough. Better yet would be to keep its brain from forming at all, thus ensuring it doesn't even begin to become a person.

60. The Group Delusion

Comment #110659 by Janus on January 11, 2008 at 8:42 pm

wooter,

Dawkins has explained this in at least three books that I know of (The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable), as have many other biologists. Asking for help in understanding certain of the more complex details of evolution on a message board is ok, but that's not what you're doing. You don't seem to have any understanding of what evolution is. Why should we (much less Dawkins) take the time to explain the basics to someone who has made no effort to educate himself? Read a book.

61. The Group Delusion

Comment #110288 by Janus on January 10, 2008 at 10:10 pm

"God Delusion 2: Scratching the fleas"


Hahaha! Ohh, that's brilliant.

62. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109954 by Janus on January 10, 2008 at 6:37 am

ADH:

Says it all really. That's about the level that we're dealing with. Next thing we know there'll be Benny Hinn style atheist tele-evangelists.

No, see, you're ignoring the fundamental difference:
Tele-evangelists are preaching lies, Dawkins is stating the truth.

63. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109837 by Janus on January 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Richard probably didn't mean that most religious people are like Jerry Falwell when it comes to morality, but when it comes to the ridiculousness (and lack of sophistication) of their beliefs, which is probably true.

64. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107349 by Janus on January 4, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Wolpe did a fine job of countering Sam's (B. Russell's) teapot analogy in that the orbiting teapot can be verified yet God cannot so the analogy fails. Sam should have retorted that the teapot he is referring to is no-doubt etheral, or that he has an IPU in his garage, or that the FSM is touching him right now.

Yes he could have, but he didn't have to. That a claim can't be verified or falsified doesn't make it any more likely, so the teapot analogy still works.

65. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106317 by Janus on January 2, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Steve Zara:

Ideally, yes. The problem is that many religious believe that they do have quality evidence for their beliefs.

I am undecided about this, but sometimes I feel the promotion of uncertainty is a healthy antidote to faith.

Yes, many religious believers do believe that they have evidence for their beliefs, but they're wrong.

Your argument is an argument about tactics, not about truth. I could rephrase it like this: "Even though certainty is a good thing when it's backed up by evidence, shouldn't we pretend that it's a bad thing if it will make many religious believers less fanatical than they currently are?"

Since I put a lot of importance on truth, my answer is no. If you're someone who cares less about the truth than I do, you may be tempted to answer yes, but I think you'd be wrong to do so.

First, spreading a lie (because that's what you're proposing we do, despite your good intentions) is a dangerous thing to do, because if it's repeated often enough it will become a dogma, and dogmas are difficult to break. Accepting that there are such things as hard truths (which isn't to say that these truths are unquestionable and unfalsifiable) is an absolutely essential feature of critical thinking and discourse. If all of our knowledge is nothing but an obscure, muddled mass of uncertainty, if no belief is significantly more certain than any other, then any decision, any policy, any discussion about reality is pointless. That's what post-structuralists would have us believe. Of course, I don't think you really believe that, but that is what many people believe, and spreading post-structuralism in the name of winning the war against religious fundamentalism will only strengthen these people. We might rid ourselves of one kind of crazies only to be overwhelmed by another kind.

Second, as you can see in the article we're commenting on, religious moderates (and many fundies) use the alleged awfulness of certainty as a shield against criticism of their beliefs. The dogma that certainty is bad is what allows them to call atheists like Richard Dawkins mean, intolerant, strident, and militant.

Third, I think it's shortsighted to limit our criticism to religious certainties. You're right that many fundies think they have evidence for their beliefs, and convincing them that they can hold on to their ridiculous beliefs even if they have no evidence for them might be an adequate stopgap measure, a decent temporary tactic, but that's all it is. It might make some of them less intolerant and less dangerous, but it won't help us build a reality-based society.

The only real, permanent solution is to pull them out of their ignorance by educating them, and to arm them against faith by teaching them critical thinking.

I mean, can we really be sure of things...
The Earth is not quite round, there have been legal questions about both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and there is a theory that the unicorn was based on the rhinoceros, which is not (yet) extinct.

Pedantry.

66. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106243 by Janus on January 2, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Mark Smith,

You've hit the nail on the head. The sentence you've quoted is the usual mantra of the religious moderates. They look at religious fundies, they see how crazy they are, and they wonder why. Their conclusion is never that fundies are crazy because of their faith, because moderates have faith too, therefore the only possibility is that fundies are crazy because they're too certain. Ergo, certainty is bad, giving rise to the popular forms of postmodernism and post-structuralism (even if they don't realize that's what they believe).

Of course any thinking person can see that this is nonsense. Is it bad to be certain that the Earth is round, that our bodies are made of cells, that George W. Bush is the president of the USA, and that unicorns are mythical creatures?

There's nothing wrong with certainty, if this certainty is proportional to the quantity and quality of the evidence.

Religious fundamentalists aren't crazy because they're certain per se, they're crazy because they're certain about faith-based beliefs (and because these beliefs are inspired by a collection of superstitions and barbaric, outdated morality, of course).
Religious moderates aren't nicer than fundamentalists because they're less certain per se, they're nicer because they're less certain about their faith-based beliefs (and because they manage to fool themselves into ignoring the worst bits of the aforementioned collection of barbaric myths).
And better than either of those groups are people who take nothing on faith at all.

Certainty isn't the problem, faith is.

67. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105831 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Diacanu:

I'm just saying I have no emotional investment in them as continuers of the human species.

Whereas you do have an emotional investment in humans as we are today, i.e. my first post in this thread wasn't me putting words in your mouth, it was 100% correct.

I'm with Ashton Black. Wanna bet on that?

That immortality is possible is a certainty. Do you think immortality won't sell once it's made available to the public? Of course it will sell, like nothing has ever sold before! It therefore seems reasonable that immortal beings will begin to think on the scale of decades, centuries, and millenia rather than months and years, doesn't it? It also seems reasonable that removing the fear of death will radically change the human psyche, don't you agree?

Something similar can be said of super-intelligence. Do you think that many people will be happy to have an IQ of 100 when they know they can purchase a brain restructuring operation that will raise it to 400? And don't you think that a massive increase in intelligence won't have an incredible effect on society?


mezzanoche:

I think perhaps we are jumping the gun a bit with all this talk on "immortality" and "super modified humans". I mean last time I checked millions of people every year are still dying of all sorts of illnesses and diseases, so I am going to hold off on popping the bottle of champagne just yet.

You can think that immortality, super-intelligence, and the rest of transhumanism are a long way off, you can think that we'll destroy ourselves before it will happen, and you might even be right. But there's no doubt that these things are possible. Short of an apocalypse, if it can happen, it will happen.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your argument. Sure, a large fraction of the world are still living in the Middle-Ages, in many respects. That may mean an utopia is a long way off, but it has nothing to do with the coming technological singularity.

68. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105825 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Well, if you won't take immortality, I imagine you'll be free to live your short life as you see fit.

Yes, someday transhumans will be to "normal" humans what humans are to whales today. I don't see that as a terrible thing, but then I think that all conscious beings should have rights.

69. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105817 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Diacanu:

Was there a certain part that confused you?

Yes, what the hell does it have to do with Ashton's point (that is, the one that you claim to be making)?

It looks like a knee-jerk reaction to progress to me. What's wrong with fishmen and nanite clouds? Well, they're certainly very different from humans as they exist today, but beside that?



In any event, I don't think there's much to worry about on that particular front. Yes, there will probably be a period during which humanity as a species will be guided by what is fashionable and profitable, and a lot of that represents something that's distasteful to many of us; that's a reasonable extrapolation from the current state of our culture. But that won't last. As soon as we achieve immortality and get the means to alter our own minds, we'll quickly become more concerned with the longterm view, less easily guided by our petty instincts, and much, much smarter. By then, "fashionable" and "profitable" will mean something completely different.

A much more scary possibility is that defensive technology won't be able to keep up with the offensive technology that is certain to become widely avaible.


Ashton:

For example, what if a gene sequence was discovered that changed behaviour in say, social situations, that made us crave to "fit in", to agree with the majority or respect authority.
I personally am not so sure. Look at the controlling influence of modern mass media.

What if it is discovered? I thought your worry was that profitability would shape humanity in the decades to come. What makes you think that people will want to pay to become spineless sheep?

70. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105807 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Diacanu:

Don't why it's so hard to digest for some here. *Shrug*

Because you haven't made the clear statement of opinion that Ashton has. And because you've said things like this:

"It's pretty much curtains for anything I ever gave a shit about.

Humanity is going to mutate itself into something unrecognizable, so I have no emotional investment in the futurity of...fishmen, or nanite clouds, or whatever the fuck they're gonna be."

71. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105801 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Diacanu,

If you don't want me to put words in your mouth, you should say something of substance. You've made 18 posts in this thread. EIGHTEEN POSTS, and you haven't stated your opinion clearly in any one of them. Are you embarrassed? Ashamed of your beliefs? Or are you just choosing to remain ambiguous for the hell of it?

Yes, technology is dangerous and humanity might not be "wise" enough to handle what will be invented in the next few decades. Any idiot knows that much, or thinks he does. Is that all you want to say?

72. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105795 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm

It's pointless to debate this particular topic with Diacanu. He has a particularly strong emotional attachment to the way humans have existed for so many centuries, that's all. It's a subjective preference, so there's nothing to debate.

73. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103049 by Janus on December 24, 2007 at 8:52 am

Hmmm. I'm sort of torn on this one.

1) A moment of silence isn't inherently a religious thing.

2) It's always felt like the popular religious tactic of giving a secular name to a religious something in order to sneak it into the public sphere, the most famous example being calling creationism "intelligent design". Aren't we being naive if we let ourselves be fooled by this kind of thing?

3) While I'm not big on compromising ourselves in the name of "not alienating prospective allies", I have to admit it's a battle that will have rather insignificant positive effects if it's won, whereas it might have negative effects (from a PR point of view) whether it's won or lost.

4) As lobdog has said, this could very well be the thin end of the wedge, and we all know how insidious religious believers can be.

74. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101626 by Janus on December 20, 2007 at 3:49 pm

The unprepossessing brand of exclusive evangelicalism followed in some parts of America ( the "I'm Saved, You're Not" approach to salvation) has never been far from the headlines this year and is also very effective in turning people away from religion.

As opposed to what? If salvation is to be a meaningful concept at all, there are only three possibilities. Either some people are saved and others aren't, or nobody's saved, or everybody is. But if everybody's saved already, then what's the point of this kind of religious belief?

That faith, by its very nature, entails doubt. If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?

You tell me. What IS the point of religion? Many people would say that a big part of it is to provide moral guidance. If that's so, then being certain about the existence of God would mean we would know how He actually wants us to behave. As it is, His believers have to guess. Does He want us to shun and oppress homosexuals, or not? How does God feel about stem cell research? Is belief in God important, or are good works all that matter? God establishing His existence and His will clearly would solve a lot of problems. Also, it might save the two-thirds of the world who aren't Christians from an eternity of suffering, if you care about such things.

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

There's nothing strange or inexplicable about it. It's exactly the kind of story you'd expect superstitious, uneducated people living in the pre-scientific age to come up with. I mean, c'mon. A guiding star? A virgin birth? A half-god prophet? Walking on water? Magically healing the sick and bringing the dead back to life? An impending end of the world? Eternal bliss for those who follow the guy? All the popular mythological clichés.

75. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100226 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 11:55 am

Okay, I admit it, I laughed. It's like a bad Simpsons episode: You feel stupid for laughing, but you still do.

76. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100167 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 10:40 am

These are obviously promotional gimmicks to get people's attention.

They're also lies.

Are you a literalist or just being too dense to read between the line?

Perhaps I am too dense. Explain it to me then. What DID Solomon mean by those three sentences? What's the hidden meaning?

With you this is a stable pattern and you can't accuse me of jumping to conclusions.

I sure can. Your pattern is that every time there's someone defending Richard or attacking one of his opponents and you happen to disagree, your immediate conclusion is that he must be a groupie or an atheist fundamentalist.

77. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100163 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 10:34 am

If they have rational reasons for their outburst against ES they certainly haven't expressed them well. Most of the diatribes are irrational and not unlike the way groupies react when they think that their idol has been dissed.

Perhaps the people who posted in this thread assumed that everyone who was likely to read their comments would be smart enough to agree with them, or if they disagree, understand where they're coming from.

"Richard Dawkins is the GRINCH who's trying to steal Christmas, or every other religious holiday for that matter!"

"Richard Dawkins is confident that the theory of evolution explains EVERYTHING!"

[after the third time that Richard's said that he's not demeaning our urge to do good in any way]
"Are you DEMEANING our feelings?!"

78. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #100156 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 10:18 am

Bonzai:

That was a joke. If you're religious you would no doubt be a fundamentalist because of the apparent inability to understand words non literally.

Sometimes I have the feeling that I am being fooled by robots in a Turing test experiment.

In all likelihood, that was a simple isolated mistake on Miss Harry's part. If you were religious, you would no doubt be a particularly stupid believer because of your apparently chronic tendency to jump to conclusions.


But in any event, you're wrong, a religious fundamentalist's problem isn't that he can't understand words figuratively, it's that his thinking isn't tortuous enough to fool himself into ignoring parts of what he believes is the word of God.

A religious fundamentalist is someone who fools himself once. A religious moderate is someone who fools himself twice: First to hold religious beliefs, second to make these beliefs fit with modern science and secular morality.

79. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100138 by Janus on December 18, 2007 at 9:39 am

You were great, Richard.



Bonzai:

For some of the atheist fundies here apparently all interviewers of Richard's would be morons unless they just say yes and act as if they are totally in awe of Dawkins' presence short of prostrating before him.

It is not an interesting interview if the interviewer doesn't ask provocative questions and challenge the guest's answers. Also the interviewer asks questions that (s)he thinks the general public would ask, not what Dawkin's groupies approve as good question (I suppose there is no good question for some here unless the questioner accept all of Dawkin's premises) Some questions may be stupid for atheists who have debating these questions forever, but for the general public these are relevant questions that should be asked.IMO Evan Solomon is an excellent host and all his questions and rejoinders are legitimate, Dawkins actually appeared to have lost his cool.

I know, atheism is not a religion in principle but some recovered fundies apparently "practice" their atheism as though it is.

Then again, maybe we really think the host was an idiot.

There have been dozens of Dawkins interviews where the interviewer asked the questions that uneducated Christians would ask, and in the many cases it was actually done well, no one called the interviewer stupid. Solomon wasn't one of those interviewers.


As for you, has it occurred to you that the people who disagree with you on subjects like this one don't share your opinion because they have rational reasons to do so? Your accusation of "atheist fundamentalism" is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at poisoning the well. But, well, I guess that if you didn't keep moaning about atheist fundies in every other thread, you wouldn't be Bonzai.

80. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98931 by Janus on December 14, 2007 at 11:39 pm

That... was awesome. Discussions about religion between atheists are so much more interesting than between an atheist and a theist. I want more! More!

81. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #98225 by Janus on December 13, 2007 at 9:56 am

Khiyal, do you know a website where (many of) the polls you mentioned are gathered? Everytime I get into a debate about Islam on one forum or another it takes me ages to find the relevant data.

82. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97277 by Janus on December 11, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Are acts of this kind inspired by Arabic culture or by Islam?

83. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94777 by Janus on December 6, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Okay. Well, Atran is wrong.

IIRC, his main justification for that particular claim of his is his experience with hostage negotiation with Muslim terrorists.

84. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94774 by Janus on December 6, 2007 at 2:04 pm

But the "in your face" approach obviously doesn't "close off dialogues". If anything, it's motivated Atran and his critics to engage in further dialogue.

I'm always astonished that people always assume that this approach is counter-productive and breaks off communication. On the contrary, the soft approach usually seems to end up with the two opposite camps "agreeing to disagree", which is just another way of saying they've given up on trying to decide who is right.

85. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94348 by Janus on December 5, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Well, I can see how someone could perceive Atran as smug, but I don't think he is. He just doesn't believe in phrasing his objections to certain hypotheses in a way that exudes humility and uncertainty, which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

86. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94050 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Yup. Dennett's interview by Roger Bingham made me realize how dumb I truly am. Strangely, this hasn't depressed me at all, probably because I admire Dan so much, not just for his brilliant ideas and clever analogies but for his intellect as a whole.

87. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94043 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Why do you spend so much time watching these debates

Because we think there's a chance, however small, that we might be wrong.

if nothing, absolutely nothing makes you think other than your position?

Because we're right, of course.

88. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94040 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Bonzai,

I thought you might. ;)

Your disagreement is a small one, as it only applies to certain minor accommodations in hospitals, so I don't want to debate this too much.


My objection is the slippery slope argument. After all, it's not necessarily a fallacy. There are some advantages to having a clearly defined rule that is not subject to interpretation. If you reformulate the statement in my previous post to be something like, "...or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence unless these accomodations demand very little ressources (which can be money, time, etc).", it's likely that the "very little" part will be abused by people who have been infected by the dogmas of multiculturalism and political correctness.

And I wouldn't care all that much if it was abused a bit, except that I think it's imperative that we stop indulging the ever-increasing demands of Muslim immigrants, for reasons I've mentioned in some of my other posts.

89. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94016 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I'm curious to see if anyone here disagrees with the following statement:

No public institution should use any of its ressources to make accommodations for cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence.

90. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93915 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Well if Harris agrees with Atran 90% than he is quibling over 10%. Whatever that 10% is you can't argue there is a direct link from theology and terrorism as Harris does. Even if he is absolutely correct for that 10%, it only accounts for 10% and it is a weak link.

I'm pretty sure that Harris doesn't mean that he thinks that Atran's theory explains 90% of suicide bombings. Rather, he agrees with 90% of the statements that Atran makes, but not with the other 10%. Namely, he doesn't agree with Atran that suicide bombings would occur with any significant frequency in what we think of as the Muslim world if it wasn't for specific beliefs contained in the Quran and Hadith. For example, Atran's "soccer team" might very well be the catalyst that propels potential suicide bombers into action, but religious beliefs may still be the root cause of the desire to blow oneself up, without which the catalyst wouldn't have had anything to catalyze.

91. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93899 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Harris himself said that he acknowledges Atran's data and that he agrees with 90% of what Atran said. But in my view, and I think also in Harris' view, Atran has yet to show what the logical link is between his findings and the statement that Islam has nothing to do with suicide bombings. In other words, Atran may have explained part of what motivates suicide bombers, but he hasn't demonstrated that his theory is the full explanation.

92. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93894 by Janus on December 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

And Atran said Harris doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about, heh.

93. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93277 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Mango:

If you've read "The Demon Haunted World," or at all aware of Dr. Sagan's career, then you know he was keenly interested in opening up people's minds to the wonders of the universe. I have no doubt that he truly wanted atheists and theists to find common ground, even in a sense as vague as truth-seeking. I have spoken to many theists -- every other Tuesday I set up an atheist station at my university's Student Union and talk to them. They do seek truth, and some have an open mind to what I say, others are closed off, apparently content with their revealed "Truth." I can tell you that Dr. Sagan's sage advice does help me communicate -- when I speak to theists with respect and an obvious eagerness to *understand* them they reciprocate and even if they do not abandon their faith they at least become aware that not all atheists are elitist or fire-breathing.

PR bullshit, as I said. No doubt it's useful PR bullshit. No doubt it helps communicate and opens many doors etc etc etc, but it doesn't make it true. Someone who is content to believe something based on faith and nothing more is not searching for the truth.

The desire to find common ground can lead to dogmatism just as easily as the crudest form of wishful thinking. The danger of this desire is that because we want to find common ground we tend to see common ground where there is none.

Another danger is that if you repeat a lie enough times, even the people who know it's a lie will be convinced it's the truth eventually. Look at Stephen J. Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria, for example. It may have been very useful to make theistic evolutionists believe that science is completely on their side, but now it's infected so many minds that there are even die-hard atheists who believe it.

So I think we have to be very careful with the use of PR phrases, if we use them at all.

94. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93249 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Mango:

He writes that believers and non-believers alike are searching for truth, and in that effort our common ground lies.

Then Sagan is wrong. If believers and non-believers have common ground, it's something like a shared desire build a better world (although we sometimes disagree as to what this better world should be). But if you think that believers are searching for truth, you haven't talked to many of them.

I doubt Sagan believed what he said. In all likelihood, it was a subtle taunt aimed at believers to make them think. Or maybe it was just PR bullshit.

95. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93237 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I think Linker thinks that liberalism is somehow synonymous with or closely related to postmodernism. He wants harmony, but acknowledging the fact that some people are right and others are wrong would, according to Linker, inevitably lead to war and conflict, therefore anyone who is convinced that certain beliefs are *gasp* false must be a warmonger.

But of course Linker and his ilk only apply this curious standard to religious and spiritual beliefs. Why? Well, because those beliefs are really popular, of course.

96. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93223 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 12:51 pm

More of the usual nonsense.

My rebuttal:

- Russell's teapot; we're certain that the Judeo-Christian God and the Muslim God and all the other blatantly imaginary deities of human religions don't exist for the same reason you're certain there are no humanoid, green-skinned, two-eyed aliens living on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.

- Freedom of belief and of expression does not equal freedom to indoctrinate children. Parents have rights, but so do children.

- Tolerating ridiculous beliefs and abstaining from ridiculing ridiculous beliefs are two different things. No atheist is trying to oppress believers, or to legislate religious belief. We just aren't willing to treat nonsense as if it weren't nonsensical. We give precisely as much respect to religious believers as you give (or should give) to someone who believes he can predict the future by observing the patterns formed by his feces in the toilet bowl: none, because both beliefs are based on faith and nothing else.

- To be dogmatic is to hold unquestioned and unquestionable beliefs, a trademark of religion. It isn't to dismiss the most implausible of ideas until their supporters find evidence.

97. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93210 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Good lord. Would it help you killjoys to think of the author's choice of activity as a hobby? I hope you won't disagree with me that playing around with computers is no more a waste of time than, say, watching television, or playing video games, or sleeping more than 8 hours a day.

98. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93202 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Louise,

the point is that while in most couples sexual infidelity is hurtful to one's partner, it doesn't have to be. "Infidelity" and "philandering" don't even have to be meaningful concepts.

If that's not what you and your husband want, go right ahead, no one has a problem with that. Hell, personally I'm a big fan of monogamy, and have no desire whatsoever to have sex with someone other than my girlfriend. What Professor Dawkins is saying is that we need to get rid of the automatic assumption that monogamy is the only moral option.
And also that even those of us who choose to be monogamous need to learn to keep our sexual jealousy under control, at the very least. Sexual jealousy is natural, but it's not what I would call a beautiful, positive emotion. As I said in my previous post, promises should be respected, but the consequences that follow the breaking of a promise should be proportional to the harm that is done. And I think the harm of "cheating" is perceived as much greater than what it actually is, precisely because we give so much unwarranted consideration to sexual jealousy.

99. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93189 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 11:57 am

While I acknowledge that the Professor should have mentioned "trust" in his article (and he's admitted it himself in a Comment in this very thread), I think many people are making too big of a deal out of this.

Yes, someone who "cheats" on his or her partner when there was an agreement between the two of them to be monogamous has indeed broken a promise. That's bad, but it's not the end of the world. People break promises all the time; it makes someone sad or angry, but it's usually soon forgotten and life goes on. Some woman might promise her husband she'd stop eating those delicious donuts in between meals and break that promise. The husband will be annoyed, the wife will apologize, and voila, no need to dramatize the situation needlessly.

Why should it be different with "cheating"? Well, of course because of sexual jealousy. But that's the very thing that Dawkins was addressing in his article, that it's a remnant of our ancestral past, one that is difficult to ignore but that has no positive consequences and should therefore be minimized and kept under control as much as possible. STDs and sexual jealousy aside, breaking a promise about who you'll have sex with isn't such a bad thing, really; very comparable to eating donuts when you've promise you won't.

So the people agreeing with Dawkins about sexual jealously but who are nevertheless outraged that he hasn't mentioned the fact that cheating implies a broken promise strike me as not having fully understood the implications of what Dawkins is saying. Yes, it's a broken promise! But that's all it is. It might deserve a frown, a little shouting if it's done more than once or twice, perhaps; nothing more.

100. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93176 by Janus on December 2, 2007 at 11:26 am

Hell, I don't even think Christians should be "held accountable" for Christianity's worst atrocities. Why would they be? Just because they share some of their beliefs with some really evil people doesn't mean they're even slightly responsible.

However, what they need to acknowledge is that their religion has inspired and motivated certain Christians to commit these atrocities. That's not something they're usually willing to do. Usually they'll say that their religion was "misused" by people who were bound to do evil things anyway (and amusingly, or not so amusingly, there are many atheists who buy that).

But of course they're wrong. Holding a certain belief often means you act on this belief, and Christianity includes plenty of beliefs that make Christians think and act in certain ways, some of them rather unpleasant. For example, the belief that your child will go to Hell if s/he doesn't stop masturbating can and does motivate many Christian parents to literally traumatize their children with the fear of Hell, not to mention it often destroys their sexual lives later on.

So doesn't the same thing apply to atheism? No, it doesn't. Not because atheism is oh so virtuous, but because it doesn't include any beliefs that can inspire anyone to do anything. It can't inspire evil, because there's nothing about disbelief in God that can inspire evil. That said, it can't inspire good either, because there's nothing about disbelief in God that can inspire good. Atheism isn't special in this regard, the same thing can be said about disbelief in karma, disbelief in a Grand Universal Consciousness, disbelief in anything that's not supported by evidence, really.

And of course, that's why atheism is always only a tiny fraction of who atheists are. Most of the time, atheism is just one more consequence of our skepticism. As far as morality goes, I think many if not most of us adhere to something that resembles secular humanism: A respect for reason, evidence, a rejection of dogma and tradition for its own sake, the concern for the people around us in this life, not a hypothetical afterlife, a conviction that building a better world isn't just a dream but a real possibility, if we work hard enough. Other atheists believe other things, of course.

The point is that it's not atheism that motivates us to do anything, because disbelief in something has never made anyone do anything, for good or ill. Likewise, it's not atheism that motivated Mao and Stalin to do what they did, no more than it's atheism that motivates Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to be the world's greatest philanthropists.

What matters when we are evaluating the worth of an ideology, belief, philosophy, or religion from a moral point of view is not what its adherents do or don't do, it's not even what they do "in its name", it's what they do because of their beliefs. Hence why religions can be blamed or lauded for some of their believers' actions, but atheism cannot.